# Infrared



## Mully (Mar 11, 2013)

Here are a few leafless infrared images from the weekend...... thoughts?


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Mar 11, 2013)

looks pretty dope although the tree at the front on #1, the positioning is a little odd on the frame.


----------



## terri (Mar 11, 2013)

I'm not a big fan of color infrared; even when it was film based.   Just personal preference.     I like my IR traditionally: B&W and shot through a dense enough red filter to make the sky black, highlights glow, and skin luminescent.    But I applaud you for the effort.   I like the second image; though it doesn't speak IR to me, it's still an image with lively color.    :thumbup:


----------



## weepete (Mar 11, 2013)

Very striking. I particularly like the feathery appearence of the trees in 1, and I like how 2 doesn't look like an infra red pic at first.


----------



## dxqcanada (Mar 11, 2013)

Hmm, the exif data shows that this is not film ... unless a digital camera was used to copy an IR film image.


----------



## Gavjenks (May 14, 2013)

dxqcanada said:


> Hmm, the exif data shows that this is not film ... unless a digital camera was used to copy an IR film image.



The OP never mentioned it being a film camera...  You can take IR photos with a digital camera you know?


----------



## Josh66 (May 14, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> dxqcanada said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm, the exif data shows that this is not film ... unless a digital camera was used to copy an IR film image.
> ...



Yes, but this sub-forum is in the "Film Photography" section.  The OP may have overlooked that and simply thought that it was any alternative techniques, and not necessarily film alternative techniques.

(And if that is the case, is IR considered an 'alternative technique'?)


----------



## terri (May 15, 2013)

> (And if that is the case, is IR considered an 'alternative technique'?)



I included "film IR" in the forum's description, but any type of IR is welcome, as long as it's not digitally processed as a "look".       

Historically, alt processes mean something film-based, but the capture matters less these days, if you're willing to print your stuff from home and can do your work on inkjet papers.  I know a girl who does amazing gum prints on inkjet watercolor; she shoots a lot with her phone!       I've done some work myself from inkjet, though bromoil prints and lith prints especially are all silver gelatin.     I prefer to work from darkroom enlargements.


----------



## dxqcanada (May 15, 2013)

Hmm, not sure if I like digitally captured images in the Film Forum.
I think this forum is about the medium that captured the image, which is silver halide based material.

The Digital Forum can have its own sub-forum for Alternative Techniques.


----------



## Josh66 (May 15, 2013)

Seeing as how this is in the film photography section, I agree with dxqcanada - it should be film.

I don't have a problem with digital IR, or digital anything, but it seems that the 'film photography' section is not the best place for it.  Otherwise, what is the point of having it under the "film photography" header?

I'll give the OP the benefit of doubt that he didn't notice that this sub-forum was in the film section (though, when you're starting a new thread, it's kind of hard to miss that fact).


----------

