Session 9: Infra-red Photography

GoodMolecules Greetings fellow Pinnacle Flickrinos,

I am sure that most of you are unfamiliar with me but, even so, let's keep introductions as brief as possible, shall we? My name is Mark and I am a bit of a techno-nerd and a big fan of IR photography - for me, IR is not necessarily an end unto itself but more as a starting point for images that mostly begin as a concept and come to fruition after rather lengthy bouts of processing and thoughtful photo-manipulation. In fact, I began my work in the IR as just a lark; I converted an old camera and figured I'd only occasionally use it to shoot IR. But very quickly I was hooked, and I mean I took the bait, swallowed the hook, chewed up the line, and right now I'm busy digesting the pole. These days, about 95% of all my images begin with IR photography and I am having fun. :)

IR image with my camera hanging from the string of a kite. (With the exception of some contrast boosting, this image is right out of the camera.)
"...And Then There Were Two"


So let's get started. But first, they say that confession is good for the soul so... I will preface my bit with this: I am not a film guy. What I know about capturing the IR world with film will not quite take up a space equal to that of the period at the end of this sentence. (did you see it? yeah, tiny.) All I will say is that there are films sensitive to IR light along with developing chemistries - match the two and there are beautiful images to be realized. OK? done with film. The rest of this discussion will be about digital IR photography. Now off we go - I'll be following the basic outline shown below:

1) What is infrared light?
2) How is the interaction of infrared light different?
3) How can my camera capture the invisible?
4) Converting a digital camera to an IR-dedicated camera (and why is this better then using just a filter?)
5) Shooting in the IR
6) Processing techniques for IR work
7) A Final Word

1) Basically, what is Infrared Light?

Infrared light is simply light whose wavelengths are slightly longer than those visible to the human eye - the longest wavelength we can see is red light so a slightly longer wavelength is call infra-red. Gee, that doesn't sound so bad... So now, just for a moment, I'll dip ever so carefully into the world of science: I will simply treat light as a wave that travels through space (diagrammed below:) - and, just like a wave upon the sea, the wavelength of light is just the distance measured between two adjacent crests of the wave. And, like any wave, light comes in any wavelength one can imagine; from miles long to the very shortest distance your Uncle Jeffrey can think of. But the thing to keep in mind is that wavelength is just one way to label a characteristic of light and then relate it to its properties.

Sketch of a light wave showing wavelength:


Since light comes in this huge range of wavelengths, we can think of it as a continuous spectrum of wavelengths starting with very short wavelengths and moving to the very long. The diagram below shows this idea and further shows how people have grouped the various wavelengths of light into wavelength bands that share similar properties. My favorite, and, no doubt, yours too, is the visible band. The sad truth is although our eyes are truly a marvel, they can only detect a fairly narrow range of light wavelengths. On either side of these visible wavelengths, there are bands of light that, although invisible to us, still have properties and characteristics similar to visible light. On the shorter wavelength side is the Ultraviolet (UV) band and on the slightly longer wavelength side is the beloved infrared (IR) band. Below is a diagram of the light spectrum showing various bands of wavelengths that should all sound familiar (and you gotta love those cosmic rays.... right?). When I look at these types of diagrams I always lament at all the cool stuff we're missing since the visible band is so dang narrow.

Electromagnetic (Light) Spectrum


2) How is the interaction of infrared light different from visible light?

IR light interacts with objects around us in almost (but not quite) the same way that visible light interacts and it is this 'almost' that makes all the difference. This interaction of light with the world occurs through transmissions, reflections, and absorptions. For example, light is transmitted through such things as glass and ice and air, light is reflected from such things as mirrors and buildings and blades of grass, and light is absorbed by sweet potatoes, and mountains and, my favorite, black velvet. Each and every object has all three of these interactions, to varying degrees, and it is these 'varying degrees' that define how each object looks in the visible.

Likewise, in the IR band, each object still has these three interactions BUT the degree of each interaction is slightly different changing the appearance of some everyday objects. For example, most organic material such as foliage, grass, and wood are more effective reflectors of IR than of visible making their IR images unexpectedly bright. It also happens that most synthetic fabrics are excellent IR reflectors and many dyes don't function in the IR so most clothing looks white when photographed in IR. Another happy occurrence is clear sky is more transparent in the IR while clouds are very highly reflective - this results in the delightfully high contrast of very dark skies and very white clouds common to IR images.

IR image below taken with my camera on a kite-string. Note the white grass behind the light house (that is not snow), the white foliage, and the high contrast sky (it was a very dull overcast that day - the sky color was added later).


Note the white foliage and the brown and quite dark sky - this is typical when my camera is properly white-balanced.
"I Dreamed Of A Forest"


So now we have arrived at the crux of the matter for me and why IR photography has bewitched me. It is this shift in expectations, this shift in appearance of everyday objects that gives IR photography its power. I love the idea that we are all here together and we each have a world-view based on our own personal experience and expectations. IR imagery comes along and gives my expectations, my reality, a shove - it doesn't necessarily knock it over but it does get my attention, makes me look again, makes me consider... The real becomes surreal, my expectations fail me a bit... and that abruptly puts a smile on my face.

3) How can my camera capture the invisible?

