Multispectral photography

Norwegian Bjørn Rørslett has created on interesting thread on multi-spectral photography at NikonGear.com. His web site naturfotograf.com is well worth visiting.

Photo courtesy of Bjørn Rørslett, naturfotograf.com

I don’t yet have a multi-spectral capable camera, only infrared, but I plan on getting one at some point in the future. See the diglloyd Guide to Digital Infrared Photography for more on infrared and camera conversions, and also Infrared Cameras Compared.

A multi-spectral camera responds to ultraviolet, visible light and infrared. Most digital sensors are responsive to all these frequency bands, but a stock (unmodified) camera includes sensor glass over the sensor which blocks all but visible light. It is the removal/replacement of this sensor cover glass which allows the sensor to “see” all wavelengths from ultraviolet to infrared. Response in the UV and IR ranges will vary with the sensor of course. Fujifilm sells their Fujifilm IS Pro DSLR as a multi-spectral camera (see Feb 11 comments).

With the advent of the Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 UV-VIS-IR APO Macro, multi-spectral photography becomes a lot more practical, since no focus shift occurs due to wavelength, allowing images from different spectral bands to be layered together with highly-accurate alignment.

A room with a view

I discussed exposure blending on March 16. Photomatix offers HDR images (32-bit high dynamic range), and along with that a feature called “tone mapping”. I am a complete newbie at “tone mapping”, and the image below is my very first attempt which took all of 2 minutes.

The image at top was processed with Nikon Capture NX “D-Lighting”, and the image below it with Photomatix “tone mapping” of an HDR image (I processed the same RAW file into TIF in Capture NX as -1, +0 and +2 exposures into an HDR image). Click for larger versions. Both images are vastly better than the original, which had blocked-up shadows and no sparkle in the horse’s eye.

Processed with Nikon Capture NX “D-Lighting”

Processed with Photomatix “Tone Mapping”

I call this an “enhanced image”: it’s better than reality, though not really much different than the way I perceived the scene (and why I made the image). It has the qualities I envisioned which the camera didn’t deliver as a generic conversion. But these days, all RAW-file conversions are someone’s set of choices, not a hard-and-fast science of what’s accurate (if it were accurate, it would have to mimic the human eye/brain precisely, and no camera or film can do that, and every human perceives things a little differently as well).

The bottom line: many new software technologies are emerging today which will forever change photography—along a continuum of “that’s what was on film” (even if film itself alters reality) to photographic interpreted art. I think that’s fine, but images that contain content that wasn’t there need to be declared as such (or so obvious as to need no explanation). Not far off is the day when photographs are inadmissible as evidence unless digitally signed by an authenticated camera...

Interpolation—a valiant effort

It turns out that the interpolation artifacts discussed in the March 27 entry are actually a valiant interpretation, given the limits of Bayer technology—the vertical stripes actually are present in the scene! The actual-pixels crop below is using the Leica 180/2.8 APO Elmarit-R, an extraordinary lens (I use it with an adapter on EOS).

Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III + Leica 180/2.8 API, actual pixels

Atmospheric distortion

One of the perils of shooting distant scenes is atmospheric distortion (as if atmospheric haze wasn’t enough of a challenge). While in Death Valley, I met an astronomer who explained that the twinkling of stars was a serious problem in some locations; it is caused by the movement of layers of air. It’s not just stars though—in examining images shot in San Francisco recently, I noted clear detail over the city, but a strange waviness near the bridge. Presumably there is a lot of air movement over the water, after all the fog and wind in San Francisco are no accident.

Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III + EF 300/2.8L + 1.4X teleconverter (crop)

Atmospheric distortion

San Francisco, in progress

The fun is in the details, so no small image really communicates the way a blowup does. 70 megapixels stitched, after cropping, Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III @ ISO 50 with Zeiss ZF 100/2 Makro-Planar @ ~f/5.6. Click for a larger version. I’d like to reshoot this with the Leica 180mm, APO and perhaps a better viewpoint (but walking around with $20K of gear into the “wrong” 'hood isn’t my idea of fun).

Patterns just for fun

Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III + Zeiss ZF 100/2 Makro-Planar

Digital artifacts

I’ve started making some controlled head-to-head comparisons of the Nikon D3 and Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III to really understand the Two Beasts. I expect to produce a significant article on the subject in the next month or two, well behind the schedule I had hoped, but web server changes take priority right now.

