People seem to be curious about some of the images created here at the gallery. They ask about how they were done and then tell me it can't be done (whatever it is that was done) like that. I find that a tad strange, because they, typically, are holding the print in their hands while they're saying "you can't do that".
A good example is a print by "the better half". She had this beautiful 16 x 20 print of a corn field, a set of three silos and a cloud filled sky. With the print in hand, a self announced professional gushed over the image, noting that individual kernels of corn could be seen. He commented on the sharpness, the detail, the subtle coloring, gush, gush gush. He asked how many megapixels the camera had. When told the print he had in his hands was from a 4 megapixel point and shoot his immediate reaction was that you couldn't make a 16 x 20 print from a 4 megapixel file. News flash, if you're willing to pay for something, someone will be willing to produce it. I'm pretty sure he would have quit photography all together if he knew the image had been sent out for printing at 150 PPI. Too many people are confused by PPI versus DPI and don't understand the relationship (note to self: subject for another post). To hear about how this all relates to today's image, follow the "read more".
This is the third post on the blog about infrared imaging. When I show an infrared image, people ask if it's from a digital or an analog (film) camera, ask if I had the digital camera modified and then tell me I can't make an infrared image from an unmodified digital camera. I don't get it. They have a print in hand, I give them the lowdown and they tell me I can't do it that way. Am I missing something? Do people think I spend my nights dreaming up fanciful stories to trick them? Do they think I should be writing fiction? Maybe I could be the next JK Rawlings or Clive Cussler. Actually, I'd probably wind up being more like Michael Tougias, making true stories sound like high adventures. Whatever pipedreams I may have, I'm a photographer, not a writer. I'll keep buying Tougias' books and maybe one day he'll buy one of my prints. (Another pipedream I guess.)
Today's image was taken with a unmodified digital camera. The trade off between a modified and an unmodified camera, for infrared use is time. With a modified camera, on a sunny day you can handhold the camera. With the unmodified camera you haven't a prayer of handholding a shot. If you have a camera that has a B&W setting, you can go directly to a B&W infrared shot. If the camera doesn't have a B&W setting you'll end up with a R&W (red and white) image. In that case you can use any method you like to go to B&W. (There must be a dozen ways to do it.)
One giveaway for a lot of the digital B&W infrared I see is the lack of grain. Film infrared is, typically, pretty grainy. Luckily, Photoshop has an "Add Noise" filter. One of the effects of the "Add Noise" filter in today's image is to bring out the grass in the lower portion of the shot. Bonus!
I don't know. There's an old Irish blessing that talks about putting a smile on the faces of our friends and breaking the ankles of those who aren't friends so we'll know them by their limping when they're coming. Would make things easier.
Speed Lighting: Onstage at The Photography Show
20 hours ago