Infrared Processing in Macphun (Skylum) Luminar 2018

For those photographers not locked into/who don't like the business model/who can't afford the Adobe Lightroom/Photoshop environment, choices for processing images taken with an infrared converted camera have been limited. However, I saw that Macphun's (now Skylum) Luminar 2018 has a Channel Mixer and have been trying it out.

I should also point out that another rival system out there, DXO Photolab also has what they call a channel mixer in its optional extra, FilmPack 5. However, this is for changing the amount of the various channels in a conversion to black-and-white. It cannot be used for faux colour infrared conversion.

The Luminar Channel Mixer 'Filter'

In Luminar, the Channel Mixer works fine and in the same manner to that in Photoshop. For a newcomer to infrared, there is the added advantage that everything can be done to complete the image in this one app. The same cannot be said for Lightroom where a trip to Photoshop (or indeed to Luminar as a plug-in) is required.

A set of presets (which includes a channel mixer stage for faux colours and various black-and-white options) has recently been made available by Laurie Klein Photography for $9.95. I have tried them and they might produce a reasonable starting point for some people but I would find it just as easy to build my own presets using settings for Photoshop devised by Bob Vishneski (see my post of 12 June 2017). The problem with somebody else's presets for infrared is that what you get depends on the filter/sensor combination is in the converted camera.

One slight criticism of Luminar is that when things start getting complicated with lots of filters applied, there is a really noticeable lag from moving a slider to seeing the result appear on screen. That may be a property of my now old Mac but I do not have that problem in Lightroom and/or Photoshop.

For those looking for a different or much cheaper option for faux colour infrared images, Luminar 2018 has a lot to offer.

My current processing workflows for ‘faux’ colour Infrared photography with DSLRs

Readers of this blog will be aware that I have tried all sorts of different software and ways of processing ‘faux’ colour images from infrared-converted cameras. I came across the superb article* by Bob Vishneski here on the photographylife website and found his method to be the best, with a second (which he also describes) as a back up to provide greater flexibility on occasion. Both use Lightroom and Photoshop CC plus Nik Collections Silver EfexPro. Both depend on using RAW images.

At present I have two infrared-converted cameras. The first is a Nikon D7100 with a 720 nm filter; the second is a Nikon D80 with a 590 nm filter. Bob Vishneski makes the point that different camera/infrared filter replacement combinations need different settings. His preset developed for his D7100 with 720 nm filter from Kolarivision works fine with images from my D7100 with 720 nm filter (I do not know who did the conversion). I was able to modify the settings for that preset to use with images from my D80 with 590 nm filter simply by moving the Tint slider.

Because there may be months between sessions of processing infrared photographs I like to keep a note of my current standard methods (‘workflow’ in photography-speak; ‘protocol’ in a laboratory).

Vishneski Preset at Import Method

For those who want to use the Vishneski Preset at Import Method, which uses presets on import into Lightroom I show my protocol and the presets below. I cannot say standard protocol because there are stages in it where the final appearance can be affected and experimentation is possible. I do not describe some of the whys and wherefores, adding ‘structure’ with a luminosity blending mode overlay from Silver Efex Pro, for example because they are covered in the Vishneski article.

Camera Calibration Profile Method

The second method I had used before reading the Vishneski article. The Camera Calibration Profile Method relies on using an Adobe Custom DNG Profile for the camera/filter combination that can be applied in the Camera Calibration section of the Develop module in Lightroom before sending the image to Photoshop for the Channel Mixer stage to be applied. Like Bob Vishneski I found little difference between the two methods for the D7100/720 but that with the D80/590 the Vishneski Preset method (using my own tweaks for that combination) produced better results with ‘cleaner’ colours after the Channel Mixer stage in Photoshop. Using a custom DNG profile does have one advantage: in Lightroom, the white balance can be shifted by the Temperature and Tint sliders or by picking an area on the image to set a white balance (e.g. glass or foliage in sun, grass in shade, tarmac in sun, tarmac in shade etc) with marked effect on the image that emerges after the Channel Mixer stage in Photoshop.