"Finally! geez! Was all that previous stuff really necessary?" Maybe not, but now let's get to the fun bits. It turns out that almost all digital cameras have sensors that are sensitive to UV, visible, and IR wavelengths of light (gee, that's better than my eyes can do... what will they think of next?). Unfortunately, camera manufacturers, in their wisdom, believe that I only want to take photos with visible light. So these manufacturers limit the wavelengths that get to the camera's sensor by placing a filter in front of the sensor. This filter blocks UV wavelengths and blocks IR wavelengths allowing only visible light to pass. The blocking filters are, of course, not perfect so a small amount of IR wavelengths still leaks through but the intensity is quite low as compared to the visible light that strikes the sensor.

"Yeah, but I got this IR jones bad!... and, once again, The Man is eatin' my lunch!" Fear not, we've still got a couple of options: The simplest way to satisfy the craving is with an IR filter placed on the front of your favorite lens. The advantage is this solution is fairly inexpensive and very easy to implement. The filter blocks visible and UV wavelengths allowing only IR wavelengths to strike your camera's sensor.

Which brings me to a few words on IR filters. There are a few flavors of IR filters with the flavoring dependent on the so-called "cut-off wavelength". Basically, IR filters are designed to pass light with wavelengths longer than the cut-off wavelength and block any light with a wavelength shorter than the cut-off. Filters with different cut-off wavelengths have slightly different responses to a particular scene being photographed. A rule of thumb - as the cut-off wavelength becomes longer (as one moves further from the visible band), higher contrasts occur and less color 'leaks' through from the visible band - result: black and white images only. As a personal preference, I do my IR work with a fairly standard IR filter - cut-off wavelength of about 720 nanometers - a nanometer (nm) being a unit of distance measure, just like an inch only much much smaller). This standard IR filter gives me good contrast and a sufficiently surreal 'IR view' while not letting too much color leak in from the visible.

Below is the transmission, as a function of light wavelength, for a standard IR filter (at 100% transmission all light of the particular wavelength is allowed to pass through; at 0% transmission, no light of that wavelength passes through). For the curve shown, the cut-off wavelength is about 720nm (this means that 720 nm is roughly the wavelength at which the filter is half-way between maximum blocking and max transmitting - or it can be thought of as the wavelength where the filter "turns on"); filters with shorter cut-off-wavelength are sometimes called "Color Enhanced" because as the cut-off wavelength shortens and moves closer to the visible band more visible color is allowed to 'leak' through to the sensor. "Deep IR" filters have cut-off wavelengths further from the visible band (longer wavelength) and are black and white only. The visible band is also shown for reference.


One more point (and this is mainly for us nerds), on average, most IR filters begin transmitting around 700 nm and silicon sensors in digital cameras stop working at wavelengths longer than about 1100 nm. So even though the IR spectrum continues to even longer wavelengths (about 10,000 nm or more), a typical IR digital camera only detects IR between about 700 nm to 1100 nm. As a practical consequence, I cannot use my IR converted digital camera for thermal imaging applications. This type of imaging requires optics able to detect IR wavelengths in excess of 50,000 nm - the so-called long-wavelength infrared (LWIR).

"Well, OK, just screwing a filter on the front of the lens sounds like the way to go... what's the catch?" Yes, Elizabeth, there is a catch - recall that it was the manufacturers goal to block IR (and UV) wavelengths with their internal filter and now I'm putting a filter on the outside of my camera that blocks visible light - so what's getting through? The short answer is "not much". The IR light that gets to my camera's sensor is the IR light that now leaks through the manufacturers internal blocking filter. This low light level translates into long exposure times, tripods are required, and if I want to shoot something that is moving - difficult. That's not to say wonderful images cannot be captured but it certainly places a limitation on what I can do.

4) Converting a digital camera to IR

So we come to the ultimate solution: undo what the manufacturers, in their folly, have done. Throw caution to the wind and gut your beloved camera, void the warranty, pull out electronics and unclip connectors, dig deep down to the heart of the camera and rip out that offending filter and replace it with a happy IR filter that now passes IR wavelengths while blocking visible and UV light. The result - now my camera sees high intensity IR light with only a very small amount of visible and UV light getting through. I don't need an IR filter on the front of my lens any more - my filter is now built-in. Now my camera lets in all the IR light available with none of it being blocked, I can successfully shoot in the IR in any light condition, I can compose in the viewfinder or the LCD, exposure times are now equivalent to shooting in visible light, I don't need a tripod - aaahh... nirvana!

You do, of course, see the one little glitch in this otherwise rosy picture... yes? Tearing apart cameras?.... voiding warranties?.... what? are you crazy!?? Well... no, not really. I first converted an old Canon G3 that I hadn't used in years. I bought the filter (sized to internally fit that particular camera) from the good folks at lifepixel.com. I also downloaded the DIY instructions from their website and thought to myself "this will be fun..." And it was... sorta'. It ended up taking me three tries before I got my camera to work again. Not too bad - this is what I learned: Lifepixel's DIY instructions were OK but they failed to impart to me that most of the ribbon cables I encountered during the disassembly had very clever quick-disconnects on them. I was very lucky not to have broken anything as I yanked and yanked to get the cables to come apart WITHOUT releasing the quick-disconnect (QD) levers (yikes!). I didn't discover the QD levers until it was time to reassemble - (definite over-sight in DIY instructions). The rest was fairly straight-forward but I will add that I was very careful with cleanliness. I didn't want to get dust and pieces of pizza on my sensor - wearing gloves at all times and armed with a can of pressurized air that I would incessantly squirt at the filter, sensor, and environs all the while minimizing the time the sensor and the new filter were uncovered and naked to the cruel world (anal you say? - If we ever meet, I will deny it...).

