Digital Infrared Photography: What You Need to Know
One of the best photography decisions I’ve made was to start shooting Digital Infrared Photography. As a landscape photographer, the worst conditions are bright midday sun, in summer, with lots of blue sky. But these are ideal conditions for shooting digital infrared photography. When it gets hard to shoot regular landscape photography, I turn to my digital infrared camera and keep taking photographs. It certainly beats sitting around waiting for the light to improve.
I’ve always loved Infrared Photography since I first experienced the work of Sir Simon Marsden. After that I dearly wanted to shoot infrared film. Unfortunately, my film cameras at the time all used an infrared light source for the film advance. If I tried to use infrared film in one of these cameras it would damage the film by fogging it.
Roll forward 10 years and I had the opportunity to convert a digital camera to shoot infrared. I took the plunge and I’ve never regretted it for one moment. In the rest of this tutorial I’ll share the key points you need to know if you want to take up digital infrared photography.
Considerations for Shooting Digital Infrared Photography
With a few limited exceptions, most digital cameras are terrible when it comes shooting infrared photography. The reason is a special filter over the camera sensor that cuts out infrared light. Some cameras have a weak filter that allows some infrared light through, but most have a highly effective filter.
You can test your own camera using a TV remote in a dark room. Turn on the camera in live mode so you’re using the rear screen for picture taking. Make sure the room is dark and point the TV remote at the camera lens. If you can see the light of the remote on the rear screen of the camera when you press a button, that’s your camera picking up the infrared.
Whilst most cameras will allow some infrared light through, it’s not usually enough for infrared photography. Often exposures, even in bright light, would run into several seconds. That’s why it makes sense to have an infrared conversion done. Here’s an example of an image shot with a digital camera that I’ve had converted for infrared photography.
Digital Infrared Camera Conversions
A digital infrared conversion involves removing the infrared cut filter covering the camera filter and replacing it with an infrared filter. The infrared filter blocks visible light but allows infrared light to reach the sensor to create the infrared image.
The replacement infrared filters come in different strengths depending on the wavelength of light they block. As an example, the 720nm filter will block light with a wavelength less than 720nm but allow light through that has a greater wavelength.
Visible light runs from about 400nm to around 700nm (see Wikipedia for more information). This means the 720nm filter is blocking pretty much all visible light and the camera only sees infrared light. Compare this to a 665nm filter which allows all infrared light through and a small amount of visible light. To understand why this could be a good thing, let’s discuss filter strengths.
Which Infrared Filter Strength to Choose
When deciding on a digital infrared conversion for your camera, the infrared filter strength is one of the most important choices. Here are a few options together with some pros and cons. You may also find the filter strengths vary depending on where you have your infrared conversion carried out.
590nm Infrared Filter
This filter is quite weak in terms of blocking visible light. Given the visible light spectrum runs from 400nm – 700nm, it’s going to allow a lot of visible light through. It won’t produce the strong Infrared look which many people want but it is useful for False Colour (discussed later). If you want your photography to display the distinctive infrared look, this isn’t a good choice unless you combine it with Infrared Lens filters (covered later).
665nm Infrared Filter
The 665nm filter allows a small amount of visible light through together with all infrared light. It produced a nice infrared effect in most conditions, and you can use it for false colour effects. This is my personal filter of choice as it produces good results, even in weaker sun. This is ideal if you want to shoot infrared photography in Winter or in dull conditions. If you’re just getting into digital infrared photography and live in the UK (or a country that isn’t that sunny) this is a great filter choice.
720nm Infrared Filter
The 720nm filter has become something of a standard choice amongst photographers. Having owned a 720nm conversion, I found it a little restrictive when shooting in Winter or when the light levels were low. It also doesn’t produce a strong false colour effect if that’s something you are interest in. Despite this, it’s a good choice but probably suits areas with strong light best.
Follow Me On...
I don't just publish on Lenscraft. You'll also find me on these media channels. Be sure to follow me.
