D40 Infrared exposures

I tried with my D200 and 092 and they were a near total flop.

New D40 did very well. It is not modified for IR.

ISO 400 1/6 sec f 5.6 50mm AF lens. I just metered on M thru the 092 and shot the pic.

It has no artistic merit whatsoever, but I am learning to use the camera.<div></div>

Another of my neighbors tool shed. Just a little more artistic merit, but not much.

Try your D40 if you have one.<div></div>

Please give some specifics why you considered it a total flop. I shoot with a converted Canon G9 and previously I used an R72 filter on a Sony R1. There are many IR shooters that use converted Nikons with great success. I am interested to know whether IR blocking filter in the D200 restricts its ability to take IR photo's when using an external filter, whether you failed to use custom WB, or whether PP is the problem.

http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6645306-md.jpg

Ronald,

I did not view your two posts very carefully. Were the photo's that you posted both taken with your D200 or the D40. What were the steps you used when PP the photo's? The resolution of the photo's posted are not too good so it is hard for me evaluate them.

http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6370253-md.jpg

Ron, you're heading in the right direction. Although the B+W 092 filter doesn't give you as clean an IR "look" as a true Wratten 89B (or equivalent) or Wratten 87 (or equivalent) would. I could have sworn we've had that discussion before ;)

Howard, your second shot is plum scary. I love it.

"I am interested to know whether IR blocking filter in the D200 restricts its ability to take IR photo's when using an external filter"

Yes, the D200 is on the "list" of Nikon cameras with IR blocking filters that are too strong for practical IR photography. This is compounded by the B+W 092 filter, which is actually a BVR filter (barely visible red, with its 50% pass point at 695nm, instead of 720nm like a Hoya R72 or Wratten 89b. (there are some stores which simply will not cease the false advertising of the B+W 092 as a Wratten 89b equivalent). So, basically, the entire image you get on a D200 with B+W 092 is deep visible red, about 680-700nm. There is nothing to be done in this situation with custom white balance: as the image is entirely in the red channel, custom WB will fail. Post processing is "difficult", at best.

The quality of the IR pictures improves slightly with a stronger filter like a real 89b or equivalent Hoya R72, H&H 89b, Cokin 007, but the strong IR cut filter of the "poor list" cameras still makes getting a decent WB or a clean green (most important for IR) channel.

It improves tremendously with a much stronger filter, Wratten 87, 87A, 87B, 87C, Hoya RM90, RM100, B+W 093, B+W 094, H&H 87, Lee 87, Tiffen 87. The problem is that camera on the "poor" list require insane exposures with these filters, 30 seconds, or even multiple 30 second exposures, averaged, to get decent images. The "weak filter" cameras can do it in a second. Modified cameras can do it in hand holdable fractions of seconds.

The list of Nikons with strong filters that work poorly: D2X, D2Xs, D200, D3, D300, D40X (but not D40 without X), D60, D80.

The list of Nikons with weak filters that work well: D1, D1H, D1X, D100, D2H, D2Hs, D40 (without X), D50, D70, D70s.

Remember that removing the filter turns even a "poor list" camera into a high performance IR camera, but the modification means dedicating that camera to IR full time.