Its done all the time on accident. Does a mess to skin. Im sure its been done on purpose a fair amount as well.
On Mar 16, 2014 9:58 PM, "Klaus Knuth" <klausknuth@xxxxxxx> wrote:
How about turning this phenomenon into something creative? Done before?On Mar 16, 2014, at 9:54 PM, Randy Little <randyslittle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Any ND will have issues. You will just have polarized IR. Unless its an IR CUT polarizer.On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 9:51 PM, Klaus Knuth <klausknuth@xxxxxxx> wrote:Thanks! How about a polarizer? That one is good for killing some 2 stops or so if nothing else. Any problems there?On Mar 16, 2014, at 9:39 PM, Randy Little <randyslittle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
depends on the amount of ND on the camera. Once you go past .6 ND you can start to get IR haze and most things by .9ND will show IR issues in the digital world. The funny reds are from the Ir contamination."...Unlike many photographic films, the CCD or CMOS of a digital camera is inherently susceptible to infrared contamination, even when the manufacturer attempts to reduce this problem by adding an infrared absorbing filter on top of the image sensor. Because these filters do not have a sharp cutoff at the infrared wavelengths there has to be a compromise in order not to exclude visible red wavelengths. This results is some infrared wavelengths being allowed to pass.While minor infrared contamination does not normally cause much of a problem for visible images, when using conventional neutral density filters especially denser grades, this issue is multiplied by the filter factor."
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 9:30 PM, <klausknuthmail@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Curious:I did some test shots with an ND filter (still photos on a tripod - and I believe they are a common ingredient to digital video, even built into some lenses for video) - so, where are the IR haze and funny reds coming from?KlausOn Mar 16, 2014, at 9:24 PM, Randy Little <randyslittle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You also have to remember that ND on a digital camera will introduce a fair amount of IR haze and everything get a not very nice red.
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 9:05 PM, <klausknuthmail@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Not sure if you can improve on this with an ND filter on a handheld shot, because it might get too blurry. But if you do, please share the results!
I like it the way it is,
Klaus
On Mar 16, 2014, at 6:40 PM, Emily L. Ferguson <elf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> At 6:16 PM -0400 3/16/14, YGelmanPhoto wrote:
>> Emily Ferguson - Slow panning a sunset near me the other night.
>>
>> Interesting image, but I'd like to know in what sense it was "panning". Did the camera move? If so, over what angle? How long was the exposure? Or were only the clouds moving? Stuff like that.
>
> f29, 1/3rd second exposure, ISO100, underexposed 1/3 stop, 170mm, hand held, manual mode
>
> Yes, I pan the camera across the scene. I'd prefer more time, but I'm thankful for what I can get.
>
> I start by focussing, and then take a breath and release the shutter, attempting to begin panning at the moment I hear the mirror click up. In this case I panned from L to R, unintentionally raising the camera a little as I went.
>
> Until I get some sort of neutral density filter I can only do this when light is very low.
> --
> Emily L. Ferguson
> mailto:elf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 508-563-6822
> New England landscapes, wooden boats and races
> http://www.landsedgephoto.com
> HOT OFF THE PRESS! SAILING SEPIA IMAGES VOL II:
> http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/elfpix
> Check out my Spring daily photograph project at:
> http://tinyurl.com/3a6m7g6
> And Summer:
> http://tinyurl.com/22juo5s
> Autumn now complete here:
> http://tinyurl.com/26pdgz9
> Winter concluded here:
> http://tinyurl.com/2co5wkg
>