850nm Infrared Filter
This filter produces a very contrasty and deep infrared effect but needs strong light to work well. It won’t produce much if any false colour and is more of a specialist choice. The advice I would give is that if you don’t know why you need an 850nm conversion, choose a different filter.
Full Spectrum Filter
The full spectrum conversion is a clear glass filter that allows all visible and infrared light to reach the camera sensor. You can then use screw in filters on your camera lenses to either cut out the visible or infrared light.
If you want to understand the different filters a little more, there’s a good page on the Protech Photographic website. This displays an example image shot using each of the filters, making comparison much easier.
Having a Camera Converted for Digital Infrared Photography
If you haven’t already guessed, converting a camera for digital infrared photography isn’t something to try yourself at home. You really need to send your camera to a professional who specialises in infrared conversions.
If you’re based in the US, Life Pixel has a good reputation and I know people who have used and recommend them. As well as offering a conversion service they usually have converted cameras for sale and sometimes also sell them on eBay.
If you’re based in the UK, I know of two companies offering this service and have used both. Advanced Camera Solutions and Protech Photographic. My experience with Advanced Camera Solutions was poor. Although the conversion was fine, the customer service was poor. It took almost three months to get the conversion done and I had to keep phoning to pester for an update.
Protech Photographic in contrast have been excellent and I recommend them. I have used them twice now and my good friend Steve O’Nions has also used them twice. In all cases the work and service has been particularly good.
If you’re based in Europe or other parts of the world, I don’t know of any providers, so add any recommendations in the comments section at the end of this article.
Using Infrared Lens Filters
The alternative to having your camera converted for infrared photography is to use infrared filters on your lenses. These screw onto the lens just as you might screw on a UV filter.
If you haven’t had the infrared cut filter removed from your camera sensor, these filters will substantially extend exposure times. How much depends on the strength of the infrared cut filter on your camera. To give you some idea, I tested this using an Olympus EM5 (Mk1) and a 10mm lens. Without an infrared filter, f/8.0 and ISO200 produced a shutter speed of 1/40”. After adding a 720nm filter to the lens the exposure time jumped to 36 seconds.
Infrared lens filters may appear to be a cheap option, but they aren’t very usable on regular camera. You might also find you need to carry round several filters of different sizes and strengths.
Whilst we’re discussing lens filters, something that’s often overlooked is that you can use them with converted infrared cameras. For example, if you have 580nm conversion but would like to create a stronger infrared look, you could add an infrared filter. By adding a 720nm filter to the front of your lens you temporarily it to shoot infrared light above 720nm.
Lens Problems in Infrared Photography
Whilst having your camera converted is relatively straight forward, you could still run into some problems with your lenses. Here are a few things to watch out for.
Lens Hot Spots
Lens hot spots tend to show up in the centre of the lens as a lighter area, often with a blue colour. You can see an example of this below.
This is an unprocessed infrared RAW file with the hotspot visible in the centre of the frame (this is a weak hot spot example). Converting the image to black and white will sometimes hide the problem but it’s still frustrating.
Some lenses (probably due to their coatings and construction) are particularly prone to hotspots and there’s little you can do to correct this. If you’re thinking about an infrared conversion for your camera, it’s worth searching the internet to find out if there are known issues with your lenses. This is especially true if you are thinking of converting a camera that doesn’t have interchangeable lenses.
Life Pixel maintains a database of lenses on its website, showing known problems with hot spots. Although it’s a limited range of lenses, it’s a good starting point that may help. You can also try asking for advice on infrared photography forums.
UV Filters
Another problem you can encounter when shooting digital infrared photography is with UV filters. These can cause a range of problems from focus issues through to hot spots. I’ve also seen examples of light reflecting from the inside of the filter back onto the lens.
If you use UV filters to protect your lenses, try a clear glass protector instead. I’ve used these in the past and they seem to work well although they are sometimes difficult to buy. An alternative is to just remove the UV filter when you’re shooting infrared.