Photoshop Channel Mixer Settings

Bob Vishneski has published two Photoshop Channel Mixer settings (shown below). The second one is here; I will not deal with the rest of that second article here suffice it to say that I have tried both of his and compared them with the traditional simple red-blue channel swap. I use what I have called his Type 1 channel mix for the D80/590 combination using both methods in Lightroom (results are better than the conventional swap and the Type 2 channel mix) and the Type 2 mix for the D7100/720 combination, again for both the Preset at Import Method and for the Camera Calibration Profile Method. I have all these Channel Mixer Settings set up as Actions in Photoshop along with the addition of a (Auto) Curves and Hue/Saturation Adjustment Layers.

Workflows

Here are my Workflows or Protocols for the two methods:

Presets for the Preset at Import Method

Preset for my converted D7100-720 nm IR Filter

Preset for my converted  D80-590 nm Filter

*It is worth reading (and ignoring some of the inane) comments at the end of the article.

Fisheye Lens for Suitable for Infrared Photography: Kelda 6.5 mm f/3.5

From ePhotozine

I have been looking for a fisheye lens for infrared photography. I found it difficult to find out which fisheye lenses, if any, show a ‘hotspot, and I was reluctant to buy a second-hand Nikon or one of the still relatively expensive ones from the second-line manufacturers.

A couple of weeks ago I saw in ePhotozine that Kauser International were offering a Kelda 6.5 mm f/3.5 fisheye for APS-sized DSLR sensors for £129. Now, I am usually very wary of buying a cheap lens. The reviews of most reveal poor optical performance. However, the earlier review in ePhotozine of this lens showed it to be remarkably good at f/8 and f/5.6. I then found that this lens is or has been sold by a number of companies, some in slightly different configurations, starting, it seems with Samyang and described either as 6.5 or 8 mm focal length. Although Samyang appear to make their lenses in Korea, the Kelda is described as made in China. 

I ordered one (with a Nikon mount) on the grounds that if it proved not to be suitable for infrared, then I had lost very little. It arrived from Kauser virtually by return. It looks like the early model Samyang. The fact that it is manual focus with a manual aperture ring is no hardship. I was impressed by the build quality: a solid feel, smooth focusing ring and half-stop clicked aperture ring. The supplied plastic front lens cap has a faux spatter-coated sheet metal look. On this model the petal lens hood seems to be fixed (well, I can find no way to remove it and the plastic flange extends below the front element of the lens) even though the box states that it is removable.

The first test was my usual shot out of the window lens test. The weather has been so foul and so dull that a meaningful test was out of the question. However, at first glance I could see no sign of a dreaded hotspot. Yesterday, however, the weather was fine, and on the way back from the post office I stuck the lens (attached to my 590 nm infrared converted Nikon D80) into the Auld Kirk to check that it really was suitable for infrared. As you can see from the following Lightroom, Photoshop and Viveza-processed shots, there was no sign of a hotspot.

Reviewers of this lens in it various guises have commented, hardly surprisingly, on the flare when shooting against the light. With this lens’s coverage of 180° on the diagonal of the sensor, it is hard to avoid getting the sun (or one’s own shadow) in the frame. Reviewers have also marked the lens down for its lack of a depth-of-field scale. With the enormous depth of field of this lens (whether it is nominally 6.5 or 8 mm focal length), that absence, together with the absence of an infrared focus mark, is completely irrelevant. At f/8, the hyperfocal distance is about 30 cm which means that when focused at that mark, everything is in focus from the end of a six inch rule to infinity.

The Samyang fisheye lens family to which this version clearly belongs is noted for the stereographic projection of the image. The advantages of this projection over others are shown here.

In conclusion, I have a fisheye lens that works for infrared with an optical performance (ePhotozine used Imatest) that hits excellent between f/5.6 and f/11 with minimal chromatic aberration at f/11. I would rate this lens at the price I paid as a bargain. So far, so very good.