Below is one of yesterday’s shots, chosen for detail, not for artistic purposes, placing as much fine detail into the frame as feasible, from near to far. This image is really interesting when viewed at its full resolution! It’s a location I want to return to and shoot with a longer lens, perhaps a 180mm or 300mm, capturing the skyline in a stitched 200MP or so image—really fun stuff, even if it’s not fine art—I enjoy the sense of exploration in such images. Atmospheric conditions here were reasonably clear for San Francisco, but not perfect for this sort of image.

Digital artifacts of various kinds (false, detail, color moiré, etc) are always an issue with DSLRs, but usually a minor one localized to very small areas (see Nikon D3 example). This example from the 21.1MP Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III using the world-class Coastal Optics 60/4 APO macro. It shows that there can be digital artifacts large enough in area to cause complications when making larger prints.

Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III + Coastal Optics 60/4 APO macro @ f/5.6 — full frame

Look at the aliasing going on in this building...wow! The aliasing “flips” entirely on or off where the lighting changes (perhaps due to contrast). A large chunk like this is going to look very strange in a larger-size print; the human eye picks out such oddities easily. Ironically, lenses with performance characteristics inferior to the world-class Coastal Optics 60/4 APO macro might not provide the high contrast and resolving power needed to induce such problems (I haven’t proven this in an A/B comparison, but I suspect it’s true). Does this show that the AA (anti-aliasing) filter of the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III is not as strong as some people think? Perhaps, but I’m not an expert on such arcane details.

Actual pixels — processed using Digital Photo Professional

Actual pixels — processed using Adobe Camera Raw

The effect is not limited to the 60mm focal length. Magnified another 65% using the Zeiss ZF 100/2 Makro-Planar (bel0w), the same problem is observed...or is it? Maybe there really is some vertical stripe detail and it just happens to interact strongly with the sensor grid and interpolation algorithm. UPDATE: see March 30 entry.

Actual pixels — processed using Digital Photo Professional

Lost emails (maybe)

Due to a failure in Mac Mail (it freaks out every few months), I might have lost some emails in the past few days. If you’ve emailed me and haven’t received a response, please try again.

Star focusing

I’ve posted a new focusing-related article: Star Focusing and Circular Blobs.

Whither the honeybees?

Driving through California’s central valley along Interstate 5 and side roads, one can’t help but shudder at the thought of the increasingly dire prognosis for honeybees, which pollinate California’s vast orchards of all kinds of nuts and fruits—it’s stunning really, with mile after mile after mile of blossoms, with each blossom representing a latent nut or fruit, and the aggregate representing future food for untold millions of people.

From 1992 through 2007, I have personally observed a thousand-fold decline (estimate) in the number of honeybees in my own backyard garden—the reports I’ve seen on Colony Collapse Disorder only confirm my personal observations. Wild populations are now all but extinct. Where I once observed a dozen honeybees on every single one of my Russian Giant sunflowers, I might now see a honeybee here and there on each sunflower head.

Without pollination, the massive fruit and nut industry collapses—what will we eat? (And what do the displaced workers do? (the human ones)). No one knows for sure why the honeybee colonies are dying (the root cause that is)—viral and mite infections are some direct causes of death. Could it be the incessant damage to the environment with millions of tons of “harmless” chemicals emitted by short-sighted industries to our air and water (not just agriculture)?

One of these years I’ll stop and photograph the orchards in their glory, before all the trees are cut down for firewood when the honeybees can no longer fulfil their crucial role.

An extensive orchard with its temporary bee “condos” — February 2008
(Nikon D3 + 14-24G)

When is an image “good enough”?

The truth is that today’s digital cameras offer superb quality, and what one chooses to shoot is a decision that often reflects personal likes and dislikes as much as anything else (see Is it the equipment?). But equipment, especially lenses, can make a real difference to the “end game”, and here is a real-world example—

The March 2008 National Geographic has an article on Iceland: Power Struggle — The People of Iceland Awaken to a Stark Choice: Exploit a Wealth of Clean Energy or Keep Their Landscape Pristine. Iceland is a place I’m looking forwarding to visiting someday, with its dramatic landscapes.