If you decide to DIY, when you get to your first ribbon cable - don't take it apart yet! Pause a few minutes and study the connector very carefully, most have a small lever on the connector body that releases the cable from the body. When released, the cable will part very easily - if there is resistance, stop, the connector hasn't been released yet so study a bit more and learn the secret (not all have the QD - life is never easy). Each connector is a bit different but once you learn what to look for, you'll be spotting release levers in your sleep. OK, now - no fear.

The guts of a G3 camera during IR modification (sensor being removed, in fact, the filter is visible here too: just under that curved ribbon cable is a black square with a blue border - The Filter).


I have subsequently converted a Canon G6 (my current IR camera) and that also was fairly straight-forward.

BUT, if I had a DSLR that I desired to convert - I don't think i'd try that myself. There are focussing issues that I would just as soon leave to lifepixel (or some other professional conversion group) to deal with. Because of the way DSLRs handle auto focus (and manual focus) and because of the fact that IR and visible light focus at slightly different distances from the lens, a DSLR camera must be very carefully calibrated to accurately focus in the IR. After this calibration, a DSLR user can focus with visible light and still have an adequately focussed IR image. These focus errors can be minimized by simply stopping down the lens but if the use of very wide aperture lenses is desired, careful calibration is a must. In any event, this is a real can-of-worms for the DIY type such as myself - so for SLR conversions, I would send it out. Point-and-shoot cameras, such as the Canon G-series, are not so problematic because the auto-focus algorithms are done via images projected on the sensor itself and so IR focussing becomes self-correcting. But, again, after proper calibration, DLSR cameras have no focus issues except, perhaps, with uses such as very narrow DOF macro work.

I have heard good things about using lifepixel.com for converting DSLR cameras (but it's not inexpensive - as of this writing, Lifepixel will be happy to convert your DSLR to a dedicated IR camera for about $250(wow! Sale! that price is down from $400). There are other groups doing this sort of work and it might be worth looking at them as well. A google of "IR camera conversion" will bring you a list of potentials.

5) Shooting in the IR

Almost all the bits are back in my camera, I can turn it and lights blink and LCDs illuminate and look! there's my feet in the LCD, real time! Now what do I do? Are there better subjects for IR than others? No, shoot everything! Are there better times for shooting IR? No, shoot anytime. Any hard-and-fast rules? No rules. But there are some things that I think about or look out for when I shoot IR:

Light source - most light sources produce IR that will light my subject. The sun, of course, spits out a lot of IR and if I'm looking for the brightest foliage, grass, and the darkest water and sky then I want a sunny day. Even shooting in the noon-day sun can be fun with IR - wonderful clouds, blue skies become this deep brown, strange tones in foliage and grass, water becomes very dark. However, I prefer shooting on cloudy days when the light isn't quite so intense - there is still wonderful IR-enhanced structure in clouds and the surreal tones are still very prevalent. I have also found that indoor shooting is possible. In fact, some of my favorite portraits were shot indoors with daylight coming through the windows. It turns out that certain windows filter IR light producing this wonderful tone that looks excellent on the skin. So if you happen to be indoors with your camera - experiment! In fact, that's an excellent mantra for IR: "Experiment! Experiment!"

This small, lone pine tree was shot in the noon-day sun and is an example of an IR image right out of the camera (boosting the contrast is the extent of the processing).
"Reclamation"


In addition to daylight, incandescent lighting produces sufficient IR light for good ambient-light imaging. Strobes also put out an abundance of IR light and are excellent sources for both indoor and outdoor shoots. In fact, a little trick one can do with a strobe is to place an IR filter over the front of the strobe to block the visible portion of the strobe's output. I now have a 'stealth strobe' that flashes invisible light so I can take flash IR images in a dark room without disturbing the activity. Sneaky. I should note that the one source that only marginally works is fluorescent lighting - fluorescent tubes put out a fairly small amount of IR, so expect longer exposure times.

IR image taken in ambient incandescent (tungsten) lighting.
"At The Mecca"


Subjects - The short answer here is everything and anything. Landscapes are a no brainer - especially if the sky has broken clouds together with some clearing. Shooting in the IR also produces wonderful reflections - IR light reflects very efficiently from water/air and glass/air interfaces so I am always on the look out for reflection images.

An image shot in bright overcast showing the wonderful reflections found in the IR.
"Fish Dream"


I also happen to be a big fan of what IR does to skin tones and portraits. I have done some of my favorite portrait work in the IR.

Here are two IR portraits of Kyeti. The high key image was shot outdoors and the other was shot indoors - both using ambient light. I should note that the place I shot the indoor image had tinted windows that filtered the IR giving the tones a wonderful subdued quality.

Outdoor Image:


Indoor image:



There is one thing I should tell you about shooting portraits in the IR - certain IR filters and certain people and certain lighting conditions can produce a somewhat transparent skin. What this means in an image is that under some conditions subcutaneous veins become quite visible in the IR. Now this can be something cool if you're looking for this effect or it can come out to be a bit creepy and unnerving. The key, as with everything, is to experiment. Sometimes I see veins in my subjects and sometimes I don't - I haven't done a careful study, so I don't have much info as to what seems to be the causative factors. Just be on the look-out.