Infrared Processing in Lightroom

If you have your RAW image from an infrared converted camera in Lightroom, having to go to Photoshop or Photoshop Elements with Elements+ to swap the red and blue channels is a pain. When I made the move from Aperture to Lightroom 6, I was delighted to find, in a Google search, Jarno Heikkinen’s solution to the problem on his Capture Monkey website. His download provides Camera Calibration Profiles with reversed colour matrices for a number of cameras. To reiterate, it simply extends the profiles available within Lightroom. It does not, of course, work for jpegs.

I also remembered that Jason O'Dell had described an approach similar to, but easier than, changing Hue in Nikon Capture 2 using Viveza 2 (I have Nik Software as a plug-in for Lightroom).

I thought I would compare the basic conversions using these three methods. The starting point was a NEF image from a converted Nikon D80 with a 590 nm filter over the sensor.

As you can see there are differences from the same raw image. All I have done is to apply the conversion and then in Lightroom use Auto Tone. I have not done any further processing.

A Lightroom 6 to Photoshop Elements with Elements+. Red/Blue Channel Swap. Auto Tone in Lightroom

B Lightroom 6. Camera Calibration Profile Red/Blue Swap (Jamo Heikkinen). Auto Tone in Lightroom

C Lightroom 6. Edit in Viveza 2. Near 180 degree shift in Hue. Auto Tone in Lightroom

I then did a simple black-and-white conversion within Lightroom and these are the results:

Which method you prefer depends on the final look you are trying to achieve and how easy it is to get where you want to be. Each provides the starting point for further processing both in colour and black-and-white. For most purposes, particularly black-and-white, and at the moment I think I can manage with the wholly within Lightroom solution of Jarno Heikkinen, although for some faux colour images I rather like the Viveza 2 process. Whether or not I can manage completely without the channel swapping step in Photoshop time will tell as I try images with the different cut-off filters over the sensors of my converted cameras, with different white balance settings, with additional external filters and with different lighting.

How to—and how NOT to—get started in Digital infrared Photography

First rule: do not start with magazine articles such as those that have appeared in Amateur Photographer. Even a reader of the natural home of the head-in-sand luddite wrote to complain how misleading one article had been.

Second rule: Use the information available on the internet. It is far better than anything I have seen in a magazine both on taking and processing infrared images.

Third rule: Do not simply buy an IR filter and try it on an unconverted camera. The sensors of many cameras have virtually no sensitivity to the infrared end of the spectrum.

Fourth rule: To get started buy an infra-red converted Nikon D80 or D70 for £120-200 from the many available on eBay UK. You will pay much much less than the price of a conversion. This route has been completely ignored by the magazines. Could it to protect their advertisers? Also check which Nikon lenses are suitable for infrared since some show ‘hotspots’ on the image. Canon bodies—if you are that persuasion—are also available but less commonly than the old Nikons. Again check on websites which lenses are not suitable. The advantage of the old DSLRs over many converted compact cameras (also freely available on eBay) is that they offer RAW rather than just JPEG output, thereby offering greater opportunities for processing.

Fifth rule: If you do not want to pay for the full version of Photoshop to do channel swapping, use Photoshop Elements and buy Elements+ for US$12 which unlocks that capability.

These are some of the websites I found to be particularly useful in getting me started:

Lifepixel  and Kolarivision (good advice and guidance on their own conversions, filters and processing). Also this tutorial guide.

There are many other websites but some which were useful in the past are now out-of-date.

Infrared photography with a point-and-shoot Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH27

On trying digital infrared photography for the first time I bought on eBay a simple IR-converted point-and-shoot camera, a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH27. In some ways it was an easy and fairly cheap means of seeing what was possible. For example, custom white balance is very easy to set. I found a lens hotspot at the wide end (5 mm) of the zoom but that disappeared at longer focal lengths). The biggest problem is noise. Within the sky or clouds, there is very marked noise even at the lowest ISO settings. In fact, the noise is so bad that attempts to change the hue of a particular colour chosen by the eye-dropper tool often failed and all efforts to apply colour control points in Nik software failed miserably. Moreover, the colour rendition of foliage was not what I had expected.

