Create your own IR filter
A digital camera sees more infrared than we do, and all you need to do to capture it, is to block out all the visible (non-infrared) light. You can buy filters that do this, but they can be ridiculously expensive - and buying stuff removes all the fun of creating stuff, n’est-ce pas?
The trick? In order to be able to withstand the heat on projectors, slide film will be created so it lets through infrared light, even past the portions of the slide that are completely black. In other words: Unexposed, developed slide film can be used as an IR filter!
Top tip: If your camera lens is bigger than 35mm film, why not just buy a roll of 120 slide film? It’s bigger :-)
More information about the hows, the whys, and the wherefores can be found on Wim Wiskerke’s website.
Where can you get developed, unexposed film?
1) Go into a camera store, buy a roll of slide film. (120 film is great, because it has larger surface area and no sprocket holes). If you can get film that is out of date, it’s cheaper. They may even give you a roll or two for free.
2) Hand the newly aquired roll of film back to the salesperson behind the counter, and tell them to get it developed. If they look at you in a confused way, explain why. Tell them to add a note on the film that yes, you know it is unexposed, and yes, you want it developing anyway.
3) Go back to the store 48 hours later, pick up your now-developed, still-underexposed slide film, which now is ready to be used as IR filter. The whole thing should cost you a fraction of the price of an IR filter!
Do you like this article? Tell the world using one of these:
[
Digg
|
Facebook
| 
del.icio.us
| 
Stumble Upon ]
reddit_url='http://photocritic.org/create-your-own-ir-filter/'
Categories: ? | Do It Yourself | Lens mods
Tags:
This entry is © Haje Jan Kamps / Photocritic.org, and was posted on Thursday, April 6th, 2006. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
here
#1 - April 6th, 2006 at 01:59
NO WAY!.
/IS GUTTED
i’ve spent about £30 on IR filters :S thats really going to bug me
#2 - April 6th, 2006 at 02:08
I turned one of those cheep $30 Logitec web cams in to an inferred cam last year some time. It works really well (and confuses the heck out of lots of people)
#3 - April 6th, 2006 at 07:16
“Exposed slide film can be used as an IR filter”
Erm… if it’s exposed does it not become no longer black? So you’d want “developed unexposed” slide film.
Good call, though! I’ve never got into IR photography… now’s my chance!
#4 - April 6th, 2006 at 07:49
Stu: err, yeah, daft typo. Fixed - thanks for the heads-up!
#5 - April 6th, 2006 at 14:38
I am going to go read the article but I remeber seeing someting on maybe say boingboing a year about about IR photography on Digital camearas but the story said that most of them today have IR blocking filters and circuits because it messes with the picture.
If this is true will these have to be removed before this will work or enchance the outcome?
#6 - April 6th, 2006 at 14:46
Bah looked at the page for 3 seconds and answered my own question :P
Anyway as I happend to have my camera at work and a remote nearby the
Konica Minolta Z2 (mine was a model made in Japan) seems to pickup IR excellently.
Now… if only I can get ahold of some developed unxposed film.
#7 - April 9th, 2006 at 10:10
Good !!! Good!!
If you want use Cokin or Lee Filter or other gelatine filter holder, you can use a sheet of 4×5 slide film (grosse format camera) cutting it .
Now, I ask you:
Is it possible to use this IR filter (from a slide film) directly on sensor of SRL camera having removed the its IR filter?
So I could take the pictures without get in and get out the IR filter in front of lens.
Thank you!
#8 - September 6th, 2006 at 18:38
i dont know if i misunderstood something, but if you take a film and develope it unexposed you get black photo, but slide is negative so it’s white. i think you need overexposed film= white photo, black slide :)
(sorry for my english)
#9 - September 27th, 2006 at 05:26
When slid film is developed, it is not a negative of the image.
Unexposed film = black
Overexposed film = clear
#10 - September 27th, 2006 at 05:27
When slide film is developed, it is not a negative of the image.