This is one of my favorite IR portraits - (check out Emilie's hand and wrist for lovely veins)


Even some subjects that look dark and uninteresting in visible light might have a surprise in store in the IR. I will say that I haven't had much success shooting at night - but, I know there are talented photographers among you that could produce amazing images after-dark. Don't be put off by my lack of results... :)

"OK, I tore my camera apart and I've put it back together... it works.... I've thought a bit about light sources and subjects and I wanna push a button already!" Just a second, there's one more thing that needs some attention: color balance. Cameras are designed to deal with visible light, IR wavelengths are a bit of a puzzle to most cameras. For example, with the camera's white balance set to sunlight, an infrared image comes out with a significant (and unpleasing) red cast. Eliminate this by using a custom white balance. Recommended method: find a sunlit field of grass that fills the field-of-view, with that in the viewfinder, set the white balance. This will yield foliage and grass as a pleasing very light gray with clear skies becoming a pleasant shade of dark brown.

But sometimes I don't need the custom color balance: My camera also has the capability to shoot in RAW. If I use this option, the custom color balance is not applied and I have to color balance the image in Photoshop (or whatever RAW-file software you happen to be using - a bit more on this is just a moment).

Before I wind up this section, there is something that surprised me concerning all my wonderful visible light filters - they don't work in the IR. And, really, I don't miss them because most deal with color adjustment and there's no color in the IR. But (you knew that was coming, right?), what about my cool neutral density filters? Dang! they don't work either. Most ND filters are completely transparent in the IR. After much searching, I found the only ND filters that block IR wavelengths are the metallic variety. These are thin layers of metal deposited on glass (the thicker the metal, the higher the optical density) and they get to be a bit spendy. But when I wanted an ND for IR, that's what I had to get. Be advised.

Now I'd like you to think that I've put off talking about apertures and shutter speeds and the like until the end of this section because shooting in the IR is very complex and involved and it takes a highly organized and analytical mind to deal with all of that intricacy and so I was saving that sort of meaty discussion for the end.... I'd like you to think that... it's not true... but I'd still like you to think that. The truth is, I put it off until the end of this section because I forgot about it. In fact, I so thoroughly forgot about it that it wasn't until Jerry asked me... then my face got red and I thought, "Oops... err... yeah, that seems like a pretty basic question for photographers." I, of course, have a feeble explanation why I didn't think of it: it's because I don't think about it when I shoot in the IR.

If I have a converted IR digital camera (OK, I do), then shooting in the IR is no different than shooting in the visible as far as aperture settings and exposure times go. If I'm shooting in full auto - the camera does all the work and I just shoot. If I'm shooting in full manual, I read the exposure meter, set my camera just like any camera I've ever set and I just shoot. As far as the mechanics are concerned, the difference between using an IR camera and a visible light camera is negligible. That is the beauty of a converted camera. That's not to say that some exposure adjustments will not be required but when push-comes-to-shove my experience is that it's really no different than visible light work - adjustments? sure, I make them all the time.

However, if I'm using a visible light camera with the internal IR blocking filter still in place - different story. Now, I pay for not converting a camera with very long exposure times and larger apertures (remember the only IR that gets thru to the sensor is that which goes thru the outer filter and then leaks thru the manufacturers IR blocking filter). If memory serves, in bright sunlight, exposure times of about 1/2 sec or so are about right. It became clear to me very quickly: if I was going to do any serious IR work, I would need to convert a camera.

6) Processing Techniques for IR

I have finally shot some IR images and I want to make the most of them. Here are some things I can do.

There are as many techniques for processing IR images as there are for visible light images. Once again, there are no rules and the only limitations are those I seem to impose on myself (I'm forever working on that...). But there a few things that are fairly common in the IR world and there are also a few things that I do with my images that I would like to take a moment to outline.

But first, the most common processing techniques are described elsewhere and it really makes no sense for me to re-hash that stuff. One of the more useful sites is good ol' lifepixel.com again. There is a tutorial section that is well worth a quick read. I have to admit, I very rarely use these techniques as I like to desaturate my images and then add color back-in using other techniques; however, see what you think.

Now we'll take a quick look at what I like to do: here is a basic run-through of some typical processing for IR work - I use Photoshop (PS) CS (I'm not too up-to-date with my PS upgrades) and the descriptions below follow PS convention. I'm not familiar with other image processing software so if there are things here that just don't make sense, drop me a line and together I think we can get there. It's my experience that, straight from the camera, all an IR image needs is a contrast bump. I will do this usually by adjustments in Levels and then duplicating the layer and using either "overlay" or "softlight" blending mode (this choice depends on the image). I will then use the layer opacity slider to determine how much contrast adjustment I need. An example of the result of this very simple processing is shown above in the image of the lone pine tree - "Reclamation".

Below I have an example that is a bit more involved (but, certainly not over-the-top) - but before I get into that, I will be referring to Photoshop topics such as layers, layer-masks, and blending modes (among others) and if this makes you at all uneasy, then I have just the guy for you. A while back, Andrew presented an excellent Pinnacle session on Photo-Manipulation where many of the secrets of PS are revealed, including the topics I mentioned just a moment ago. Here's a handy link (cuz I'm just that way :)) Session on Photoshop Manipulation.

