IR question: Shooting the Sun and Moon in IR

StoneNYC · Feb 1, 2013

I was reading an article in National Geographic about scientists who were recording the sun at 10+ wavelengths of light to determine weather patterns to predict solar radiation etc etc.

It got me thinking about shooting the sun with some IR film and how would I go about this? Are there details on ratings? Like exposure, aperture, etc? If possible? Same question with the moon (which I'm sure there are more details on then the sun).

Next anyone know how to mount an RZ67 to a telescope? Haha I could borrow a nice 400mm or 600mm canon lens and add 2x extension tubes for my 35mm but would prefer to shoot this on 120 for higher detail/magnification rather than 35mm.

I already have an IR filter and would be using Rollei IR film for 120 or Rollei IR film OR exposure HIE (which I've just acquired two rolls of) in 35mm.

Any thoughts? Info? Thanks!

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

mooseontheloose · Feb 1, 2013

I think the problem with shooting the moon is the fact that you'll have a longish exposure because of the filter, which means some movement of the moon.

docchilie · Feb 1, 2013

Frankly, the Moon isn't worth it in IR in my opinion. Like moose says above, it's going to move, and fast. So unless you have a goto telescope with tracking, you won't get anything useable. Even if you did have a goto/tracking 'scope, I don't think you're going to gain any new perspective with IR.

With respect to the Sun there are few things to note. First is an IR filter is not safe to view the Sun. You are cooking your eye. Second, again you are gaining very little here. At best you will capture sunspots, but you could do that without the IR. If you want to see the coronal loops, prominances, or the "roiling" surface, you need a Ca K-line or an H alpha filter which are ridiculously expensive. Without tracking down that article, they are probably recording in IR but a very narrow section of IR to tell them something specific.

Something else to note. I've been shooting film for 20+ years, and have been trying to make it work for astrophotography for 3. I don't know how they did it before d*****, frankly (respect beyond comprehension to those that did/do). I've taken countless shots of the Moon through an 8" Meade LX90 ACF, and not a single one passes my QC. Same goes for the Sun. I tried to get the transit of Venus and my focus still doesn't please me. To me, it isn't worth it anymore. I'd rather do AP with a nice CCD and go hybrid.

I don't know how to attach a RZ67 to a telescope. People generally attach Canons, Nikons, etc., which there are specific T adapters for. You could try Googling T adapters for your knife type. Otherwise if it is 58mm aperture, Baader Hyperion eyepieces are set up for afocal photography.

Good luck.

StoneNYC · Feb 3, 2013

THanks for the good info, for some reason I hadn't "subscribed" to my own thread, just saw the responses.

I've gotten a few good moon images and found a bracket of f/8, f/11 and f/16 with 1/200 shutter at ISO 100 gives a good image on a 300mm prime with 2x extension tube on a normal tripod on my canon, so I don't think that it would be so bad for my purposes, on a clear night, to get something at f/8 with a shutter of 1/60 or 1/80 to get something decent, sure under exposed for IR slightly but usable.

As far as the sun, thanks for the eyeball advice, I WAS aware of this, but it's always a smart thing to include the info just in case.

I'm aware that most use canon's (especially with digital because they make the special N series that doesn't have the IR coatings so you can capture IR light for stars and such on some of their models). I just thought it would be a lot better to capture it on a 6x6 (or 6x7 as it were) frame, such detail! It's all just an idea, I just can't imagine that there isn't an adapter for the RZ series or that one couldn't be made.

Once you get the numbers and the light intensity levels down, it's actually quite easy to shoot the moon. That's why Ansel got such a good image of that field and barn, I forget the name, but he was out and the sun went down and moon came up, and he couldn't measure anything, but remembered the lumens of the moon or something and calculated the proper exposure in his head and got a fantastic image with the foreground and moon both exposed properly.

Anyway I just want to do it, just to do it, so any further advice would be helpful.

Thanks guys!

Gerald C Koch · Feb 3, 2013

The moon is a passive reflector. It reflects little or no IR light.

