Alberto, I would not worry about a slight difference when doing IR photography as opposed to light photography. The focal length of the lens is typically a bit longer but I suspect inconsequentially as far as DOF is concerned. Other opinions?? Do use the IR focusing mark if your lens has one. Most these days do not. This may only be an issue if you use large apertures with subjects at close range. I've used a couple of "regular" DSLRs (such as an original Canon Rebel) but they all have IR blocking filters in them and so their sensitivity is quite low to IR. Tripods are a must. There are some among us who have had their cameras modified and had the IR filter removed or replaced by something like what you just acquired. Those cameras have much better response. Note that some fabrics are somewhat transparent or translucent to IR. In case this matters to you. Andy On May 29, 2012, at 10:45 PM, Alberto Tirado wrote: > Hello, everybody. > > I just bought a Tiffen R87 filter and made a couple of test shots. My rudimentary measures say there is a 16 (yep, sixteen) step compensation, which is substantially more than I had read and expected. I still have to test it more under different conditions, but If I want interior or studio shots, or even live subjects, then I'll be in trouble with such density. I may become the most famous IR rocks photographer! ;) > > > Anyway, the main thing I would like to ask the forum is this: is Depth Of Field the same in IR than it is in visible light? > > > Incidentally, I now remember the lenses of yore had a red mark that placed infinity a bit farther than visible. I guess I''ll have to practice a lot this weekend! ;) > > BTW, I use a Canon Digital Rebel. I have an XT and bought a T3i (but still in the box). > > Any comments and advice to this curious IR neophyte are welcome. > **************** > > Alberto Tirado >