Now, on with the show!: We start with the lovely Kyeti and friend just before their prom. This was shot in the glorious sunshine (which I hate for this sort of thing but what can one do?). During shooting, I used a 40" reflector to soften the shadows as best I could. Now to processing. One note regarding this image: It was shot in RAW and so my custom color balance was not applied - color balance was done via the RAW-file translator in PS. The first shot is right out of the camera (before RAW translation). BTW, this is just about what an image looks like when shot in JPEG without using the custom color balance. When I first saw this I thought: "Crap! I've still got something screwed-up from my camera conversion... I do not want to take that thing apart... again!.. *whimper*" But, fear not, all is well - set up the custom color balance as stated above OR shoot in RAW and do the color adjustment in the RAW-file translation. Easy-peasy.



This is a look at the PS RAW-file translator window - the sliders for adjustments are on the right side.


Color balance and some contrast enhancement was done with the color temperature, tint, shadow, and exposure sliders in the RAW-file translator in PS (see above). I also desaturated the image in the RAW-file translator (bottom slider) before I opened it in PS. The image below is straight out of the RAW translator (after the color balance, desaturation, and the contrast adjustment).



Now, hmmm... the first thing I wanted to modify was the extended DOF of the image (one of the drawbacks of point-and-shoot cameras - recall my latest IR converted camera is a Canon G6). You'll see in the next image, I carefully isolated Kyeti (on the right) and her friend from the people behind them and then gently blurred my background using the lens-blur-filter set at about 20 in PS. Just to be clear, whenever I need to select cut-outs, I always do it manually with the polygonal lasso (PL) tool - I find this gives me the most control. In this image, I don't want the foreground tiles blurred nor did I want the cloud behind their heads blurred so I masked these portions of the image along with my two subjects so only the people in the background suffer the blur effect.



The next thing I notice about the image is the bodice of Kyeti's dress has been altered due to the IR effect on synthetic fabrics and I much prefer it in its original black color. So, once again, I break out the PL tool and cut-out the bodice and, in a new layer (see below), I fill this cut-out selection with black. Now I find that just painting it black and adjusting the opacity of the 'black' bodice layer tends to hide some of the texturing and shading of that portion of the dress so instead: I fill with black, set opacity of the 'black' bodice layer to 33% and set the blending mode to 'multiply'. I then duplicate this bodice-darkening layer as many times as necessary to get the effect I want (in this case I only had to duplicate it once) and that gives me a more pleasing 'black' bodice (and, even more importantly, Kyeti approves... :)).

Below is just the bodice darkening layer (BDL) showing the black-filled bodice selection @33% opacity:


Below is the entire image after changing the BDL to 'multiply' blending and duplicating:


Now I wanted to make a few more contrast adjustments and some lightening adjustments: this part is like seasoning that is done to taste - everyone will be a bit different. Here's what I did: First I flattened the image to combine my bodice layers with the background. Then I added a levels adjustment layer and changed the black input level from 0 to 13 giving me more blacks and darkening the image. To increase contrast, I duplicated the background layer and used 'softlight' blending mode for that duped layer at 38% opacity. I lightened the image by duplicating the background layer again and setting that layer to 'screen' blending mode at 50%.

Below is a screen grab showing the levels adjustment layer, the screen and the softlight layers.


I wanted to keep this image, for the most part, black and white but I am a big fan of warming up my portraits just a bit. One way to do this is to use the 'Photo Filter' feature in PS. This is under the Image menu: [Image - Adjustments - Photo Filter]. Once here, I can choose from a number of colors with which to overlay my image and warm the tones. Give it a try, it's fast and easy.

While I've used this handy little tool (Photo Filter) occasionally, most of the time I use the following procedure when I want to add color into my IR images. For warming an image, I often use the color from a photo of a delicious red-orange building I found during a trip to Rome a few years back. I'll select the portion of the building that I want and cut and paste it into my image. I make sure that portion of the red wall fills my image of Kyeti and her friend edge-to-edge by using the transform tool to reshape my wall image. I change the blending mode of my red-wall-layer to 'color' and set opacity to 10%. Now I've got a bit of my Roman holiday in this image of Kyeti and what could be better than that? :) (who says there's no romance in image editing? :))

Below is a view of the Roman wall layer shown in the layer menu of my image.



And here is the warmed image using my Roman wall.


I then flattened the image and.. hmm... the cloud behind the two girls needs to be softened a bit. I duped the background layer that I'd just flattened and put in some blur to taste (I think for this I just used some gaussian blur). I then created a layer mask for the blur layer and fill the mask layer with black. Now, making sure the layer mask is active by clicking on its icon in the layer pull-down menu, I put just the amount and placement of the blur back in the image using a white paint brush and painting in the layer mask.



Flatten again and done.

Final Image: "And Then It Was Prom Night..."


This is very typical processing for my IR images. However, if my IR image is the beginning of a heavily manipulated piece, I will add additional color layers and texture layers to achieve the effects I'm after. I will also use additional layers together with layer-masks and multiply, screen, overlay, softlight, or color blending modes to lighten, darken, color, adjust contrast, and blur various parts of the image. With very complex images, the number of layers of color, texture, shading, other elements, etc. can run into the hundreds. All the while, I am saving under multiple names so if something starts to look wrong, I can go back a save or two and start again. But the details of these types of photo-manipulation techniques will have to wait for another session.

7) A Final Word

Start easy. Get an inexpensive filter and just screw it on your camera and go out shooting (knowing that long exposure times will be required). That may be all you need.... but if you take the bait and decide more, More, MORE! - tear out the guts of that old camera and give the dedicated-camera approach a try. (And if you think you'll end up with too many bits of pizza crumbs inside your camera, let the pros do it for you.)