StoneNYC · Feb 4, 2013

Gerald C Koch said:
The moon is a passive reflector. It reflects little or no IR light.

Ah!! see now THAT was good intel ... haha thank you Gerald, I guess I'll be shooting the sun then... saves me from worrying about the whole rotation thing as I'll be shooting at much higher shutter speeds now

Rudeofus · Feb 4, 2013

StoneNYC said:
As far as the sun, thanks for the eyeball advice, I WAS aware of this, but it's always a smart thing to include the info just in case.

Sun light normally blinds you so you turn your eyes away as quickly as you can, or you close you lids. Once you put an IR filter between the sun and your eyes, that natural reflex stops working, it looks dark after all. But the strong IR light is still there, frying your eyes.

StoneNYC said:
It's all just an idea, I just can't imagine that there isn't an adapter for the RZ series or that one couldn't be made.

There are a few things which make it quite unfeasible to mount an RZ67 to a telescope. First, you have a crop factor of about 0.5 compared to 35mm, and it already takes 1000-1500mm focal length to fill the frame with sun or moon on 35mm. Next thing is the shutter of your RZ67 sits in the lens, so apart from physically fitting a telescope to your camera you'd have to give it a shutter and control this shutter with the electronic signals coming from your RZ67. Also note that most telescopes are mounted such that they track the movement of stars, which means a heavy camera like the RZ67 is not something you want attached at the end of your telescope.

StoneNYC said:
That's why Ansel got such a good image of that field and barn, I forget the name, but he was out and the sun went down and moon came up, and he couldn't measure anything, but remembered the lumens of the moon or something and calculated the proper exposure in his head and got a fantastic image with the foreground and moon both exposed properly.

Ansel Adams was a true master of the dark room. His shot "Moonrise, Hernandez" is paramount to that. He needed intensifier to make the neg work, which tells me it was underexposed. Not bad for an estimate but no magic either.

StoneNYC · Feb 4, 2013

Rudeofus said:
Sun light normally blinds you so you turn your eyes away as quickly as you can, or you close you lids. Once you put an IR filter between the sun and your eyes, that natural reflex stops working, it looks dark after all. But the strong IR light is still there, frying your eyes.

There are a few things which make it quite unfeasible to mount an RZ67 to a telescope. First, you have a crop factor of about 0.5 compared to 35mm, and it already takes 1000-1500mm focal length to fill the frame with sun or moon on 35mm. Next thing is the shutter of your RZ67 sits in the lens, so apart from physically fitting a telescope to your camera you'd have to give it a shutter and control this shutter with the electronic signals coming from your RZ67. Also note that most telescopes are mounted such that they track the movement of stars, which means a heavy camera like the RZ67 is not something you want attached at the end of your telescope.

Ansel Adams was a true master of the dark room. His shot "Moonrise, Hernandez" is paramount to that. He needed intensifier to make the neg work, which tells me it was underexposed. Not bad for an estimate but no magic either.

Thanks all wise comments, I'm really paranoid about my eyes, I've had eye surgery and really never look in the sun, and if I do have a shot with the sun I pull back my eyes from the viewfinder so it's only a vague glimmer, I focus and recompose to the sun after I'm away from the viewfinder and at an angle from it, but thanks for the reminder.

The RZ67 CAN be fired from the lens itself, so triggering it with a cable can be done in mirror lock up mode, however, I suppose you're right, I just would LOVE to have a transparency of the moon the size of a 6x6 frame, it would just be friggin awesome! Oh well... I guess it's Canon for me...

That's true, he was a darkroom master... but I'll just be shooting at the sun, not giving it surroundings, however it's a good point for sure. I think it was magic, darkroom magic...

Rudeofus · Feb 4, 2013

StoneNYC said:
The RZ67 CAN be fired from the lens itself, so triggering it with a cable can be done in mirror lock up mode, however, I suppose you're right

Stone, the RZ67 does not have a shutter, and most telescopes don't have one either! Once the mirror is up, there is nothing between the front entrance of your camera and the film back.

