So are you saying you are using infrared 35mm film or digital and using PS to create infrared? I have never tried PS to get that effect, but would love to learn if that is how it was done. I have always used IF film.

Nice place. Can't comment on the technical, not into infra red, I like natural color. But that is just myself. It is not unpleasing to the eye, even though it is not color, for whatever that is worth. If you have been checking other posts, you would have already seen that I don't know what I am talking about anyway. Whoa. almost left without asking what I was wondering. You say you modified your camera for IR, does that mean it is digital and you had to change the sensor or something? Otherwise it is just the film change that does it in a 35mm, am I correct?

wow... breathtaking ... very beautiful...

Cna you switch backa nd for from infared to regular or is that camera dedicated infared now? Cool shot!!

Wilk, that's beautiful! Thank you for the perfect way to end my day!

Neat shot! I like the composition. IMHO the grass across the pond is a bit bright for me. I guess that is part of the IR, though. Looks like a pretty and peaceful place to hang out at. :o)

Icy Hot!

Wow, wilk! It's surreal and very striking!

I am not too much for infrared--this one is not overly processed and the bit of color you have in it is supurb(?)---even a provocative aspect to it.

Lifeonfilm: I agree, there are always risks and any modification will void the warranty. If you find yourself with a camera sitting in the closet gathering dust and know you cannot sell it for anything near what you invested. . . and if it dies you won't be much worse off than before. . . well, you weigh the risks and decide. The safe alternative is to shoot infrared film with a manual slr, process the film, scan the negatives to the computer with a dedicated negative scanner (not a flatbed scanner). You'll still get excellent results and if you give me a few days, I'll post some using this process so you can see the results.