There is one panoramic image that drew my attention (“Molten lava flowing across wetlands and into the cold waters of Lake Myvatn...”) . The image is a fold-out of about approximately 19" X 10". My first impression was “wow—what a stunning landscape!”. My next impression was that the image sharpness is disappointing; excepting the center of the image, both left and right sides are visibly blurred, even at the relatively modest 19" X 10" size. My educated guess is that the edge blurriness is due to poor lens performance—a probable example of equipment (lens) impeding the final quality in spite of photographer skill.

So what is “good enough”? In this case, the image unequivocally succeeds in depicting the stunning beauty of the landscape. It is well composed, and few readers will note the sharpness issue. So it is good enough.

Yet if this were my image, I’d be very disappointed with the obvious blur; even in the smallish 19" X 10" reproduction the shortcoming is visible. It is certainly not up to my standards for a fine-art print, and I suspect that would be the conclusion of many landscape photographers. A 30" or 40" wide print would show obvious problems, meaning that the image would be of less value for sale or exhibition—possibly not even viable at larger sizes—a serious concern for fine-art landscape photographers.

In short, here we have a case where equipment choice did matter—a lens capable of edge-to-edge sharpness would have produced an image with much more potential for sales and exhibition. Regardless of the lens, the same amount of effort is involved in making images, so choosing lenses that render images with top quality is preferable, and why I shoot the Zeiss ZF Lenses on a regular basis.

How sharp is the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III?

A reader emailed with some extensive questions on the 21MP Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III vs the 12MP Nikon D3. One of those questions was about sharpness. The best lenses are needed for the EOS 1Ds Mark III; its sensor does not “forgive”. In striking comparison, the Nikon D3 is magic with lenses I considered marginal before (eg many older AI-S Nikkors). But the Zeiss ZF 100/2 Makro-Planar offers more performance than even the 1DsM3 needs (see example below).

Below is an example whose actual-pixels crops show the limits of achievable sharpness on the EOS 1DS Mark III (sorry, no comparison with the D3 on this one). You won’t get this kind of extreme detail on the Nikon D3, but you will get other improvements in image rendition, such as color rendition and a “look” that is more transparent and lifelike (my unabashed opinion).

Click to see a larger size and actual pixels crops. (JPEG compression reduces the quality on the full-frame image, but the actual pixels crops are minimally compressed). No special handling or processing used here—DPP with Daylight, Standard, Sharpening=2. Of course, a skilled Photoshop jockey could make many post-processing improvements to this image, but that is not the goal here.

Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III (ISO 50) + Zeiss ZF 100/2 Makro-Planar @ ~f/5.6

Canon Powershot G9 infrared

I’ve barely had a chance to play with this little brick of a camera which maxmax.com converted to infrared for me. (I recommend maxmax for your infrared conversions, and be sure to get my Guide). Below are a few “industrial” images from the G9 with a 715nm internal filter. IR response is very good, but definitely different from the other infrared cameras I’ve used. More on the G9 as I have a chance to shoot it.

More mercury for the landfill...

Feedback on HDR and other thoughts

One clarification on HDR (high dynamic range) processing: I’ve only begun to use it, trying the exposure blending (only) for now. There’s so much to explore, and like any other skill, I can see many hours will be required to figure out what works consistently, and what doesn’t (and what I want to bother with).

I want to thank the many readers who’ve emailed me on HDR and other topics recently. I’ve responded to everyone who’s emailed, but I’ve swamped with a deadline at my “day job” for another week or so. I find it a little frustrating not to be able to do much photography related stuff, including this blog, nor can I respond in as much detail as I’d prefer. Add to that continuing work on a major server overhaul and burnout from months of work...and I’m fairly well thrashed.

One reader sent a link to a gallery of gothic cathedrals by Eric Pouhier, which I think is very nice work (apparently with a P&S), making me feel downright unskilled in post processing! Other readers sent me examples of their own exceptionally fine images—very impressive stuff.

Advice—I have some advice for everyone on their own work: seeing other people’s fresh ideas can be intimidating in the sense that one’s own work can start to feel rather ordinary by comparison. I have to remind myself of this regularly, and I hope that like the proverbial blind squirrel, I find an “acorn” often enough to maintain my own self-credibility! I’m not sure I got any “acorns” in Death Valley (see below for more on that).