Unexposed film = black
Overexposed film = clear
#11 - December 10th, 2006 at 21:08
This is all very interesting but I’m looking for a way to block IR. I accidently broke the IR blocker on my camcorder now everything looks like hell. With the help of a little IR led I have a nifty night vision camera but I’m not too excited abou that.
#12 - February 19th, 2007 at 07:50
Would such a filter block UV rays as well as visible? If so, pain sufferers could sunbathe with an IR filter shade (for cheap infrared therapy).
#13 - May 9th, 2007 at 23:51
If I place this film over the lens of a flashlight will it act as an IR transmitter to enhance a night vision device?
#14 - May 14th, 2007 at 13:32
dude… i tried this today and the guy in the shop thought i was a retard…
he wouldnt sell or develop the film for me until i explain what i need it for, but he was so retarded he couldnt understand.
anyways, i was so pssd off (~.~)”
could have shot him…
#15 - May 30th, 2007 at 13:00
I have sony DSCW30 camera 6MP. Now To make IR filter,when i have unexposed developed film or negatives. How i use them on my camera. I mean how i attach and where. how big piece i cut.
Thanks
#16 - July 12th, 2007 at 20:01
this works and is awesome, though i think it may have alot to do with what brand of sensor your camera uses. for the film, i got a roll of 120 velvia slide film for 50% off ($2.50), and they didn’t charge for processing since there wasn’t anything on the film!
I found I had to double the layering of the film for my camera. I have a k10d, used an old 50mm f1.7 fully manual pentax smc-m lens, camera in bulb mode shooting at iso 800 for 8-12 seconds on a tripod depending on the lighting. I just did it at lunch, so the images in camera are pink-red depending on exposure time (i shot in raw, but will try custom white balance next time i use it - lunch time is only so long!). anyways, i had been disapointed last night with a single layer of film over the lens - it was still transmitting the normal color spectrum, but with the added layer it works well, if not for the long exposure.
#17 - August 10th, 2007 at 19:33
I was told using the surface of a floppy disk also worked.
I tried it and the images were REALLY feint and very red.
Does this occur with your film idea?
#18 - September 23rd, 2007 at 02:11
a question on slide film…
what if I have it processed under c-41…
I don’t know any lab here that can process e-6
#19 - September 23rd, 2007 at 08:22
Steef -don’t be silly, all labs will offer to process E-6, even if they have to send it to an external lab! If they don’t do it - or if they say they can’t, then start using a different lab, you don’t want to trust your precious photos to an amateur outfit like that!
#20 - October 13th, 2007 at 01:46
I just finished mine here is my story.
I was up late lastnight and surfing the web when I stumbled on an Infrared video of the veins in some guys arm. I wanted to build my own.
I found a nother place that talked about the exposed negitive idea. So I looked all over the house and found an one inch length of film.
I grabed my sony digital video camera (tested it with a remote to see if it picked up IR) and taped the negative over the lens.
I worked.
I needed more exposted negative. I went to walgreens bought a roll of film opened the box and pulled the film out of the tube. Then asked the girl working to develop it for me. this was met with expected puzzlement, I told her what I was doing, that it was ok i only need the film.
I got home taped two pieces of the film to the back of my Nikon D50 lens. And went out side to test.
It worked so I tried 3 and 4 layers of film. 3 is darker and a little more crisp but 4 is really not worth it. 2 is a good number.
But it works so for about $5.00 I have my own IR filter.
#21 - November 25th, 2007 at 15:24
i have some developed films with first portion of the film in black is it possible that i can use that as filter
#22 - January 29th, 2008 at 13:56
yes you should be able to use that portion
#23 - February 11th, 2008 at 00:38
I read a lot of these comments here, and I don’t think there is one serious photographer here. This idea does work, it’s a given, but why would you do it? Have you ever wondered why professional lenses are thousands of dollars? There are many reasons why, one of them is that it will give you quality/sharp more detailed image.
Adding film over, or even worse - taping it on the back of your lens, will only take away from the quality of your current lens, or it will slightly distort your image. “You” might not notice, but take it to a professional photographer and tell him/her what you’ve done.