Whether a camera has been converted or it's just a filter added on, all that's left is setting up a custom white balance (and if shooting in RAW, even the custom white balance is not necessary) - then there's nothing left but to shoot and shoot and shoot and.... As for processing, usually it's just some added contrast but if color changes are desired, I've outline a couple of approaches. Have some fun. Be sure to give me a heads-up so I can see your creations.

Be warned: IR photography can be very addicting (well, for the weak minded, anyway... like me... :)) The surreal tones, the sometimes surprising results, the springboard to further exploration of concepts and ideas - all these things have turned my photography on its ear - completely changed the way I approach my image making... and for me, that is all good. :)

For inspiration, check out the IR groups here on Flickr - a couple of good ones to start you up: "Converted Digital Infrared Cameras" and "Digital Infrared".

And if you have questions or comments, you can contact me here in this discussion or via flickrmail. Thank you so much for taking the time to hang in with me. Cheers to you and I wish you much good shooting. -Mark

End Note:

Copyright of all the photographs used in this session belongs to GoodMolecules .

Copyright of this session belongs to the session author GoodMolecules . The Pinnacle group has right to publish it for non-commercial purposes.

Minimalism by bear bonnell and JTContinental

Anybody who has been on the Team knows that Jeremy [ JTContinental ] gets miserable each time the Minimalism / Simplicity challenge runs. Sometimes the moaning is quite loud and while I haven't seen his portrait, I think he pulls out a fair bit of his hair too. We keep telling him to do a session to alleviate the pain. To no avail until one day we heard that Danuta [ bear.bonnell ] and he were collaborating on the session.

Now you may think a session on minimalism / simplicity should be simple enough. Let us assure you that it isn't. But enough of talk - let's hand you over to Jeremy and Danuta.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Teacher:
Try to answer this:
Define minimalism
In 10 words or less.

Student:
buddhadog help me!
Minimalism haiku
Is needed quickly!

Since neither Jeremy (JTContinental) nor Danuta (bear.bonnell) could provide the short answer demanded by Teacher, they have provided this "lengthy" session on minimalism and simplicity instead!

Unlike a minimalist work of art itself, any discussion or description of minimalism usually involves lots of details that usually take up plenty of space and time... and passion. Classic definitions of minimalism usually run along these lines: The art form stripped down to its bare essentials. Simple enough, you say. But just what *are* the bare essentials?

Interestingly enough, humans were already "doing" minimalism some 27,000 years ago, when they were minimally human ;-). The cave paintings in France and Spain are wonderful examples of early minimalist art:





Skipping over a millennium or two, let's jump to examples of minimalism and simplicity in pop culture. Stuff you wouldn't even dream of acknowledging is pure "mini" or "simpi." Stuff that uses the least color, the least material, the fewest shapes, the smallest whatever, to evoke the most from us, in terms of reactions, attention, puzzlement or pure enjoyment. For example, cartoons :

Who doesn't recognize these few lines and shapes?
see this reference

Even tattoos:

Proudly worn by A2L

Perhaps the biggest political marketing strategy of all time is based in minimalist sketching. The political campaign poster below was created by street artist Shepard Fairey, who is known for his rudimentary line drawings in his graffiti stickers (see also Andre the Giant Has a Posse and Fairey's omnipresent Obey campaign).




NOW, THE ESSENTIALS
In the session, we're going by the principle that a photograph is worth about 40-60 words. But the words here are worth their font size in gold! Each photo has been carefully chosen to highlight principles and techniques of minimalist photography.

Let's start off with a subject that JT suggests every budding minimalist should experiment with: Columns.

by claude05

In Klaus' shot, the viewer gets lost in the pure photographic elements--shape, light, color gradation, and that's a good thing. In fact, it's the essence of minimalism: When the focus of the photo becomes those few items, plus the composition and camera angle, instead the actual subject matter. In this photo, the layout of the columns provides some fantastic contrasts between the light and shadow. The photo also highlights the fact that equipment plays a far lesser role in creating good minimalist images than in other types of photography. Post-processing may be very useful, but it's training the eye that's far more important.

EXAMPLES OF MINIMALIST TECHNIQUE
The shot below by nespyxel is a great example of pure minimalism, as it is all about photographic technique while the subject matter is incidental. See how Stefano uses both his camera and the composition to create cool lines and an appealing abstract.

by Nespyxel

The photo below is all about technique--line, line, line = graphic, graphic, graphic. Elizabeth's photo showcases the best part of a building that's probably pretty ugly in real life, and transforms it into something beautiful.

by Abizeleth

Below are some variations on the theme. Note that Danuta would call these photos abstract, but not minimalist, because of the amount of detail. Well, we wonder what Pinnacle judges would say if these photos were posted in the "minimalist/simplicity" thread?

But, sez JT!!!! "All four of these shots are abstracts or details, but Abizeleth's and dmalewski's shots in particular say "minimalism" to me because of simplistic repeating elements in the composition--the same combination of line and shape is being represented throughout the shot, and the subject matter is really line and not repetition or architecture."

