Sport Day... an Infra red picture...

Stephen, my apolgies if I misunderstood you. I re-read your posts and they do indeed suggest something different and close to what I was mentioning about the requirement of specific subject matter. I think I was thinking more of this quote of Fred when I stated a disagreement:

"I think any kind of photograph (and any subject matter) could be made suitable for IR by a photographer who made it suitable." (Fred)

Arthur, which subjects are best suited for black and white and which for color?

Stephen, regarding the banal and ordinary thing, I was really referring to much of the work that is getting attention in the art world. Work like that produced by Jeff Wall, Thomas Struth et al. I think the Holga and Hipstamatic type phenomenon is completely different.

I don't know that I can subscribe to an idea that any process is better for this or for that subject except as to what meets the vision of the person making it. I don't disagree that artists choose this or that medium based on their vision, but we shouldn't confuse what is the best material to transact one's vision with what is "best" for a given subject--and I think that is a very important point. It is only when the execution of the vision fails that one would question the choice of medium.

Fred, a very good question (and a rebuttle if you will of John A's point, as well). Here is my take on it.

The differences are important and are there to use or not. I think that black and white, as a more abstract representation of your subject matter, and devoid of the complexity of color, is often a better medium for the expression of line and form and how the photographer wants to use those elements to convey his perception and interpretation of the subject matter. While line and form can be also important in color, the latter offers the effect of warm and cold tones and their harmonic relationship with each other (the well known complementary and discordant effects of the various colors of Isaac Newton's "color wheel"), which can add a different emotional impact to an image (the effect of color and human emotion). Both color and b+w photography are similar in the sense that both allow a creative use of light, its direction and quality (chiaroscuro is especially powerful in b+w and the gradation of color tones in color photography has a powerful effect that has a different effect to that of the potentially subtle grey tone variation in b+w) and the element of point (small masses of subject matter and light in different parts of the image which form a relationship). B+W is also important as a way to present a subject in a desired manner when the color representation is overly complicated by a kaleidoscope of colors and tones that in some cases overwhelm the eye and detract from what may be important to see in the image.

I am no academician in terms of art and photography, but this is how I see most (but not all - which would require more discussion) of the differences in b+w and color photography. IR, especially b+w IR, takes the abstract nature of b+w even farther. I personally have little experience of color IR photography, am nonetheless impressed by the tonality that Musin Yohan achieves, but would consider the latter as being just a part of color photography (we also modify tonality of grey tones in b+w by the use of colored lens filters or post exposure PS control), especially if one considers the abstract possibilities of color photography as much as its ability to represent nature and man in a manner close to that seen by the eye.

I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but I can't find anywhere on-line where there is any mention that digital IR produces color images. In fact, most sites specifically say that the images produced are black and white. Even though not current with today's cameras, my own experience shooting digital IR was that it only came out as a b/w image. (Film IR color was much different than what we see here as well, with very odd and unreal color--it was also very rarely used in general photography)

I would be very surprised if these aren't hand colored b/w images--possibly using a full color shot to colorize this image at least in part--I have done this with film and even on a tripod, the images don't fit perfectly due to the IR focal length being different than visible light, but one can certainly fix that.

attached is one of my own commercial ad images that was shot b/w infra and then colorized with a shot done on regular color film done over 10 years ago now.

Arthur, I don't see your words as a rebuttal to what I said at all. In fact it is further illumination of what I suggested. Your words describe the person's vision and their intent with how the use of b/w or color can affect that. That is my point, that is isn't the subject or matching subject with the proper medium but the matching of vision with the medium that will communicate that vision that is important.

Thanks, John, I appreciate your viewpoint and I guess I attributed too much weight to the first part of your sentence: "I don't know that I can subscribe to an idea that any process is better for this or for that subject except as to what meets the vision of the person making it." The qualities of one or other medium are indeed invoked well only when the visiion of the photographer aptly uses them. Amusing colorized image suggesting a philosophical question: Can deceased cowboys make good photographs (the boots are nearly within focus)?

Precisely, Arthur. I would have been surprised had you listed actual subject matter that was better rendered in black and white or in color. It was being suggested here that certain subject matter was better rendered in IR, for instance that golfers playing on a landscape was not good subject matter for IR. My point was that golfers on a landscape might very well be good subject matter of IR if the photographer makes it work, by understanding some of the kinds of things you're talking about and utilizing them along with the conception of how he frames the shot, what he includes in the frame, what gestures he captures, what time of day he shoots in, what his perspective is, etc. and what IR could add to the expression of the picture.

As you know from other discussions, I see color and black and white differently from you, especially in that I think color can often simplify the look of a subject and black and white (with strong tonal variations) can often present a much more complex picture. I also have used and seen color used to stress line and form quite interestingly (consider Mondrian, but that's only one particular way of using color to stress geometry).

Bringing it back to this photo and IR in general (but it applies to so many of the choices we have -- choices we actually do have but often fail to realize we have these choices to MAKE -- I'd love to see someone actually using IR in a non-cliché way, precisely in a way they HAVE NOT seen it done to death before. When one challenges accepted paradigms, one often finds one's own voice and footing. If Musin could make this sort of photo work, with this sort of subject matter, I'd be quite intrigued.

