Fun Without Photoshop/Outdoing Reuters
August 16th, 2006 - 12:03 am
Other than some cropping, this photo of my dog is completely unretouched – and it ain’t black & white, either. Miltary guys will probably know the how, but not the means. Want to know? Ask and I might tell.
I’d say infrared, at a quick guess. The means – hmm, either an IR camera (possible, but not as likely), or an IR filter. The bright reflectiveness of the fur, the sheen of the nose, and especially, the solaized/negative look of the chain link fence in the background are the big hints. Actually copying the photo and looking at it in Corel PhotoPaint or Paint Shop Pro migth tell more, but that’d be work, so I’ll just take my chances with a guess…
An IR filter won’t do much unless the focal plane has response in the IR.
Me, I’d guess an image intensifier, and that the photo was taken at night.
Yeah, my guess is also some kind of nightvision gear. If this stuff is commercially availble, please also tell where you get it.
By the way, my guess is based on the fact that your dog’s pupils are not dialated, which would suggest a dark environment. If a flash was used, I would expect more shadow and background detail.
But I’m no expert, so could be wrong…
Infrared filter.
“An IR filter won’t do much unless the focal plane has response in the IR.”
In fact, most digital cameras CCD’s have sensitivity to IR by default. (except for some of the canons, those b**tards filter out the IR) so you can drop a R72 filter in front of most digital cameras and get some amazing shots like this…
It definitely looks like what I used to get with IR film shot in daylight from the olden days of yore.
Hmm. I think it’s a dog camera. Meaning, a camera devised by dogs to take advantage of their sight.
EMP induced atmospheric glow from a nuclear air blast 10,000 ft above Denver?
Or it could be a *film* camera with IR film.
Not everyone uses digital for everything, after all, even today.
knowing that Steve in the past has talked about his Nikon D70 I’m assuming that the assumption that it’s an IR filter for a DSLR is more correct than IR film.
That’s a doggie ghost.
OK, I’m asking.
It’s printed in grey tones.
I’m asking. (Yes, I look at your sight on occasion, this caught my eye) Hope all is well.
Never mind the camera tosh. What a very fine pooch.
Easiest way would be to use bounce lights. Several flash units that are coordinated and provide only indirect lighting. Nothing directly into the eyes, so no eye glow. This method also softens shadows, if not eliminates them (depending on the actual location and direction of the flash units). Used this method for portraits many years ago in junior high school.
The Martini drinking household is full to the brim with cuteness.
“In fact, most digital cameras CCD’s have sensitivity to IR by default.”
That shouldn’t surprise me, but I had no idea what kind of CCD digital cameras use. Most of what I’ve been around (and I’m not an optics guy, just a guy who’s been around some very expensive IR optoelectronics) operates mainly in the mid- and longwave IR.
This makes a lot more sense than an image intensifier; all of the II images I’ve ever seen are the wrong color and much lower effective resolution. IIs in current use are probably better now, though, which is why I thought this notion was a possibility.
“In fact, most digital cameras CCD’s have sensitivity to IR by default.”
That is correct. Many inexpensive video cameras take advantage of this and provide IR LEDs for illumination in the dark.
My guess is that the image was taken with such a video camera that has still image capture (as most do).