Hah! Let the viewer beware. Let the photographer be on guard. Let the one with questions run away! LOL.

by mamie007

by roberta zouain

by dmalewski

OTHER ELEMENTS IMPORTANT IN MINIMALISM: LINES AND SHAPES

This following shot by Merdichesky is the best photo JT has seen on Flickr in a long time. While it does make use of some digital manipulation, that processing is used to enhance the strong lines and shapes formed by the windows. The contrast of the blue against the almost blinding white also gives it fantastic visual appeal. This is the way that negative space should be used in a true minimalist photo--to create tension with the subject matter, rather than just serve as a backdrop.

by Merdichesky

Now, the following photo would be more minimalist without the moon, but the sky juxtaposes well with the uneven line of the architecture, and the contrasting colors are neat.

by crazykanga

USING LIGHT IN MINIMALISM

by clay.wells

Here, Clay has stripped out the meaning of the subject matter entirely; the shot is about the concept of photography as an art form rather than just a pretty photo. JT thinks that a slight crop across the top would enhance the minimalism, but it is a good example of how to use light in minimalist photography. Not only does it accent the linear composition of Clay's photo, but it also gives it a bleak, austere quality that is quintessential minimalism.

Next, a wonderful use of light and shadow: The light on the human figure juxtaposes with the ledge to make a cross pattern that is very biblical to JT, or at least represents meditation and penitence. There is also an element of disembodiment and floating in this composition that is very cool, and works in this shot.

by chichicuilote

Danuta's not sure she sees any penitence here, as she thinks it would look great on the wall next to this one...

by margiebean

...which, given a little more contrast to blot out the line of the back, would be ultimate minimalism for her!

Now, JT's a little jealous of the next photo....

by nik10ur

Very mysterious simplicity at work here, he says. A strong line trails into the monochromatic mist, creating a sense of travel, melancholy, and yearning. So evocative--.

Next is a neat image from Maria. A sharper contrast and a little more tonal variation would really enhance the jagged shapes, but this is definite minimalism. Nice lines and a soothing light source that seems to be coming from the core. A mix of Weston and Caravaggio!

by mmoborg

Now, Danuta loves the photo below because it has very few elements, but the canvas, so to speak, is full. And she love the angle of the camera that takes the viewer on a journey :-)



On the other hand, JT - his own best critic - isn't so happy with it. He says, "This one is all about line and light; without either, this would be a pretty crappy photo." But for the next photo, he is lavish in his praise, "C'est fantastique! Anderson's shot is textbook minimalism. Love all the tonal variations and how the light and shadow keep bumping up against each other in a cool zig zag pattern that runs perpendicular with the same zig zag in the curtain."

by andersonfang

USING COLOR AND SHAPES

You can find a ton of great minimal photos in Robin's photo stream. This one is cool because the blue color field is so ordered, and the tile so chaotic and random, yet they come together nicely to make something that makes sense.

Same with the red one--a bunch of random pieces come together in the red negative space to make a cohesive and complete photo.



by Robem

As for the following one, JT thinks it's a modern day AbEx (Abstract Expressionism), of a sort. "It's not entirely focused on technique which makes it not true minimalism, but the crop makes good use of the undulation in the lines. I'm not sure if this is a detail or if it's been digitally altered to create this pattern, but either way, I dig it." Note that Read2Me has let us know that it is a detail, unaltered!

by Read2Me

And here is one of JT's personal favorites:



"The negative space blends with the orange bits, and I'm in love with the strong, almost conical, line. This is one of my true minimalist shots as it is all about technique--without composition, light, and line, there is nothing here; photography has been stripped down to its bare essentials."

However, one of Danuta's faves does pull interesting comments from JT: he's intrigued by this one because he says that this type of photograph usually doesn't work for minimalism.

by ullischa

He sez: Minimalism in nature. Hmmm. Normally, I don't think DoF works in minimal or simplistic photos because it automatically complicates it with photography tricks, but in this case, it's subtle enough to work. In fact, the DoF is almost incidental to the beautiful curves that go well with the frosty pink color.

As far as the next photo, Danuta says: I love this! I see it as solitude, not loneliness. I love the fact that there are essentially two fields of color, and the border between the two is the whole story: a moment of solitude in a chaotic and noisy world.



JT replies: "Danuta the optimist, JT the pessimist! I definitely see this as not just loneliness, but utter despair, as if the figure is stuck in their own blackness, with no end in sight."

On the other hand, Danuta's hands are thrown up in despair about this one:



She says, Dude. What were you thinking? In my not so humble opinion, the title is the best part of this photo: Area 51. That makes the photo interesting. I then associate the photo with spy satellite images of weird formations on Planet Earth, color contrasted to show the evidence better..... but honestly, my eye goes immediately to your next photo because for one, it's intriguing. Is it the eye of a penguin? Is it the bellybutton of an alien? Is it a mint candy pressed into smooth butter cream? I want to turn it upside down and see if I can figure it out! And on top of that, the shading contrasts so nicely with the sharp lines of the circles. So interesting!

JT sez: That green one of my color blocking photos is one that just went wrong. It's minimalist in composition, but the technique is definitely off--the lighting is too sickly, and in my attempts to correct in Photoshop, the image is a bit over processed. Ultimately, it's the poor lighting that I think makes this image fail.

The alien belly button, on the other hand, is more successful because of the lighting. It's still dramatic, but not overpowering, lending a cool mysterious mood to the blue one, and a quiet brooding in the green one that reminds me of the calm before a tornado or thunderstorm. These two shots stick to the essential photographic elements, resulting in successful minimalism.





FINAL CHAPTER
We're going to shift gears here, and provide some general commentary on photos that have very interesting minimalist tendencies, or fit in very well with the "Simplicity" part of the category, as described in The Pinnacle.