Fred, I think that we work differently (see things differently) partly (only partly) because we have each started out using different media and have thought of our approach on that basis. I may be wrong but I think most of your images are probably not on b+w film or not made using the b+w mode of your digital camera although you may be thinking in b+w. Does our initial use of medium (color, b+w, watercolors, oils) affect our way of thinking? Perhaps.

But differences between photographers are important and what distinguishes the approach of one from another. Despite the nice color tones of Musin's image I quite agree that what the photographer does with his subject is more important then the medium itself.

Using IR (or indeed color or normal b+w) in a non-cliché way? I only have the following as examples of what I think is perhaps non-cliché IR, and the word cliché can apply to so many things and is thus difficultly escapable, but for what it's worth here they are for your consideration:

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=11472750

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8158532

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=11472744

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8083681

John, the point you made earlier today is well taken, and any response I could/would have made was expressed by Arthur. Often I'm not as careful with my words in my responses, and sometimes what seems to be a difference in opinion is really the same opinion expressed in different (and, on my part, less appropriate) words.

Also, I've been reading information on the Life Pixel site (they convert standard cameras to IR cameras), and I believe you are right regarding pure IR being purely B&W. Color is introduced by allowing the filter to pass a small range or a wide range (your choice when converting a camera) of visible light in addition to IR wavelengths. While some may find hand coloring a relaxing and enjoyable pastime, I'd probably opt for an IR camera that allowed a limited range of visible light in order to introduce color to my IR photos. My particular IR camera (a modified 30D) is B&W only.

I think after reading a lot of this commentary that i would like to put in my 2 cents worth.
If we consider Photography an art then we need to consider the possibilities of the modern medium.
If all painting were done of detailed fine brush strokes, we would very soon tire of the(that is why the art movement has shifted so many times), There is not much that has not been painted photographed etc. When new ways of expressing scenes are introduced we become a little more interested, That being said, i am not suggesting IR is new. What i am doing is trying to put into perspective a reaction to this image, To me i like it, We see so many images here that after a while most just blend into the next. It is the images that stand out that grab our attention that keep generating interest and that we look for. I dont think it is correct to say the subject matter is bad or good, it is what it is, I think the scene has been captured well including the composition. I think if this scene was done as a "standard" colour of B&W, it would not create the same emotive response as it does for me at the moment.
I commend the creator of this image for the following reasons.
1. I have never seen an image of golfers practicing on a tee on this or any other site before, 2. I have not seen an image with IR that has been represented this way.
So my point is weather you are a fan of IR, golfing, cats dogs B&W or what ever, I think we should consider things that may be outside of our own personal likes and dislikes and look at the creativeness and the uniqieness and competencies of the images we view.

Wow.  This is really off the wall.  The IR gives the colours a real warping but in a cool way.  I love it.  It's like alien golf.  7/7.

Very well said Richard. I think this is a nicely crafted and unique photo. It has some unique subject matter that makes it interesting, along with the processing IR. I like it.

If this were just a normal black and white photo, it would be a nicely composed, and attractive image to me, but not necessarily very interesting. The processing makes it unique and gave me pause to have a closer look. That's why I think it works. The author has other images that I find much more interesting as in his photo In X'tasy.

How an image is made should only be a matter of curiosity rather than judgement (unless there are patent or copyright infringements). I thank musin for letting us know a bit about how he made this image, which is a bonus. My judgement is expressed earlier in this thread.(49 words)
Regards, John

When I look at photos, being quite opinionated and having some years of artistic training, I know instantly what I like and dislike about it. That's the point of the POW, right?

I believe that this photo's strengths are that it's a tack sharp photo of people engaged in an interesting manner in a little photographed sport against a scenic backdrop.

I think this photo's weakness is the color palate. I knew in a second: it looks like the end of days.

Had the same IR technique been applied with different colors . . . well, they weren't so I can't tell if I would like this photo.

As it is, while I admire the skills it took to capture and render it, it scares me.

Respectfully -
Alberta

Thank you first of all to Photo.net for choosing this picture as PoW also to participants in the discussion.
I share the opinion that this picture is with regards to the subject matter just an ordinary picture, I guess what makes it controversial is because of the color palette since it is a IR picture. I use a modified IR camera which has a characteristic of a visible IR because the expert who did it uses a special filter that let the visible lights from 625nm (IR wavelength I guess is starting from 700nm) hence this camera allows certain visible lights into the sensor. The result is quiet astonishing for me because this camera unlike using the mounting IR Filter, can shoot like a normal camera with a normal shutter speed. Hence this kind of modified camera has many advantages for me who likes to shoot dynamic objects.
But again, the result coming out from camera is still need to be post processed using photo editing software. And this area alone is a challenge for everyone included me. The so called standard editing is switching the channel (red/blue channel) which is in normal cases could turn the pale color of IR picture to some more colors. But this doesn't stop there, post processing possibilities are unlimited. And this is only one of my imagination and creativity to produce such a color palette.
This is the image which comes directly from the camera before post processing.
Rgds,
Musin

My friend what a fine work. Nice colours and very good composition,

lg helmut