# Converting to infrared



## Boz Mon (Nov 16, 2011)

I recently bought a Nikon D300s to replace my D40.  I now have a D40 body sitting around collecting dust.  I was considering getting it converted to shoot infrared.  I realize that once its converted, its converted permanently.  So should I do it?  Can I do it myself?  If not, how much does it generally cost to get converted?  Whats everyones opinion on doing this?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Nov 16, 2011)

LifePixel Digital Camera Infrared IR Conversion Services. DIY IR Tutorials | LifePixel Digital Infrared Photography IR Conversion, Modification & Scratched Sensor Repair


----------



## ann (Nov 16, 2011)

you might also check out MAXMAX. I bought a camera from them and along with the IR filter I can also switch out to a "normal" one for regular shots.

Some do it themselves, but I was "chicken" and figured it was better to get it done than mess up on my own.


----------



## Boz Mon (Nov 16, 2011)

I came across a forum post from another forum that was about LifePixel converting D40's.  Something about not being able to properly white balance.  It may not be worth it for me to get my D40 converted.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Nov 16, 2011)

Yeah, but I have to wonder if you believe everything you read on the Internetz or if that is a legit business that backs up their work.


----------



## Boz Mon (Nov 17, 2011)

Heres what their website says about this iessue:



> Since IR light looks red to digital camera sensors unless a custom (preset) white balance is set all IR images would look very red. Unfortunately some camera models are incapable of setting a proper in camera WB in infrared because they were never meant to see IR light as they were designed for visible photography.There are a number of reasons why capturing red images is bad. First, its very difficult to judge exposure and focus when images are so red. Second, capturing red JPEG images makes it impossible to get the blue sky effect in Photoshop. Of course shooting RAW takes care of this as one can change the WB after the fact in RAW conversion software.​
> Fortunately many cameras still do set a custom WB just fine and even the ones that dont are totally usable and we get them in for conversion on a daily basis. Currently the following cameras have issues with setting proper WB:Nikon D40, D60, D90, D300, D300s, D3000, D5000, D7000
> Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro
> Olympus EVOLT E-520​Although these models are listed as WB problematic they can still occasionally accept a WB reading, it is really a matter of persistence, lighting, WB target and each camera. Some report being able to set WB just fine but since this issue affects at least some cameras we wanted to let you know of this potential issue beforehand.



So after reading that, I'm on the fence about this one.


----------



## Garbz (Nov 17, 2011)

It's white balance, who cares. Shoot RAW or convert your images to black and white. 

Also as for the DIY route, how handy are you with small things? And are you capable of soldering? These are just things to think of in advance, there may not be any soldering involved but some cameras do have grounding wires holding things together that need to be de-soldered to disassemble. 

You'll almost certainly need a  #00 philips head screwdriver, and you definitely need some fine fingers and a bit of finesse at undoing the little clips and disconnecting the cabling that connects various boards together, but other than that nothing inside the camera should come as a surprise to anyone who's opened up small electronics before.

The filter itself shouldn't be simply removed but instead replaced with a blank glass, or my last approach was to grind the IR coating off using a fine car polish. My build instructions for a point and shoot are here: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/beyond-basics/225746-how-ir-modify-old-camera.html A D40 would be similar in technical difficulty, but there would likely be more cables etc to disconnect. One other thing to take into account is if you're not comfortable with unlikely but potentially lethal voltages then don't do this yourself. The camera contains a nasty capacitor used to store energy for the flash and they are typically around the 300V mark. You short them accidentally you make a big bang, you touch them and they hurt like hell, you touch them with fingers on opposing hands and it can be a heart stopping experience, and not the good kind.


----------



## ann (Nov 17, 2011)

:thumbup: on the white balance issue.

Also, are you wanting to do black and white or false color? WB becomes a mute point with b/w and perhaps with false color as well. IR creates much different options for creativity.


----------



## Boz Mon (Nov 18, 2011)

I was thinking that I wanted to do color, but if black and white is easier than maybe I can just do that.  I'm still on the fence about getting it converted or not.


----------



## Garbz (Nov 19, 2011)

I still don't see why it's an issue. Shooting RAW turns any camera's ability to accurately whitebalance moot.


----------



## ann (Nov 19, 2011)

if you want to do black and white, just get a filter i.e.720 to fit the d40. Your times will be long and you will need a tripod. Once you have place the filter in place you won't be able to see what your shooting, so all those decisions need to be made before hand. 

Use manual focus, as you don't want the camera hunting for a focus point with that filter in place. Use your historgram to check on the expose.


----------



## usayit (Nov 19, 2011)

* There's no such thing as color infrared... its more like "false" color.   Color (as we see it) is not within the spectrum.

* White balance is not an issue.  What we see as "red" in the initial capture is because the high pass infrared filter begins at the red end of the spectrum into the near infrared.  

* What is important is the "infrared" information that we cannot see but an image sensor does see.  Certain cameras are more sensitive to infrared than others.  You can increase a camera's sensitivity to infrared by removing the IR cut filter on sensor which people to refer to as "conversion".  IMO, not completely accurate as the sensor itself is still designed for and optimized for visible light.  Due to this, you will still see a certain "grain" to the final image.  To my understanding this is due of the heavy use of red photo-sites with little to no information gathered by the green and blue.

* The KEY reason to increase the sensitivity of a camera to infrared is to obtain more reasonable (possibly hand holdable) exposures.  In general, you will need a tripod and remote shutter.

* There is a focus shift between visible and infrared.   You will need to rely on DOF and manual focus.  Because infrared filter blocks most of the visible light spectrum, you will have a difficult time focusing TTL while filter is attached.

* In the digital world, Infrared photos rely heavily on Post process (photoshop etc...) to "manipulate" color and white balance.  There's no way around it.

* There are two types of conversions; Clear optical glass and IR high pass filter.  Clear allows the camera for dual use; use a IR cut filter for normal photography and IR high pass for infrared.  The disadvantage is that the infrared filter makes for difficult focusing.   IR high pass filter conversion allows for easy TTL focusing and composition BUT the camera will be permanently IR only... you won't be able to shoot normal visible light because of the IR high pass filter right on the sensor.

I recommend trying it out first using appropriate filter and long exposures.   I found it fun to do.   Unlike traditional photography that avoids the harsh high noon light, IR photography seems to excel at this times.  If you find yourself really liking the experience, then decide if the cost of conversion is necessary.   

I am enjoying my time shooting IR... have not (and probably not) pursue a camera conversion.    One of my first attempts shot handheld in bright sun:







I am still learning/experimenting with post process of these images.....  there's a lot of information available on various websites.   My experience is each camera is slightly different.


----------



## Garbz (Nov 19, 2011)

ann said:


> if you want to do black and white, just get a filter i.e.720 to fit the d40. Your times will be long and you will need a tripod.
> ...
> Use manual focus, as you don't want the camera hunting for a focus point with that filter in place. Use your historgram to check on the expose.



Both of those points aren't quite as you believe them to be. Filters aren't perfect in the real world. Heck even simulations they often aren't perfect. With infrared we're trying to capture something that the camera has been designed not to capture. So when we put a filter on the front to block visible light there's little visible light getting through, and little of our point of interest as well. Increasing the exposure time really only increases the brightness of the image. Modifying the camera however has an incredibly drastic affect on the overall tone of the picture. In short you can very easily see the difference between an IR pic on a camera that has been converted and one which hasn't. 

As for the focus, cameras focus well into the infrared range. The autofocus is actually the only thing that really works well when you put a filter on the front of your lens, and it actually works better than manual focus because most moden lenses don't have an IR compensation gauge on them. If you manually focus and then put the IR filter on your focal point changes because the IR wavelength bends at a different angle through glass than the visible wavelengths.


----------



## ann (Nov 19, 2011)

Interesting as i have used various IR filters with my d100 with no issues, except long exposure times.

Never have compare the same image done with my converted camera vs my d100. Perhaps one day I will give it a run.


----------



## Boz Mon (Nov 19, 2011)

I know that shooting infrared is something that I would enjoy doing.  Several years ago, I had some Kodak HIE film that I shot with my Pentax ME-Super and it was quite a fun time.  I would like to have a camera that I could turn on and basically shoot infrared images without the major cost of film processing.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 19, 2011)

Garbz said:


> I still don't see why it's an issue. Shooting RAW turns any camera's ability to accurately whitebalance moot.



If only we really knew what was going on behind the curtain, we'd be mortified.


----------

