Wild Albany

And the other:

The problem with shooting IR with an older converted DSLR is that the user can not see the actual scene in IR and compose/shoot accordingly. It's a crapshoot at best even with experience to anticipate where highlights/midtones/shadows and their respective gradations will distribute across the image.

In contrast, shooting with an IR-capable P/S camera such as the Sony DSC-F828 allows live view in Infrared so what you see in the electronic viewfinder or LCD is what you'll actually get. It'll help quite a bit with this type of shots.

I don't know Michael, there have been a lot of successful images made when there was only film and no way to look at the results until one hit the darkroom. I don't know that I ever heard anyone suggest that as a problem, it was part of the process of photography--as was editing out those images that didn't succeed.

Overall, I would agree that the tree and the shadow are the strongest elements here but I would also add the path itself to that mix. It seems to dissect the image and its large areas of black near the tree really draw our attention away from other more important elements. But of all of the features, my opinion is that only the tree would have had the presence to carry the image here. In fact, I could almost agree with Jim Dockery's comment if the path had maybe been covered with the light bushes. Personally, I just find the contrast between the dark path and the light foilage, where it isn't really significant to the meaning or focus of the image, a major distraction.

The other issue with the tree as presented--and apparently dealt with by Arthur a bit better in his crop-- is that it appears Jim tried to lighten the tonality of the tree's foliage where it was probably a blank black to begin with. This yielded very weak areas of gray that have no detail and just read wrong to me. In fact, it seemed almost as if it had been solarized. In this case, without detail to be dug out, leaving the tree black would have been a much better choice and given a bit more emphasis and focal point to the image. I am not suggesting that this would have solved the problems with this image, just that it would have been a better choice, IMO. Blank grays, where our mind knows there should be detail, don't ever work very well.

John's remark about featureless grey areas of the tree is important. I hadn't noticed it at first in the overall POW, but in doing the tree crop I instinctively upped the midrange contrast a bit. One of the big differences in shooting IR (film or digital) rather than regular panchromatic film, or using an electronic sensor with its output converted to digital, is the difficulty of maintaining featured greys between the white and black regions of an image. Perhaps it is in the nature of the IR radiation and its reflection off objects? The problem seems to be greater for digital IR than film IR (excluding the more extreme IR Kodak HIER in that comment), but perhaps choice of lens filter can help with digital IR response as it seem to do with the film version.

The more I look at this photograph, the more constricted I feel. There's a substantial amount of lateral movement, from the clouds, trees, and surrounding shrubs; the fact that it is all bound into a tight vertical format bothers me. I want to see more of the movement since my eye is disappointed. I want to see what's happening around the center of the scene. I think also that the IR aspect is fairly heavy-handed. I wish it were more subtle, and that when I look at the image, I don't immediately think IR. Due to the degree of IR here, the image feels like an outdoor studio shot. I want to like this shot, but I just can't engage myself with it.

It's a nicely done backlit IR. It's just too busy for my taste. The eye keeps pulling away from the subject, the tree

Amazing composition well done:-)

What more can I say ?
Plenty of emotion on this one, truly a work of art.

This use of IR hits me like a ton of bricks.

The shadow seems to be a draw but the way it breaks up the path and is surrounded by nothing of too much interest makes for something that doesn't engage me. Zeroing in on the shadow makes it certainly more clear and more focused, but to what end? The shadow needs a wider context because it's not that interesting in and of itself, though some shadows are. It's just that the wider context in the original is of little interest. Getting closer to this subject doesn't help it, IMO.

The tree itself is equally uninteresting, though as John mentions the lighting behind it helps make the photo more interesting. There's a lot else going on, but when we isolate the tree and its lit background we become more aware of the clumsiness of the tree and those graphic gray patches that have already been mentioned.

What I'd say is that this photo seems very much in tune with a kind of drama and the photographer has sought to maximize that drama through style. But the drama is not compensating for other photographic issues like composition and rendering.

Alberta, that article seemed more of a personal rant than an intelligent discussion. I understand his point on the one hand but decidedly disagree with him on the other. People can get overly invested in gimmicks and lose sight of the fact that photography, more than anything, is about the underlying idea for the image. But his words ignore the importance of exploring the visual through various approaches. While infrared, as he says, imparts an immediate "specialness" to an image through its real/unreal look and "grain" (older article), that doesn't mean we can't employ processes in a way that they marry with, and extend and illuminate, the idea. These sorts of absolute ways of thinking that he expresses are as dangerous to the art as are the mindless use of any technique or camera.

Here's a photo that shows that IR photography can be successful and that Jim Callum in particular can be successful at it. Where the POW is weak, this one is strong. Take a look:

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6552880&size=lg

<<<But his words ignore the importance of exploring the visual through various approaches.>>>

I don't think they do. As a matter of fact, he says ". . . settle on some more authentic technique (or on principled experimentation, for that matter . . . "

He seems to be stating his strongly negative opinion about IR. Photographers have strong opinions about lots of stuff. No problem for me.

Asserting the difference between something used stylistically and cleverly and something used as a special effect or gimmick can't hurt.

Honestly, while I love a good, intelligent discussion I also appreciate a passionate and gut-level rant.

It's all good.

Fred, I didn't read the whole article but he dissed a lot of things that maybe you didn't recognize and I wouldn't have if I hadn't been a commercial photographer in the 90's when the article was written. He supported things "he" thought fit his idea of what photography should be and experimentation within that limited view.

<<<maybe you didn't recognize and I wouldn't have if I hadn't been a commercial photographer in the 90's when the article was written>>>

I guess we're all subject to being condescending.

Yes, he dissed what he doesn't like. Horror of horrors.

Mike J, former editor of a much regretted post exposure photography journal (Darkroom techniques...?), has always said what he feels, sometimes ruffling feathers (As no doubt for Minor White and Galen Rowell students or fans in the referred to article), but he often brings important issues to discussion rather than covering them up. I understand his dislike of IR photography, especially as it is so often used in landscapes where the gimmick is sometimes more the message than the content, or where a desired sensitive interpretation of the subject matter just leaves subject matter and no subject.

My own experience with IR and landscapes has been the blending of visible and infrared radiation in a manner to only hint at the IR effect. That is a personal choice. I feel it challenges the viewer more than a more highly exaggerated use of the medium. Where I find IR particularly interesting is when it is used in photographing human and animal activity. It stinks as a portrait film in most cases, at least for formal full tonality B&W portraits for which it is arguably not made for. It does provide potential I think in generating a certain ambiance and excitement in street shooting or group activity photography.

The lovely halo effect of the former Kodak film (and to some extent that from Sakura) is due to the type of film backing of the emulsion. It can be use to express excitement or other emotions in some cases. You can possibly sense this in one of my own IR human activity photographs, purposely enlarged here such that so it does not display directly without clicking. You may or may not agree with Mike J's total dismissal, or with my view that exaggerated IR (as opposed to selectively filtered and toned down IR) is best used in human or animal activity photographs, but hopefully it will help in communicating my own reaction to overblown and contrasty nature IR images and those related to some cases where it may work better.

Small point: I believe the former journal Johnston edited was "Darkroom and Creative Camera Techniques", not "Darkroom techniques..." that I mentioned, and which has since become, and still exists as, Photo Techniques.

Arthur, as I was reading your post, that's exactly the picture of yours I was thinking of and was all ready to supply a link to it, as an excellent example of a different sort of use of IR. I'm glad you linked to it. I have no use for most IR, and you've "exposed" (excuse the pun) to a side of it that works in a unique way.