More advice—I’ve done “it” before, and I’m kicking myself for repeating the mistake in my recent trip to Death Valley: I stifled my creative output by using a tripod most of the time, and by making too many high resolution (but boring) stitched images, and in general making images so as to explore the equipment rather than make art. Don’t do this to yourself. To some extent I have to do this in order to write about equipment here, but I increasingly find it frustrating to work that way; I should have taken just the Nikon D3 with 3 Zeiss ZF lenses (and perhaps the Nikon 14-24) and made many more “walk around” images. Live and learn...!
(Yes, the Nikon D3, I own the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III also and I really prefer the D3 images, even though the resolution is lower).

Is it the equipment?

A couple of essays recently on other sites are amusing to read: Ken Rockwell and Michael Reichmann. The essays speak volumes about their respective authors—the word “strident” comes to mind.

My befuddled viewpoint:

• If I don’t like using a camera or lens then I won’t use it. That matters more than just about anything else!
• Strong images can be made with any camera and any lens (or no lens), but some images require specific capabilities (eg macro and telephoto).
• I respond visually; lenses and their “look” matter to me. Not just any lens will do. But any lens will do for many images.
• Not having the right lens is frustrating. But check your premises and make a good image with whatever you have—it’s the right lens since it’s what you have.
• Too many lenses is frustrating. Too few lenses is frustrating. There is no right number of lenses. Zooms are best. Primes are best. It all depends.
• More and more I’m wanting to simplify. Logic dictates a zoom, but I really like the Zeiss ZF primes (image rendition, size, weight, build quality).

Confused? Me too. Find what works for you and don’t worry about anyone else. I’m still figuring out what works best for me—it’s not easy. But I do find that how a camera operates matters to me, and I do find that restricting myself to 1-2 lenses is often much more productive. The particular lenses chosen can change for any given outing, but limiting the number of lenses to one or two is very useful in bringing “focus” to one’s efforts. Try it sometime—it really works.

Bottom line: if I had to choose one camera and one lens, I would choose the Nikon D3 and the Zeiss ZF 28/2 Distagon. Or maybe the 50/2 Makro-Planar or 35/2 Distagon. It wouldn’t matter that much, it would just mean I would make images that worked for that particular lens, and I’d become very good at exploiting that particular lens. Not a bad goal to have.

Ridiculous to make ‘em pay

I count my blessings on reader emails, as I have been fortunate to rarely receive negative comments or “drive by shooting” emails. The feedback I do receive that is both substantive and constructive I take very seriously, because there is always room for improvement.

Once in a long while I get something like this missive (only the 2nd such email in 3 years):

I just thought I’d let you know, as I’m sure countless others have, how ridiculous it is to try to make people pay $23.95 for a comparative review of 2 cameras. It’s ridiculous.

Well, anyone is free to purchase (or not) my Pro Reviews, just as one is free to subscribe to Outdoor Photography or buy a Big Mac® at McDonald’s. We all decide what’s worth our money and make choices accordingly. Quality writing offers value, timeliness offers value, and solid analysis in today’s world of rehashed marketing specs offers value. My offerings are a win-win proposition. I can’t afford to do it for free—it’s not just my time and effort but very large expenses simply to obtain the equipment involved. So thank you for your support if you’ve purchased one or more of my efforts.

The ironic fact is that the only $23.95 comparative review on this site has been free for the last nine months (D200 vs D2x)! I guess the emailer was angry that I dared to have charged for it at one time (or was so hasty in emailing so as to not even realize that it was free!).

So what is good value? Well-written information that provides answers, tips, analysis and insights so that you can save time or money in your purchasing decisions or photographic endeavors. All my reviews address that as a core principle.

High dynamic range with Photomatix

Reader Mike F emailed to suggest that I check out HDRsoft’s Photomatix. Reader Leping Z had previously suggested Photomatix about a month ago regarding tone mapping (thank you), but I finally got around to looking into it! Reader John W suggests checking out XFuse by Kekus Software, but I have not yet done so.