Ultrawide-Angle Lenses
In my experience, infrared photography with wide-angle lenses isn’t a good combination. lenses that are known to be super sharp across their frame will soften around the edges. This is true even when you stop the lens down.
I’m not an expert but I think it’s probably to do with the way they’re optimised to focus visible light, and infrared light focusses differently. You can see an example below.
I shot this image using an Olympus EM5 and the well-respected Panasonic 7-14mm lens at 10mm. Although I stopped the aperture down to f/7.1, the edges and corners of the frame are very blurred. I’ve seen the same problem on many different wide-angle lenses.
Lens Calibration
If you’re using an infrared converted DSLR camera, you may find focus issues because infrared light focusses at a different point to visible light. If you have any older (usually manual focus) lenses, you’ll probably find a different focus point marked in red for infrared light. The wider the focal length of the lens, the greater this focus shift. Many older DSLR’s require focus calibration once converted so they can focus correctly for a specific lens.
With newer DSLR’s that have a live view (with on-sensor focusing), the calibration problem shouldn’t exist. This is another reason why I’ve always favoured using mirrorless cameras for infrared conversions.
Processing Considerations for Infrared RAW Files
Something that shocks a lot of photographers when they shoot their first infrared images is how bad the unprocessed photos look. You must be prepared to work at processing the RAW file to create that distinctive infrared look. Don’t expect to get an image like the one below straight out of the camera. If you want to learn what’s involved in processing digital infrared RAW files, I’ve documented my workflow for you.
Even when you’re happy to work at the RAW processing, you could encounter the “red tint of Adobe”.
Red Tint Infrared RAW Files
When it comes to processing infrared RAW files, you can run into a few challenges. This is especially true if you’re using Lightroom or Photoshop to perform the RAW conversion. Here’s an example of my Lightroom Library module showing a group of infrared RAW files.
Notice how all the images have a strong red colour cast to them. This occurred even when shooting with a custom white balance. Despite adjusting the Colour Temperature to its lowest setting, it doesn’t correct the problem.
To fix this issue you need to create a custom DNG profile using one of your infrared images. Alternatively, you can use another RAW editor that can produce the correct white balance. I use Capture One for my infrared converted Fuji X-T2.
False Colour Digital Infrared Photography
Something that we mentioned earlier when discussing filter strength was False Colour. This is a Photoshop technique you can use to reintroduce some colours to an infrared image. The colours won’t appear natural which is where the name false colour comes from, but they can still be attractive. You can see an unusual example below.
I created the false colour effect using something called a channel swap in Photoshop. It involves using the Photoshop Channel mixer to swap (in this example) the Red and Blue colour channels.
Some people like this effect whilst others don’t. If you want to try it, the 580nm and 665nm infrared conversions are probably the best to use.
Shooting Digital Infrared Photography Summary
We’ve covered a lot of ground in this article. I’ve explained what I believe are the most important points you need to know if you want to try digital infrared photography. Most important is that ff you do decide to try this fascinating (and rewarding) genera of photography, you must get the right conversion done by a professional company. I can’t stress this point enough.
Once you can shoot infrared photography, the next step is to master the RAW file processing.
More Photography Tutorials
You’ll find more high quality, free tutorials on my Landscape Photograph Tutorials page.
Follow Me On...
I don't just publish on Lenscraft. You'll also find me on these media channels. Be sure to follow me.
Book Offer
Get your FREE copy of "6 Steps to Shooting Brilliant Landscape Photography" by subscribing for free to Lenscraft in Focus.
Follow the advice in this deceptively simple book to significantly improve your landscape photography. Organised into 6 simple lessons, this valuable and detailed guide provides information that’s often overlooked. In fact, lesson 3 is so obvious that most photographers ignore it completely.
If you want to improve your Landscape Photography fast, follow this book.
How to Get Your Book
- Enter your details using the form on the right. I will then send you an email to confirm you’ve entered your email correctly.