If 6x7 astro slides mean a lot to you and you are not afraid of some fiddling, you could try the following: focus your telescope onto a piece of ground glass, put the macro lens and some extension rings on your RZ67 and photograph the ground glass. This technique has been used by video folks to get very small DOF despite their camera's small sensors, look for DOF converter.

Sirius Glass · Feb 4, 2013

Do not bother shooting the Moon with IR film, it is a cold body.

So the only other way to shoot the Moon is to drop trousers, although I do not recommend that.

mooseontheloose · Feb 4, 2013

Stone, I've been thinking about this problem a bit and researching it on my own (the moon that is). The moon reflects sunlight, and that includes IR. Grant it, it is only a small percentage of what the sun emits, but since IR photography is about capturing IR light reflected from objects, then the moon shouldn't be any different. My impression from astronomy sites is that there is more IR reflected than UV, so in all likelihood you could shoot the moon on IR film without a filter since you wouldn't need to filter out the uv light -- I've done this before with candlelight at night and there is a noticeable difference between regular B&W film and IR film (without filter) in how they render the subject.

This is just an (un?)educated guess as I am not an expert in any way on light or astronomy. If it were me I would shoot a few frames on B&W film and IR film so I could see the differences, if any. In there are none, then you know. (actually, I might try this myself the next time there's a clear full moon night)

polyglot · Feb 4, 2013

Sirius Glass said:
Do not bother shooting the Moon with IR film, it is a cold body.

So are trees and yet they reflect plenty of IR from the sun, as do most rocks, of which the moon is constructed last I checked. Camera IR is shortwave (well under 1um) which means that the temperature of the body is irrelevant (unless very high) and you're relying on illumination from a hot source (sun).

If you want to see heat around the 20-200C range, you need a multiple-micron sensor and it needs to be refrigerated otherwise its own temperature (and longwave IR emissions from within the camera) will completely obliterate the image.

As to metering, the moon is "sunny-11" on a clear night, i.e. f/11 t=1/ISO, e.g. f/11 ISO100. So with IR820+R72 where 1s f/16 works in full sun, I would expect that 1s f/11 or variations thereon (1/8 f/4?) is probably about right to get a decent moon exposure depending on the rock composition. Exposures any longer than half a second will show very distinct motion blur unless you have a tracking mount.

ambaker · Feb 4, 2013

I've shot the moon in IR... Meh...

Was at ASA 100 with a 300mm f5.6 lens.

Results were flat, and not near as interesting as visible light shot the same evening.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

StoneNYC · Feb 5, 2013

Thanks all, I think based on ambaker (who actually did it) and the others who say it's not as reflective, I'm going to am for the sun...

As far as the RZ issue, I totally forgot about the whole shutter in the lens bit, I don't know why... DUH!

I only have IR film in 120 (except for 2 rolls of HIE I JUST acquired but I don't want to waste that on the moon or sun) so I guess I'll have to buy some Rollei in 35mm for this experiment.

So I have 36 exposures to play with, perhaps I'll shoot the sun AND a few frames of the moon just to be sure.

Polyglot that was very helpful, thanks.

Moose, I might take a few shots with no filter for the heck of it.

Thanks! NOW, since I don't need a telescope to use with my canon I need to find someone with a 600mm or 800mm lens... hmmm.... hehe

Rudeofus · Feb 5, 2013

polyglot said:
So are trees and yet they reflect plenty of IR from the sun, as do most rocks, of which the moon is constructed last I checked.

The appeal of common IR photography is not so much that it reveals IR light, but that IR light gets reflected in different amounts than visible light. That's where the black sky and the white trees come from.

If you look at the moon, it's homogeneous, all rock and dust. It is unlikely that an IR image of that surface will look much different from what we see in the visible light range.

polyglot · Feb 5, 2013

Rudeofus said:
The appeal of common IR photography is not so much that it reveals IR light, but that IR light gets reflected in different amounts than visible light. That's where the black sky and the white trees come from.

If you look at the moon, it's homogeneous, all rock and dust. It is unlikely that an IR image of that surface will look much different from what we see in the visible light range.

