B&W vs IR

[MonikaC]

Alan had some question about B&W vs IR (& I've wondered the same), so with all the extra time I have now, I shot some comparisons. B&W conversions as I would normally process them (SilverEfex + ColorEfex) and IR, which, now that I re-loaded my camera profile, took almost no processing. I didn't try to make the 2 versions look like each other (maybe that would have been a better comparison?) The 1st 2 are the B&W conversions, leaving the IR shots for the last 2.

 

[AlanLichty]

The little cactus is the one most telling for the differences with the IR more visibly impacting the visible wavelengths. Especially notable in the body of the cactus that is typically seen in green as well as the flower. Harder to tell in the instance of the water shot given the differences in shutter speeds.

Thanks for the comparison. I am leaning in the direction of a 590nm conversion for a 5D Mk II that is sitting on my shelf.

 

[JimFox]

That’s an interesting study Monika! Thanks so much for doing it.

I am glad you didn’t try to process them the same, if you had there would be no point in the exercise. Seeing the difference between B&W and IR I think is super important and worthy knowledge. At least for me it’s important. If they looked the same, then there would be no point in hassling with IR.

Are you doing a Channel Swap when you process your IR?

 

[JimFox]

Alan, I read somewhere that the 590nm can end up making a lot of the images soft. I am not positive on that though, so it’s maybe something to research and check.

 

[AlanLichty]

I may have that wavelength choice wrong - I have to go back and reread what I was looking at last time I considered the conversion path. I was looking at a company named Kolarivision.

 

[MonikaC]

That’s an interesting study Monika! Thanks so much for doing it.

I am glad you didn’t try to process them the same, if you had there would be no point in the exercise. Seeing the difference between B&W and IR I think is super important and worthy knowledge. At least for me it’s important. If they looked the same, then there would be no point in hassling with IR.

Are you doing a Channel Swap when you process your IR?

No Channel Swap. Just have an IR camera profile. Clarity in LR, Detail Extractor in Color Efex (Nik) & that's about it.

 

[MonikaC]

The little cactus is the one most telling for the differences with the IR more visibly impacting the visible wavelengths. Especially notable in the body of the cactus that is typically seen in green as well as the flower. Harder to tell in the instance of the water shot given the differences in shutter speeds.

Thanks for the comparison. I am leaning in the direction of a 590nm conversion for a 5D Mk II that is sitting on my shelf.

You might also check out LifePixel.

 

[AlanLichty]

You might also check out LifePixel.

I have bookmarks for both companies and have read plenty on both. I will repeat that exercise before boxing up my camera body to send to one of them.

 

[Ben Egbert]

Great test, the cactus is the real difference although both IR shots seem brighter while holding detail.

 

[Amy Nelson]

I have bookmarks for both companies and have read plenty on both. I will repeat that exercise before boxing up my camera body to send to one of them.

Lifepixel has a much better customer service, well that's what I have experienced.

 

[Amy Nelson]

I like how you compared these Monika. I would recommend that on the processing for the IR B&W is dropping the exposure down just a bit.