- Follow the instruction in my confirmation email.
- After that, I’ll send you a link to download your free book (PDF, ePub and Kindle formats. The email might also include discounts for my other courses and books so be sure to read it carefully.
My Promise to You: I will never share or SPAM your email.
Robin, wonderful post. I had my Fuji X-Pro1 converted (SuperColor 590nm) and regarding the “hot spots” I do see them with the Fuji 18-55. I also received a half-hour of training with Dan Wampler , Life Pixel Creative director, who recommended using the RAW converter taht comes with the camera….SilkyPix. I’ve been using that and it seems to work well enough. I then use Affinity for final adjustments. Affinity also seems to work well by doing the standard channel swap. I’ve heard good things about Cap1 and maybe I’ll give it a try.
Thanks for adding your experience with the Fuji 18-55 and hot spots. I’ve found the Lens database on LifePixel to be quite accurate and reflects my own experiences. SilkyPix is a very capable RAW converter and at one time gave the greatest image detail. I had the Studio version which I used mainly with Panasonic RAW files. It’s well worth trying Capture One though. Given you’re shooting Fuji because you can get the free Fuji Express version. It has a few things missing that you find in the full version but it still does most things. I would also recommend the RAW converter in Affinity. It seems to handle the white balance for my 665nm filter very well and the results with Fuji RAW files are very good.
Robin,
The problem of red images can also be solved by using the program from LibRaw titled Monochrome @DNG,
which can be used to change the XMP files to B&W and equalize the RGB images and export the files as DNG files.
I appreciate your suggestion of Capture ONE as well. The red problem is also present with monochrome converted cameras as well.
There is a paucity of websites or youtube sources on editing initially monochrome so thank you for any future suggestions as well.
John Jenkins
Thanks for adding this John. I’m aware there will be other solutions to the problem so it’s good to learn of this one. Whilst I named Capture One because I like it for converting Fuji RAW files, DxO PhotoLab also performs a correct White Balance as does Affinity Photo, RAW Therapee (which is free) and Iridient. I’m sure others will as well so it’s always worth testing. Interestingly, I used to use On1 without problem but now find it has an issue. Thanks again for this suggestion.
Hi Robin, great introductory article.
I too have two converted cameras, Nikon D80 720nm and the original Canon EOS M Full Spectrum converted by Protech.
Whilst I am fairly confident with the process in Lightroom (DNG Profiles created) I would dearly love to see your workflow for B&W and Full Spectrum using Capture One. I am new to the programme and I am trying to get my head around the colour process. Planned articles would be great.
Kind Regards
Steve
Thanks Steve. I am planning some further articles on IR processing although I won’t be able to cover full spectrum as I don’t have any experience with a full spectrum camera. Hopefuly I will be able to publish somethin gin the next month.
Hi Robin,
It’s worth mentioning one can do one’s own infrared conversion of a camera. I watched a Youtube video and found it was very simple and easy to convert a compact camera. Plus it cost only about £16 + the donor camera.
I’m sure for top quality one has to convert a DSLR or similar which is probably harder to dismantle, but it’s an easy and cheap start.
Regards,
-Michael
I did look into this once before but the cheapest kit I could find was equivalent to £180 + import duty from the US. Looks like they have come down in price. I’m not sure I would trust myself to do it though. My eyesight and dexterity aren’t what they were.