IR filters can be expensive because those expensive ones will try to match and blend with the quality of your top of the line lens. That is why, there will be less or no distortion at all, and it will not take away from everything that your “top of the line” lens has to offer - if you use a real filter that was designed for you lens. (There are different lens/filter sizes.)
Adding this nonsense to your lens is like wearing the wrong glasses. You get your eyes checked once in a while, and if you need glasses, as you get older, your prescription will change, and your glasses will change optically. If you wear the wrong glasses your vision will be slightly distorted. Once you put the right ones on, you will notice the difference and will dispose the old ones. Your lens is your third eye, so wear the right glasses if you need so.
#24 - February 11th, 2008 at 00:57
Lighten up GV. I didnt’ say it was a complete replacement for a decent IR filter - it’s just a starting point to see if you like the results! It’s a lot better than spending a small fortune for a couple of filters that you’ll never use again, because the technique leaves you cold, after all…
Perhaps there isn’t ‘one serious photographer here’, as you say, but as far as I can see, the rest of us haven’t forgotten that it’s meant to be fun…
#25 - February 26th, 2008 at 05:20
I have found film to be pretty decent optically. It does deteriorate and is easily damaged… and who knows what actual wavelengths are being passed. I now use glass IR filters on the camera, but I still use developed unexposed film as IR filters on strobe heads… Makes the flash less obtrusive ;)
I’m a serious photographer (I don’t take myself too seriously though) I’ve put pieces of panty hose behind 20,000 dollar lenses (film) because it gave the right “look”… so there.
#26 - March 26th, 2008 at 19:43
So would an overexposed B&W negative work?
#27 - May 4th, 2008 at 01:32
Although your not saving money (may as well buy a R-72 or RM-90) you could use 5×4 sheet film, and that way it would fit over your flash too.
#28 - June 7th, 2008 at 08:50
I will use it to look at women’s bras and bikini
#29 - June 28th, 2008 at 15:52
Dear all
It is very interesting for me. This afternoon I’ve just got developed film for IR filter. But maybe i misunderstood, I went to camera shop, bought 1 roll of film, after that i requested them develope that film. But when got bach developed film, it looked like clear & red color. I try to take picture with that developed film cover and picture look like red filter (my camera is Canon 350D). I think I had mistake, before develope film, maybe i need to roll out film. This is correct or not, please instruct me.
Thank you and hearing from you soon
#30 - August 16th, 2008 at 17:38
Is there a special developing process that follows the exposure?
#31 - September 17th, 2008 at 16:06
Check the link above ( http://www.xs4all.nl/~oko/PICT0058.JPG ) for a picture taken with a cheap (EUR 45) digital camcoder with IR blocking filter removed and slide film filter installed in front of the lens. All operations took me half a day (for the first time) now I know how to do it it can be done in ~15 minutes. Film is not suitable for high resolution photography but does OK for snapshot phoography and (!!) IR video.
#32 - September 19th, 2008 at 00:47
I have some posts on my blog about this IR with film technique.
Yes, the pictures turn out like crap doing it this way but, as one said here, its meant to be fun. Everyone can buy a IR filter, but only a few do it that way and have a true experience on doing something different from the crowd.
http://www.w3photos.com.br/?p=140
http://www.w3photos.com.br/?p=144
see my blog at http://www.w3photos.com.br
#33 - November 25th, 2008 at 10:38
I’ve been looking for a cheap IR filter and this looks great. Unlike GV I’m not concerned about image quality as I am hoping to use it over the built-in flash of a p&s digital camera to fire a SB26 off camera (it has a built-in optical slave). Anyone know if it would work?
#34 - November 25th, 2008 at 10:41
Sorry, just to explain a little more. I want to place this cheap IR filter over the flash of the p&s. Take a photo with forced flash, have no visible light from the built-in reach the subject but enough IR light reach the SB26 to trigger it. Hopefully leading to a pleasing photo :)