I should, of course, have read the Kolari Vision website before I bought it. This is what it says:

Most Panasonic cameras take photos with a more saturated, distinctive blue color. Their flash tends to mess up the custom white balance, and some high resolution sensors can have a distinct noise pattern. Another thing to note with these cameras is that the 590nm and 665nm filters tend to come out stranger, with the leaves being more red than yellow, and skies becoming somewhat green.

I then moved on to IR-converted DSLRs and my FH27 has been put aside with the hope it would fit in my pocket when shooting video or normal photographs so that I did not have to carry several heavy camera bodies.

A couple of weeks ago I it caught my eye and I wondered if I could find some way of overcoming the processing problems I had encountered earlier. I thought I would try, as a first step, to reduce the noise. This I did using Nik’s Dfine 2 (Aperture plug-in), first applying the basic, global adjustment and then using control points to either increase or decrease the noise (the latter when I wanted to retain detail). Then, I returned to Aperture and took the image to Photoshop Elements/Elements+ to swap the red and blue channels. I also added a hue/saturation adjustment layer to shift the overall hue as necessary. Then back to Aperture and Viveza 2 where I hoped I would be able to use control points as well as global levels and curves adjustment. I could and was, therefore, able to process images to achieve the ‘look’ I wanted, using the full panoply of controls available. A return to Aperture and then a visit to Sharpener Pro 3 where I applied only sharpening to control points where I wanted to see crisper detail. Global sharpening was not applied in order to retain the noise reduction I had obtained at the first step.

Screen grab from the loupe in Dfine 2 showing before
and after global noise reduction

That is the workflow or standard protocol I am applying to the jpgs from the FH27 (no raws on this camera alas).

Some of the older websites describing infrared techniques I found did suggest that for some small cameras noise reduction might be necessary to satisfy those photographers who did not think noise added to the atmosphere of infrared images. They suggested Neat Image, for example, which I have used to good effect for scanned prints on textured paper (post 22 December 2013). However, noise reduction software that offers local control rather than a simple global coverage is of a great advantage for the present application. Dfine 2, offers local control points and colour ranges to obtain selective noise reduction. By using Dfine 2 for the first step, I have been able, after that, to follow my standard workflow used for images from my Nikon DSLRs (16 October 2014).

A before and after sky area from a processed image showing the noise reduction

So would I recommend the FH27 as an infrared-converted camera? I cannot say that I would. A converted Nikon D70 or D80 body can be bought for not that much more and the small sensor with a large number of pixels (the pixel density of the Lumix is 24x that of the Nikon D80) is probably just too small to get really good low-noise IR photographs. Exposing at the red-end of the spectrum exacerbates noise for the reasons explained here. However, I am now able to say that shots can be processed to get much better results than might be expected from my early efforts and the amount of noise generated.

A colour version of a test image manipulated using control points in Viveza 2

A black-and-white conversion of the same image in Silver Efex Pro

The jpg produced by the camera

A quick shot between showers last weekend with white balance set on grass in sunlight a few seconds before

I could not make local adjustments with this level of noise

After global and local adjustments in Define 2, Viveza 2 and Sharpener Pro 3
The enlarged images of noise before and after shown above are from these images
Ignore the subject (I didn't want to get wet getting something more photogenic and the manipulation achieved. This is just to show the sort of effect I can now get from an almost infinite range of global and local adjustments

Infrared camera conversions and channel swapping. Can files be processed in the new Nikon Capture NX-D?

With Nikon Capture NX-2 now discontinued, I had heard dire rumours of the very much downgraded but free ‘replacement’ Nikon Capture NX-D. Gone have those features like Control Points that made Capture NX-2 such a powerful bit of software. I was keen to find out if NX-D could be used for infrared colour conversion like NX-2 from cameras, like my old D70, having a suitable filter over the sensor (mine has a 715 nm filter).