Hi Robin, Many thanks for the welcome to your news letter. I am after a bit of advice really as I too are into infrared photography I have a converted Canon 5D mkII to 720nm and a Fuji A-3 converted to 850nm and like yourself I am also looking at converting my XT2, can I ask what fuji lens would you recommend to be the best for Infrared, also as I only shoot Infrared for Black and White images which filter would you say for the XT2 720nm or 850nm. I hope you do not mind me asking, as I have trawled the net for good advice on Infrared Photography, (which there seems to be a total lack off ) and was really pleased to come across yourself, at last someone that knows what they are talking about when it comes down to Infrared. Many thanks again, keep up the good work. Kindest regards
Thanks Dave. If you’re going to be photographing in the UK I would go for the 720nm filter. It’s much more flexible than the 850nm. If you find you want to get the very strong black and white look of the 850nm you could always use a cheap 850nm filter on your lens with the converted camera. You will still be able to shoot handheld but you also have the benefit of going back to the 720nm filter when the IR light isn’t as strong. From my own experience, I would also recommend thinking about the 665nm filter. A lot of people think its only good for false colour but I find it gives excellent results for black and white.
Sorry, I forgot to explain about the lenses. For Fuji I would check the LifePixel Lens Database https://www.lifepixel.com/lens-considerations/lens-hot-spot-testing-database#fuji. These images reflect my experience. In addition to these, I haven’t been able to test my 16-80 lens yet but the 18-135 seems good across the entire focal range. At the wide end it does go a little soft in the corner but I find myself using it most of the time (currently).
Excellent article. I’ve tinkered with an IR filter on an unmodified camera got pleasing results after a channel swap, but I’ve never understood why the channel swap works as it does. Here’s what I find so baffling: An IR filter allows IR to pass through, but supposedly filters out most of the visible (shorter wavelength) parts of the spectrum. In a normal (non-IR) photograph, the blue channel mainly contains information from the very shortest wavelengths. So, when an IR filter is attached what is being detected in the blue channel that allows it to have such a dramatic effect in the channel swap? I’d be happy to hear an explanation for the unexpected effect of a channel swap.
I’m pleased to hear you liked the article. Thank you. I will also try to answer your question as I understand it.
Some things absorb infrared light and some reflect it. When something absorbs it, what you see is the reflected visible light which as you say is from the red end of the spectrum. These areas have a yellow/orange tint in an IR image that has a correct white balance. The areas that reflect the IR light look whitish blue. The blue isn’t coming from the visible spectrum at all. All the channel swap does is to swap over the colours of the two areas. I hope this helps and it’s quite possible someone who knows much more than me will have something to add.
Robin, sorry, but I think this explanation can’t be the full story. There is no blue in IR and reflection wouldn’t normally change the wavelength of incident light, so reflected IR can’t look whitish blue. IR reflecting from most surfaces will still be IR. Many thanks for your reply, Robin.
The IR looks whitish-blue only as a result of applying the white balance. When you don’t apply the white balance you don’t get much of an effect from the channel swap. But I’m happy for anyone to add the correct explanation if this is wrong.
Perfect timing for me , this article.. I have been using a filter for a few months now and love playing with infrared but needing to carry a tripod about is getting to much for me , and on reading your article I thought why not see about getting my old Canon 400D converted… having contacted Jo at Protech I am now waiting for its return … can’t wait … really looking forward to using it and being free to roam with no tripod..
Great to hear. I think you will find using a converted camera very freeing. It’s also the perfect time of year for infrared. I used to have a Canon 400D some time ago and it should make a good infrared camera.
Thanks Robin,
I have two cameras converted to full spectrum IR and love what I can do with them.
Some points on processing:
1. Red / Blue channel swapping works best with 590nm filters. Somewhat less with 665nm. And not useful at longer wavelengths.
2. NIK’s Viveza2 Hue Adj., plus the individual Red, Green and Blue sliders can work really well with longer wavelengths. It can also be used to fine tune the color swap results from the shorter wavelengths.
3. I have set up the custom DNG profile for both my Sony and my Olympus modified cameras. I like using it with the longer IR wavelengths for B&W effects. For example, if I use a 720nm filter and attempt to do a white balance on the image, the temperature can’t be set low enough to achieve white balance. But if I convert to the alternate profile and do a white balance, it works.
Other points:
1. I buy the cheap IR filters on eBay. That allows me to have sets in multiple sizes such as 49mm, 55mm, and so on. I am finding that I don’t see any problems using these cheap filters.