I downloaded the 3.0 beta of Photomatix for Mac OS X. I then processed not just yesterday’s two images, but all 5 exposures, to see if I could improve the results over yesterday, and also eliminate the excess shadow noise the 21MP Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III produces (even at ISO 200).

As a “newbie” (not knowing the product at all), I processed all 5 images of my 7 stop bracket with exposures ranging from 1/200 sec down to 0.3 second—a few checkboxes and buttons and wow! The total “clean” dynamic range of the resulting image seems to be around 14 stops, eg 5-7 stops more than I would have obtained from a single 1/200 sec exposure. (Figures are rough estimates, not a scientific analysis). No single exposure could have made this resulting image, so this is truly “new territory” not approachable with conventional single-frame exposures. Cool stuff indeed.

I intend to explore Photomatix much more because it looks like one of those tools that might become indispensable. My initial impressions are highly favorable—it was able to quickly combine the images with no fuss (“one button” so to speak—I did have to choose the right alignment options to get them aligned correctly). The combined image near the window frame is especially impressive for its natural tonal range from extremely bright to darker areas—see the actual pixels crop. My one complaint so far is that its processing appears to be single-threaded—it uses only 1 of 4 cores of my quad-core Mac Pro.

Output from Photomatix
(Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III + Zeiss ZF 25/2.8 Distagon)

Output from Photomatix — actual pixels

Morning commute

I love the early morning. And the end of Daylight Savings Time gets me out of bed on time for scenes like this one, at least for a few weeks. I’m planning on using the exotic Coastal Optics 60/4 APO macro for more and more plain ’ol color photography since it’s so good at it. (JPEG compression doesn’t do this image any favors; the beautiful results pre-compression at ISO 1600 really speak volumes about the Nikon D3).

Morning commute
(Nikon D3 + Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 APO macro)

Buckeyes leafing out

One of my favorite trees, the California Buckeye, heralds the arrival of the end of winter by leafing out by late February at lower elevations and even now at 1000' or so is leafing out. Compensating by hibernating for the summer, most individuals lose their leaves by June or July.

Buckeye leaves and sunset
(Nikon D3 + Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 APO macro)

High dynamic range

I’ve got a lot to learn on making high dynamic range images—please send me your tips and questions, so I can share them here with other DL’ers. I do have The HDRI Handbook, which I’ve found a bit difficult to approach for getting started (and it may equivocate too much on the various options). As I learn more, I’ll share it here at diglloyd.com.

My most common application is to to combine 2 or 3 exposures, one for bright highlights, and another for dark shadows and one in-between. The Photoshop tools don’t seem to make this easy; I failed to create an acceptable image using the HDR feature, trying all sorts of variants. Instead, I was successful masking off the highlights using a mask based on the brightness of the highlights—see below. But what I want is a one-click tool that does the dirty work for me—isn’t that what computers are for?

Exposed for shadows (maybe not enough)
(EOS 1Ds Mark III is very noisy in shadows even at ISO 200)


Exposed for highlights


Combined manually using a layer mask

SanDisk rebates — the latest twist

In the latest slimy twist on the usual rebate hassles (see May 1 2007 entry), SanDisk rebates now arrive as a VISA debit card which you must sign and activate, along with the usual tiny print, and an expiration date only 4 months from issuance. This is an improvement over a check which can be deposited or turned into cash and spent at one’s leisure? No, the debit card is a deliberate move to benefit the issuer by making it harder to actually spend the full value of the card.

The fine print also gives SanDisk the right to collect and disclose information about you and your purchases under a variety of circumstances including to “our employees, auditors, affiliates, service providers or attorneys, as needed”. And the Feds, etc. Heck, anyone is an “affiliate” these days. So don’t use it for Governor Spitzer-like “services” guys and gals!

Try using the card at amazon.com—there’s no way I could find to “split” a transaction so as to empty the card of its full value ($90 in my case)! This is the goal of course—one can’t buy something for $90.01 with the card, so you buy something for $83.50 or $87.90, leaving the balance of the card unused, a balance small enough you simply won’t bother further, thus adding dollars to the bottom line of SanDisk (even a few dollars per card adds up to real money for SanDisk). Since the “S” guys are being prosecuted these days (Spitzer and Scruggs), can’t we do something nice along those lines for SanDisk?