I'm not claiming an IR photo of the moon is interesting, merely that it being cold is irrelevant to getting an exposure from it.

mooseontheloose · Feb 5, 2013

To be honest, I'm not overly interested in black skies and white trees -- it's a very overdone theme in IR. And it doesn't always work -- the dust filled air of SE Asia meant most of my IR shots didn't amount to much (no black skies or specular highlights) the way it does it clearer locales. Personally, I like to shoot IR because of the way it renders highlights and brings out details in things like old wood. Stone, like you, I wouldn't waste any precious HIE on the moon or sun, but it's worth thinking outside the box and trying new things. I appreciate that others may have tried it before, and that's useful to consider, but I'd like to see images to judge for myself.

In any event, in some of my research, there was reference to how even the dark parts of the moon may reflect IR, so it might be interesting to see what it does with a half moon (unfortunately we've had a lot of rainy/cloudy days and nights recently, or I'd try it myself).

StoneNYC · Feb 5, 2013

mooseontheloose said:
To be honest, I'm not overly interested in black skies and white trees -- it's a very overdone theme in IR. And it doesn't always work -- the dust filled air of SE Asia meant most of my IR shots didn't amount to much (no black skies or specular highlights) the way it does it clearer locales. Personally, I like to shoot IR because of the way it renders highlights and brings out details in things like old wood. Stone, like you, I wouldn't waste any precious HIE on the moon or sun, but it's worth thinking outside the box and trying new things. I appreciate that others may have tried it before, and that's useful to consider, but I'd like to see images to judge for myself.

In any event, in some of my research, there was reference to how even the dark parts of the moon may reflect IR, so it might be interesting to see what it does with a half moon (unfortunately we've had a lot of rainy/cloudy days and nights recently, or I'd try it myself).

Good points... I feel like IR film isn't long for this world... as far as I understand the Ilford SFX is even less IR than the Rollei stuff which isn't as good as HIE so I'd prefer to "waste" it doing it NOW while I still can is all. I just want to do it because I can, I don't mind spending $7-10 on some experimentation even if nothing good comes of it, I won't waste the HIE as I said but the Rollei stuff or even some SFX just to see ... BUT I agree wood texture with IR is really brilliant.

Still getting the hang of the stuff... so, any ideas on the sun? my meter won't meter it's too bright haha

MartinCrabtree · Feb 6, 2013

Don't mean to hijack the thread but you gotta see this. I found it searching for IR images of the moon after reading this thread. Man there are many kinds of strange people on this rock.

Now back to your regularly scheduled banter.

bobwysiwyg · Feb 6, 2013

MartinCrabtree said:
Man there are many kinds of strange people on this rock.

Isn't that the truth!

StoneNYC · Feb 6, 2013

MartinCrabtree said:
Don't mean to hijack the thread but you gotta see this. I found it searching for IR images of the moon after reading this thread. Man there are many kinds of strange people on this rock.

Now back to your regularly scheduled banter.

I don't see anything...

I think the app is hiding the link... Will have to check the computer to see it

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

MartinCrabtree · Feb 6, 2013

If the other link didn't work for you this one should.

StoneNYC · Feb 6, 2013

MartinCrabtree said:
If the other link didn't work for you this one should.

Oh now I want to see if I can take a picture of the moon so I can prove they have a Fision reactor on the moon too! Hahaha!!! That cracks me up!

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Rudeofus · Feb 7, 2013

Don't forget that IR is quite a broad range of spectrum and that IR film works in the wrong range if you want to look for heat sources. Trees apear bright in IR film images not because they are warm but because the Chlorophyll in the leafs reflects IR light very well.

StoneNYC · Feb 7, 2013

Rudeofus said:
Don't forget that IR is quite a broad range of spectrum and that IR film works in the wrong range if you want to look for heat sources. Trees apear bright in IR film images not because they are warm but because the Chlorophyll in the leafs reflects IR light very well.

I know it was a joke, though we should send this to dioposotivo, he loves this conspiracy stuff, he still thinks the moon landing is fake so maybe this page will introduce him to fellow conspiracy guys

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

IR question: Shooting the Sun and Moon in IR

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency