Luca Cesari

I was born in Italy in 1984 and have started seriously with photography in 2008.
My favorite subjects are dreamy landscapes; I really can’t get enough of all those splendid moments spent creating something beautiful, which can make my thoughts travel back to the place and arise deep passionate feelings.
My first approach on processing involved a lot of HDR’s and multiple exposure blending; at the moment I’m more and more into ‘getting it all right on site’ and, while still believing that an effective manipulation in the digital darkroom is essential to get the pre-visualized images (especially when dealing with Black and White images), I now try to capture the best negative in just one RAW file. Graduated Neutral Density filters help me on that.
My works can be viewed at www.lucacesari.com or at my Flickr page (which receives more frequent updates) www.flickr.com/photos/luca_eos .

An overview on Infrared Photography

Photography is all about light. That is pretty obvious (or at least should be).
The question is: what kind of light?
Many, if not all, landscape shooters will point out that the best conditions for monumental views are those around sunrise and sunset, and I definitely agree on that.
But we are now talking of just VISIBLE LIGHT.
Some of the most compelling Infrared images ever taken happened during bright summer middle hours of the day.

Back to photography in a second, first a much needed technical intermezzo
The visible spectrum (remember those physics classes during high school?) is just a tiny range of frequences in the Electromagnetic Spectrum, and is associated to wavelengths from 380nm to 780nm.
Right next to the Visible Spectrum are UVs and Infrareds.

Now, since both UV and IR are outside what our eyes can see, how can they possibly relate with photography?
Our camera sensors (both CCD and CMOS) have broader wavelength sensitivity than our eyes; they usually come with cutoff filters which prevent most of the UV and Infrared from getting into our photos.
In the film world, there are emulsions sensitive to infrared light only.
I will discuss mainly of Digital Infrared photography, since being 26 I don’t have experience with film at all.
Many things have changed in a century (the first infrared pictures appeared back in 1910).
The advent of digital cameras brought some fresh air in every field of photography, providing the basis for a more cost-effective IR shooting and the convenience of the instant review. We don’t need a totally dark room to develop highly expensive (12€+/roll) films anymore.
What hasn’t changed is the strong impact infrared images have: strong deep black skies, white puffy clouds, foliage and grass so white which looks like they’re covered from snow.

Let’s get back to cameras
We were talking about Infrared sensitivity of modern sensors: it varies at a significant degree from camera to camera; moreover, the cutoff filter strength varies from model to model, so here are just a few general guidelines to help you get started with IR photography.
First question: how can we obtain an Infrared Photography?
1) Putting a dedicated filter in front of our camera lens;
2) Permanently replacing the IRcut filter in front of the sensor.

1. Putting a dedicated filter in front of our camera lens

Dedicated filters, such as the Hoya R72 and the B+W 092, cut much of the light with shorter wavelengths (720nm for the former, 650nm the latter) providing an ideal source of Infrared light.
Since they look almost black, it’s necessary to focus before screwing them on the lens (like we do with very dark filters, like the B+W ND110).
To be precise, actual focus on infrared can be a bit tricky: in fact, there’s a slight focal plane shift when dealing with infrared light, so accurate ‘normal’ focus can result in a slightly soft infrared image. To get over this problem, older lenses featured an infrared scale distance, while newer ones usually don’t. It’s always better to review the shot to check the actual sharpness.
What about our trusty exposimeter? Just forget it. Some experience will grant a background of ISO, f/stop and shutter speed combinations to achieve a good exposure.
Since in this first approach the IRcut is still there, exposure times are generally longer than those needed in traditional photography.
To give you an example, with an Hoya R72 my Canon 400d requires (in the central hours of the day) an average of 14 stops of additional exposure (compared to ‘normal’ shooting), while the stronger IRcut on my 5d Mark II about 16! These two additional stops mean shutter times are, generally speaking, minutes.
One of the consequences of these two more stops is that the Long Exposure Noise Reduction on camera is often required. This strongly reduces the artifacts arising from the heat generated in the sensor. (It’s a process similar to the black frame subtraction used in many astrophotography applications). It also makes your exposure twice long (one for the actual capture and the second for the noise mapping, shutter closed).
It is evident that handheld exposures are unlikely to be possible, and so are portraits (unless you want to put someone with a back and head support like they did in the XIX century).

2. Permanently replacing the IRcut filter in front of the sensor

The latter approach, the replacement of the IRcut filter, makes shorter exposures a reality, opening a realm of creative possibilities in portraits and other kind of photography which require short exposure times.
Let’s talk about the costs: a Hoya R72 (in 77mm diameter) comes at about 150€, while the IRcut replacement goes from about 200€ up to 500€ (depending on where you do it). I strongly suggest you do some refined researches in your local area to find the best deal.
If you have good skills and some bravery you can get the replacement filter (which is at less than 100€) and try replacing it yourself (you can find several guides on the internet, just Google it).
Obviously, replacing the IRcut is permanent, and that means the camera will be for IR captures only.

To me, having the opportunity of getting a long exposure while shooting infrared is a plus so I haven’t thought about a permanent modification yet. Moreover, my main interest being landscape shooting, I don’t usually have to deal with fast moving objects so exposure times are just a matter of patience.
We have briefly covered how to get an infrared negative, what should we do after?
I assume you are already shooting in RAW format. There are so many advantages on why you should use it instead of JPEG and I strongly encourage you to do so if you aren’t already.
The most important are:
1. Much wider dynamic range;
2. Adjustable White Balance; (a key element for Infrared Photography)
3. Best color information (12-14bit instead of 8bit);
4. Best possible noise reduction techniques;
5. Best possible sharpening techniques.

One important note: if your camera can do a custom white balance based on a previously captured shot, you should use it. Take a test IR shot (using Auto White Balance) and then use it as source for WB information.
This will give you a far more accurate histogram while you’re still on site shooting.

So, now that we have our infrared digital negative, what is next?

Assuming you haven’t sampled an infrared to tune it, the first important step is White Balance (Every software can be used, here Adobe Camera Raw 6 is shown):

Now click on a really bright element, such as foliage or grass. (or manually set the color temperature at 2000K and the tint according to your preferences)

Notice the great improvement? The blue channel kicks in giving a less orange look to the scene.
Then you can start your usual processing in Adobe Photoshop or similar; this is what the shot looks like after a quick conversion in black and white using Silver Efex Pro from Nik Software.

Another interesting creative approach is the ‘False color processing’

Let’s start from the white balanced RAW file; open the Channel Mixer to invert the content of the Red and Blue Channel (place 100% Blue in the Red Channel and set Red to 0% and viceversa):

Next step involves a Curve layer to adjust again White Balance:
(as you can see I first set the Black Point, then the Mid-Grey and White ones)

These two quick examples show really simple approaches for Infrared processing.

Since I believe a picture is worth a thousand words, here are some examples on traditional/infrared captures of the same scene. Hope these inspire you to see the world with new eyes.
I also placed a comparison between the B+W ND110 (10 stops ND filter) with the Hoya R72, to provide an insight on their differences.
I indicated the f/stop, shutter time and ISO to give you an idea on what different settings are required to portray the same scene with visible light and infrared (with a standard IRcut filter present).

The path on the lower right looks like a negative on the non-infrared one: this is due to the light color of the terrain which doesn’t thou reflect much infrared.

The grass and leaves reflect a lot more infrared than the soil. Guess which of these image is the winner for me?

Notice how much infrared is reflected by the vegetation on the upper left side. Sea is smoother and sky is more dramatic, too.

These are a few infrared captures from my last week in Paris. (all taken with a Canon 5d Mark II, Hoya R72 filter)

That’s all for this brief introduction on Infrared Digital Photography. Hope you have enjoyed reading!
If you have any question, use the comment box below, I’ll try to give you an answer as soon as I can.
For other information, don’t hesitate to write me at:
luca@lucacesari.com

4 Comments