The SanDisk rebate is now plastic

Update: reader Mary S reports having submitted rebates for three 4-GB SanDisk cards that should have yielded an $80 rebate for the 3 UPC symbols, but received only a $20 rebate (the amount for a single CF card):

The real surprise came when I attempted to call the rebate center, was directed to dial 0 for a customer service rep, and had the phone ring 3 or 4 times before being cut off. I attempted to call back 3 times today with the same result.

Mary, that’s no surprise! It is the way these rebate centers operate, based on my own experience (multiple times) and that of others who’ve written me.

Update 2: Reader Jim N offers these tips:

Local merchants know that you can use up to 3 Visa cards for a single purchase. The trick is to find a clerk who knows the "advanced" technique... This won't work at "big" stores, the clerks don't know how to do it... You still end up with a card with a small balance. I knew the balance left on the cards I had, so I went to Starbucks and asked "Please add $5.76 to my Starbucks card using this Visa card." I thus converted the expiring cards to something that doesn't expire.

Exploring Death Valley updated

More and larger photos in Exploring Death Valley.

Badwater at dawn, interpretation

Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III vs Nikon D3

There is ample detail in the 21.1MP Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III images (EOS 1Ds Mark II.1?), but each and every image seems “strained” compared to the 12.1MP Nikon D3, and color rendition just doesn’t satisfy the same way, even with premium Zeiss ZF glass. The D3 offers higher overall image integrity without the extreme resolution of the 21.1MP 1DsM3. But oddly enough, I hardly ever give a damn about the extra 9 megapixels—my visual reaction favors the D3. I find this striking given my historic quest for more and more resolution—high pixel quality at 12MP is the real deal, though it might mean that 36 X 24" prints still favor Canon’s offering. Perhaps the next generation will deliver high quality at 21 or 24 or 30MP, but that’s likely a few years off. For now, the Nikon D3 is the “poor man’s medium format digital back”.

If you savor quality over quantity (Spitzer?), favor the Nikon D3 over the Canon 1Ds M3 unless you believe the stupidities and warmed-over marketing drivel expressed in the April 2008 Shutterbug in the “review” of the 1DsM3. For that matter, per-pixel image quality of the 10.1-megapixel 1DM3 is definitely better than the 1DsM3 (the 1DM3 being my previous favorite DSLR about which I’ve written a great deal in this blog). Still, there should be no misunderstanding—the images from the 1DsM3 are very good indeed—that’s “good” but not “great”. But each of us reacts differently, and perhaps after spending $8K for the 1DsM3 most users will succumb to cognitive dissonance and be at peace with their expenditure, knowing theirs is the biggest.

Exploring Death Valley

It will take some time to complete (in chunks), but I’ve started my Exploring Death Valley article.

Fresh Jerky
(Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III + Zeiss ZF 25/2.8 Distagon)

Mac OS X Server—save your money

My ongoing efforts to get a new web server up and running have only reinforced my feeling that Mac OS X Server (Leopard) is waste of money—standard Mac OS X is probably a better choice for many users. I’m feeling cranky after wasting hours tracking down yet another Mac OS X server bug. Grrr...

The goal is to have a high performing web server that can offer single-sign-on password-based content, including a subscription service and “live” access to Pro Reviews with automagic integration with Paypal. Among other things, it means I can offer more content that eats bandwidth (eg higher-resolution images, RAW files, etc), and I can offer lower cost and less extensive articles efficiently, something I cannot do today, having to manually respond to every purchase.

This research has been eating up considerable time for the past month or so—perhaps 60 hours, including studying several thousands pages of technical manuals. I’ve ruled out the lame PHP-based commercial solutions, which take a flippant attitude towards security—I simply won’t go any route that has security risks to diglloyd.com or its users. I have settled on a solution and I will have it in place over the next few months. Unfortunately this means reduced photographic content until I’ve over the hump, but you can also amuse yourself reading past content or any of my Pro Reviews.

Digital infrared

I share below my response to an emailed question from a reader of the diglloyd Guide to Digital Infrared Photography. I’m proud of my work in and of itself, but reader comments are always excellent feedback, and frequently yield the satisfaction of knowing I’ve helped others—thanks to everyone who’s written me.