2. I find that the kit lenses are the ones most likely to show hot spots. I have a collection of older Minolta lenses and have not had a hot spot problem with them. Also a collection of old Asahi Pentax Takumar lenses and no hot spot problems there either. And of course the modern lenses I have show no hot spots. Only with some kit lenses, and even them, only if I stop down very far.
Have fun!
Hi Jim,
Thanks for adding these points. I am planning further articles on some of these topics in the near future but it’s good to have the points highlighted here also.
I’ve also found the cheap IR filters on ebay are great value and work well. I bought mine mainly for when I’m shooting with infrared film but also use them to create a stronger IR filter for my converted camera when the light is strong enough.
Regarding your kit lens comment, I don’t share your experience. I haven’t found any correlation between lens quality and hot spots for Olympus, Panasonic, Canon and Fuji lenses. In fact, with Fuji, my worst offending lenses appear to be the expensive zoom lenses. Prime lenses also appear less prone to hotspots than the zooms. Although the Life Pixel database I mention is limited, it does seem quite accurate.
Wanted to mention something on focusing too. I have an old Sony A55 converted to full frame. I don’t have it calibrated to a lens, and in fact, use many different lenses. This is a SLT camera and not mirrorless. I have to manually focus on this camera as the AF is not very accurate with IR. But since the EVF and LCD are seeing what the sensor sees, it is very easy to manually focus with focus magnifier. And there is no issue with not being able to see through filters like an 850nm filter for focusing. My worst hot spot lens for this camera is a Sony 18-55mm kit lens. In fact it is the only lens I have that exhibits a hot spot.
My other modified camera is an Olympus EM5ii, which is mirrorless. Because it is mirrorless, auto focus works very well with all IR filters and I am not forced to manually focus. I have not ever encountered a hot spot with my Olympus lenses.
Thanks Jim, I do think mirrorless is the way to go for IR conversions, mainly for the focus issues and the need for calibration. From my experience with the Olympus lenses, they were mostly good, although I didn’t own them all. The exception was the 45mm prime. This is an outstanding optical lens but has a dreadful hotspot when I used it on my Infrared camera.
Thanks Robin, this is easily the most helpful introduction to infrared photography that I have come across.
I have been shooting infrared for a couple of years, first with a X-E1 converted to 665 nm, and later with a X-T2 converted to 720 nm (both converted by Protech).
I’m wondering if you could expand a bit on a couple of points:
1) You mention that you prefer the 665 nm to 720 nm for less sunny situations. What is it that you find better about the 665 nm in this situation?
2) How is it that Capture One helps you obtain white balance? Does it simply allow a wider range of WB adjustment, or is it something else?
Thanks for the positive feedback about my article and I think you have great taste when it comes to the cameras you’ve had converted. To try to answer your questions:
1) This one is difficult to describe because I haven’t been able to use two identical cameras converted with different filters side by side. BUT my general impressions of shooting for a few years with the different filter strengths is that I achieve better results in winter conditions using the 665nm filter. The image details appear smoother and there is less noise in the RAW files. When I come to process the RAW files I find those from the 665nm filter are more forgiving and put up with stronger adjustments.
2) When you look at the numbers for the adjustment, there shouldn’t be a difference between C1 and Lightroom but there is. If I use the white balance picker in Lightroom I still have a red tint to my image but if I use the white picker in say Capture One I get a true white balance correction. You see the same problem reflected in other Adobe products that read RAW files. I can correct it by creating a bespoke colour profile for the camera where I set the baseline white point at a much higher level (say 8,000K). This then gives greater latitude in the correction and the white balance tool does a good job. But I think there is something else happening as well. Even when I have a good white balance, if I make small adjustments with the Adobe sliders, the colour sometimes goes crazy and I have a glowing red image. And whilst I mention Capture One as handling the white balance correctly, other RAW converters I’ve tried also do a good job.
Hope this helps to answer your questions.