For example, the following shot relies on composition to make a scene as mundane as a man walking down the stairs into something graphic and interesting. It doesn't rely on some overused minimalist techniques, such as cropping objects in the corner, or objects that are out-of-scale with the negative space.

by Pedro Miguel Barreiros

However, all gloves are off with this one:

by beachwalker2008

JT sez: I think birds are dirty, evil, calculating things, and cropping them into the corner of the sky, lake or beach does not make it minimalism (or even simplicity). This photo is a rare exception; the bird has not been scaled to the point of being dwarfed by the backdrop, and it's presence is essential to the composition, whereas in a corner crop photo, any old object would do. The rock behind it keeps this bird grounded, and makes for a nice, simple shot.

Danuta is aghast. Birds are dirty? Evil? This one has its calculating eyes on your SONY, JT, and it thinks it can land a glob of guano just perfectly ----



Now, both of us love this next photo, although JT can describe "why" best:

by figurita

JT sez: Love the processing on this shot--it's very reminiscent of Edward Weston, who was a bit of a minimalist before the genre was actually defined. Here, the attention is drawn not to the fact that this is a human, but to the lines, curves, and lighting. It's weird to say that the viewer almost doesn't recognize this person's humanity in this shot, but it's exactly true--no matter what this subject matter is, these shapes and lighting technique would be very appealing.

Here is quintessential minimalism for Danuta....

by joiseyshowaa

While JT has a condition: Cut the ice house out of the corner and up the contrast to accent the line cutting through the snow, and then you have quintessential minimalism. As is, it makes for clear, simplistic imagery.

Now, read JT's thoughts on the next one.... Another variant of the snow trail theme--the wrinkle here is that the curve of the landscape adds another complementary shape to the composition in two separate places that I really like.

by sprengstoff72

While a simplistic composition requires all elements of the photo to work together to make a good image, below is a top-notch example of how sometimes lines compete and still make for good minimalism. The many color tones, seemingly directionless wandering lines and irregular pieces of these terracotta rooftops clash with one another, yet still come together in this composition to form an eye-pleasing photo.

fgc

And below is "digital impressionism"!

by williscreek

Scant suggestions of figures on a white background make for a pleasing simplicity, and makes one think of Hans Brinker. Here is what williscreek had to say about shooting his photo. "I was not thinking "minimal" when I conceived of and took that shot. My thought was to take an even more sparse shot of a single skater on a larger skating area (e.g., a lake) out of focus, without any sky (to maximize the ice surface) and convert it to B&W. But I ended up at a small outdoor rink that was quite busy with many people, so I took a different approach. As such, moving the camera during the exposure was an obvious technique for me to use here."

Now below, once again, the two heads butt: Danuta sees no contradiction with Steve's photo belonging to the simplicity camp, given the conversations above :-)

by stevensmith1

But JT sez: It's empty, but is it simplistic? I do like this shot quite a bit, but a lot of elements are competing here--the grooved sand, the austere, yet sharp sky, the sudden end to the sand dune, and the lens flare that cuts diagonally through the frame all say complicated to me.

And finally...

by Manny Flores

JT sez: Fantastic simplicity here...a single streak of light shooting through a dark landscape makes for a strong line that disturbs the surroundings just enough with out overdoing it. If you upped the contrast to create complete blackness, then you've got stellar minimalism, as well.

Next is a nice reminder that sometimes simplicity can emanate from the chaos. Though JT feels a little dizzy from the surroundings, amongst all that swirling is the same feeling of vast nothingness that he feels from some of the other simplicity examples.

by bryan olesen


And lookie here.... JT loves the "drab isolation" that Terry creates here. Talk about the pessimist!

By TPorter2006

He sez: Everything about Terry's photo is perfect; it has all the elements of a simplistic photo--a singular color scheme, layers that blend harmoniously with one another and don't compete for attention, a focal point that doesn't overwhelm the backdrop, and an aura of almost drab isolation. Instant fave.

Danuta sayz: This next one....if this was in high contrast, then it'd be a perfect minimalist for me, as there would be less details. As it stands, I really like the creamy tones and the cropping which focuses on so few elements, yet gives the idea of a huge building. And the way in which the dark arches plunk down on those corinthian/ionic whosie whatsit architectural doohickies make the photo a wonderful study of light and shadow.

by historygradguy

JT sez: I agree...with a bit more of a high contrast, this would be a fantastic minimalist photo. The cropping is just right, and upping the contrast would really show a nice range of lighting tones--the light creaminess of the doohickies on the columns to the mysterious shadow in the ceiling pattern that darken as you recess. The effect would be a presentation of something massive that overwhelms the viewer and separates them from the work. Even the artist feels like they are on the outside looking in, a major concept of minimalist art.

And coming close to the end....
by Leslie Vernon

Another good photo for simplicity, relying on detail and perspective over lighting and fancy tricks to create a quiet and powerful impression. Also, the various gradations of white are pretty sweet.


Finally, the last shot in our series quite simply says "goodbye". The last lines left in the sand by the high tide, a memory of summer.



We've enjoyed putting together this session, and hope it provides you with some perspective and insights about minimalist photography. And in keeping with the theme, we say simply

THE END.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Copyright of all the photographs used in this session belong to the respective owners of the photographs.

Copyright of this session belong to the session authors. The Pinnacle group has right to use for non-commercial purposes.