Reduced-size version of the image from the Guide

Reader John T asks:

Hi Lloyd,
I have read through the "diglloyd Guide to Digital Infrared Photography " and found it to reinforce a lot of what I have learned over the years with My Sony F717 in Night shot mode.
Can I ask a question regarding the attached photo from the book.
  I assume that you have set the custom white balance in the IR camera for the conditions on the day and you compensated for the IR exposure as well as using a middle of the road aperture (5.6 of 8.0).
The question is - Is the false colour in the attached image a result of the camera exposure or has some colour been applied. IE; is the image straight out of the camera and if so how is it that some other image do not show this false colour - straight out of the camera.
I intend making further investigation on this subject and wait for your reply.
The book is in my opinion the best that I have read for Digital Infrared Photography and does not include unnecessary text regarding film based IR as so do so many other. I certainly appreciate the advice about a dedicated IR camera (Conversion) after trying many other so called solutions.
Thanks again—John T

(Emphasis in bold above is editorial).

The “book” or “Guide” being discussed (click)

DIGLLOYD (slightly clarified from the email response):

Thanks for writing. No color has been “applied”, nor have the hues been altered from the original. See attached image in Nikon Capture NX; all “as shot”. 20mm @ f/11.

The white balance I use for the D70 and EOS 5D is fixed in the camera for all around good results; I haven't changed it for years. Sometimes I do “click around” in the RAW-file processor to alter the balance, but this particular image is more or less as shot, with contrast and saturation enhancement as is typically needed with any RAW image, but no alteration to the color relationships the camera produced. I originally processed it in Nikon Capture (pre-NX), but Capture no longer functions properly on Mac OS X for me so I cannot reproduce the exact processing, an irritating situation that should concern anyone shooting RAW.

My D70 internal filter is allegedly 815nm, but I suspect that it “leaks” quite a bit below that, because the false color effects are about as nice as I’ve seen from any camera, including 715nm ones. I'd really like a Nikon D3 that performs on a per-pixel basis like the D70, but it's very expensive, and its CMOS sensor might offer very different IR response--no way to tell without sacrificing a D3 to the cause of science.

A D70 is still one of the very best IR cameras out there—CCD with big pixels. Probably other models are as good, and the D70 controls are dated, but that rarely impedes me. (Lack of mirror lockup isn't helpful though).

Death Valley

This trip I focused on “show and tell”—to show the place as it really is, from a variety of locations, rather than the tried and untrue clichés that leave one wondering what the place is really like. So I made some images in what little good light was available, but many more in “bad light” as I wanted to show the character of the place as it is really is during nearly all of the day—more of those images to follow.

Death Valley is a demanding place to work in; amenities are hours away over bone-jarring “washboard” roads. To efficiently make one’s way around the park requires camping (no showers for a week), food, water and a backup plan in case of vehicle problems. Dust is a steady problem (Nikon really screwed up on the D3 with no dust-off feature). Yet the solitude and quiet are unmatched, and it’s one of life’s simple pleasures to never need to “hold it” after one drinks too much water.

Padre Crowley Point near Stovepipe Wells, Death Valley National Park
(Canon EOS 5D-IR + Nikon 28-70/2.8)

Badwater, from the less-traveled West Side Road
(Nikon D3 + Zeiss ZF 25/2.8 Distagon)

Early morning, looking south from west of Badwater
(Nikon D3 + Zeiss ZF 50/2 Makro-Planar)

Off-road exploration has its penalties (new car paint)
(Nikon D3 + 14-24/2.8)

Eureka Dunes
(Nikon D3 + 14-24/2.8)

Mining structure
(Canon EOS 5D-IR + Coastal Optics 60/4 APO macro)

Eureka Dunes (distant)
(Canon EOS 5D-IR + Leica 180/2.8 APO Elmarit R)

Back from Death Valley

I’m back from a wonderful trip to Death Valley—Cottonwood Canyon, Hanaupah Canyon and West Side Road, The Racetrack, Eureka Dunes, some mining sites and more. More on the trip over the next few weeks. Some “teaser” shots shown below.

Padre Crowley Point near Stovepipe Wells, Death Valley National Park
(Canon EOS 5D-IR + Nikon 28-70/2.8)