Sony Infrared IR and Nightshot Photography

[Witness]

i heard of the x-ray filter thing before...regarding see through clothes and all...they say its for sony videocamp...

costs like a bomb for the filter in states if my friend never smoke me...

[holeinone]

Originally Posted by Witness i heard of the x-ray filter thing before...regarding see through clothes and all...they say its for sony videocamp... costs like a bomb for the filter in states if my friend never smoke me...

Not sure abt the "x-ray" effect but I dun think it can be achieved with the R72 filter. Maybe those with higher cut-out will be able to? But those costs a lot more. IR pics are actually quite interesting...

[pianodancer]

Originally Posted by Witness i heard of the x-ray filter thing before...regarding see through clothes and all...they say its for sony videocamp... costs like a bomb for the filter in states if my friend never smoke me...

It's not guaranteed, because it uses the IR-logic. Only materials that are 'transparent' to IR will benefit. For example, some bikinis will have this 'feature' so that suntanners can tan their whole body without exposing themselves.

[pianodancer]

Hi guys,

Any updates on IR photography experience? Took some more photos near my house.

http://infrared.photosg.com/

[JaGr]

What I read is that if you take in raw mode, the 828 can do color IR. But not in jpeg

[bernards]

Hmmm. I thought the Xray effect work only synthetic materials.

[holeinone]

Originally Posted by JaGr What I read is that if you take in raw mode, the 828 can do color IR. But not in jpeg

Are the IR photos taken by 717 considered colour IR? They look pretty different from the ones taken by the 828.

[supperman]

Originally Posted by pianodancer It's not guaranteed, because it uses the IR-logic. Only materials that are 'transparent' to IR will benefit. For example, some bikinis will have this 'feature' so that suntanners can tan their whole body without exposing themselves.

This doesn't quite make sense, since skin tanning is caused by UV light, not IR. But it's true that many synthetic material allows IR light to pass through, and many of these are found in swim wear.

[pianodancer]

Originally Posted by supperman This doesn't quite make sense, since skin tanning is caused by UV light, not IR. But it's true that many synthetic material allows IR light to pass through, and many of these are found in swim wear.

Maybe we should organise a photo session on the beach and test our assumption. Sentosa, anyone?

[Del_CtrlnoAlt]

Originally Posted by pianodancer Maybe we should organise a photo session on the beach and test our assumption. Sentosa, anyone?

hmm u wan a bus or van to drive us back to mainland? Cantonment anyone?

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by Del_CtrlnoAlt hmm u wan a bus or van to drive us back to mainland? Cantonment anyone?

By the way, why can't some people just be smarter?

[pianodancer]

Hi guys,

I've managed to capture the infamous x-ray effect using Nightshot mode and R72 filter. From the image, I can literally see the undergarments of the subject (or the lack of). It is also true that synthetic materials allow better see-through effect. So those who wear cotton materials are protected.

Conclusion: Wear 100% cotton clothings and undergarments.

[Cursor]

Sure??
I always thought that this X-ray thing was a hoax, and all the see thur' or outline of undergarments from e-mails and internet are all PSed.
So now must ask friends to beware of people pointing an 828 at them with a dark pieces of glass at the len.

[holeinone]

Originally Posted by pianodancer Hi guys, I've managed to capture the infamous x-ray effect using Nightshot mode and R72 filter. From the image, I can literally see the undergarments of the subject (or the lack of). It is also true that synthetic materials allow better see-through effect. So those who wear cotton materials are protected. Conclusion: Wear 100% cotton clothings and undergarments.

Hmmm... must go and verify if this is indeed true...

[pianodancer]

Hi guys,

Not to worry lah. If you notice those internet x-ray pics, are taken on celebrities. They usually do not wear undergarments and wear non-cotton clothings, almost see-through types. These are the easiest to capture.

For normal people, it's not possible to capture, the most is you can see what undergarments they wear, but not beyond the undergarment (unless it's those sexy sheer designs First, your IR lens must pass the test of the first outer-layer clothing. If the person wears cotton, then 90% cannot see through.

[dropzone]

Looks like this thread is going voyeuristic. hehe... I never tried taking IR photos with my V1 before, and sometimes do wonder how do I appreciate a IR-ed image. Hehe... Sadly to say, my V1 is sold. No cam now...

Pretty sianz, I sold my cam, now my gf wants me to save like 4k before I can buy another cam, OMG. How to survive without a cam... I miss my snapping shots at the buildings, landscape...

[pianodancer]

Originally Posted by dropzone Looks like this thread is going voyeuristic. hehe... I never tried taking IR photos with my V1 before, and sometimes do wonder how do I appreciate a IR-ed image. Hehe... Sadly to say, my V1 is sold. No cam now...

To all who reads about x-ray photography here, it's not worth wasting time and effort to try to get it out. I am just lucky to capture it, but if you can't, then don't waste time. There's nothing wrong with your cam or the filter. Rather, it's the subject and the clothes they wear as well as the amount of IR light.

It's better to spend time photographing IR nature and landscape. As for me, now that I've tried it myself, I will move on. Frankly, it's nothing fantastic.

[Del_CtrlnoAlt]

i think luck is more important... u need really strong light & right filter in order to capture the effect, R72 is a very mild IR, RM90 is stronger, i would say, upon comparison, R72 is like used during low light range, RM90 is for sunny day. sometimes the effect is rather washed out & blurred. worst.. u need to get close to the subject as the image gets blur and/or grainy upon zoom. it is almost impossible to take from indoor esp florescence light (duh)... but you there is a 'cheat'... hehe.. go buy a IR Lamp... can achieve further distance too... only flaw is the 'light' emitted is centre spotted, & no way to 'bounce' it.

[dropzone]

i still prefer images with colors. forgive me guys, hehe. ironically, what i'm studying now involved looking at microscopes, which are often greyscale... More into macro shots, since i like looking at things smaller than the naked eye.

any idea if the cam can capture microscopic shots just by placing it on the eyepiece?

[Del_CtrlnoAlt]

Originally Posted by dropzone i still prefer images with colors. forgive me guys, hehe. ironically, what i'm studying now involved looking at microscopes, which are often greyscale... More into macro shots, since i like looking at things smaller than the naked eye. any idea if the cam can capture microscopic shots just by placing it on the eyepiece?

i dun think so, you will need an adapter for the microscope, like the telescope, den it focus direct on the lens of the telescope or microscope.

cos the eye piece is relatively small, unless you wish to cut away the portion of the eye piece. den left with a small portion of the image, besides, its hard to focus the object via the small eyepiece. can try no harm...