At this stage I should say that I have two methods of ‘channel swapping’ on my iMac. The first is via the channel mixer in the add-on application to Photoshop Elements, Elements+. I do that step from Aperture with Elements selected as the external photos editor. I also add a hue adjustment layer there, adjust the R,G and B channels if necessary and then go back to Aperture for the final editing.

My second method is the one involving Capture NX-2. I use Catapult to move the files to and from NX-2 (see my post of 25 August 2012). The reason for using this method is that I found that I could get different appearances from the same initial image.

The method I use in NX-2 was described by Jeff Meyers in a post on the Nikonians website. You can follow the link to see his full description but the key part—equivalent to channel swapping in Photoshop—are these steps:

4. Now, here's the cool part. Click on the "New Step" button. Select "Color" and then "LCH" from the pull down menus.

5. Click on the pull down menu that says "Master Lightness" and choose "Hue." That will bring up a colored hue box. Below the box there's another pull down menu. Click that and select 180. Notice that the hues have all slanted.

6. Go to the triangular slider on the right side of the box. Slide it about two-thirds of the way up until the red and blue channels are switched. Watch your image. You'll want to experiment with the best place to put that slider. The red sky has now become blue.

So, can you do that in Capture NX-D? The answer is yes. Here are screen grabs showing the appearance of the control before and after swapping the channels; with the latter the sky has turned blue. With my filter and white balance I move the slider on the right all the way to the top.

I have found something odd with NX-D that prevents the straightforward use of Catapult between it and Aperture. If you right click on a raw Nikon image and choose Open With, NX-D does not appear (NX2 does). If you then force that by choosing All Applications from the box, a message appears stating that the file format is not recognised by Capture NX-D. That is rubbish because by choosing the same file from within NX-D, the file is recognised. 

I think it is for this reason that Catapult cannot open NX-D as it can NX-2. However, in coming up with the error message when trying to export to NX-D from the latest version of Catapult the image usually appears in NX-D anyway!

Catapult uses a scratch folder with two folders within it: Drop Folder and Pickup Folder.

From Aperture with the image selected, I choose Photos - ‘edit with plug-in’ - Catapult

In the Catapult box’s upper (export) panel I untick the ‘open with’ box but leave Drop to as Drop Folder. I then press Export, then Done which quits Catapult.

In NX-D I then open the file from Drop Box, do the necessary editing and then save it to the Pickup Folder as a tif jpg (BUT not the raw nef). In Aperture, selecting the same image as before, I again choose: Photos - ‘edit with plug-in’ - Catapult. This time I import the edited image from Catapult to Aperture. Catapult adds that version to the stack for that image and places them together.

There is no doubt that NX-D is a major downgrade from NX-2 shows how careless Nikon have been again with their software and its customer base, many of whom have not forgotten the desertion of their software for Nikon scanners.

There are all sorts of things I want to try in NX-D, like batch processing. However, although it can be used for infrared processing, sadly lacking are the Control Points of NX-2. However, for those with an infrared-converted camera, processing is possible with the free NX-D. The full Photoshop or Elements plus Elements+ are not necessary for the channel-swapping stage. However, NX-D would still not be my preferred editing software for infrared conversions. I find Aperture and the Elements/Elements+ combination much easier to use and the attraction of control points has gone. However, there are other possible combinations I have to try and should I no longer be able to use Capture NX-2 either as operating systems are upgraded or cameras appear which aren’t covered for raw files, I shall still have several ways of getting the look I want from photographs taken with different IR filters.

I am now left with concern over how much of a downgrade Apple Photos will be as a replacement for Aperture 3…but that’s for the future.

Added Note: I have found that White Balance can be changed in NX-D by using the grey point method (as in NX-2) so that the result using the LCH, Hue 180 etc step can be modified by going back to changing the grey point in white balance, just as in NX-2.