Love it! Nice to see someone else toying with infrared. ;) Did you set a custom white balance, or use a native setting in your camera?

It was a custom. I took a picture of a patch of dark green grass without the filter and set the white balance for that, then added the filter and focused on the tree. :3

I hope to play more with infrared within the next couple months, because unfortunately, I don't have my own infrared filter...I borrowed one from my photography instructor for this shot.

Ah, okay. That's how I started shooting IR, but learned that I get best results if you take a photo of grass at high noon with the filter on. Roughly F8.0 for maybe 3 seconds. This will set most tree's and grass (anything reflecting sunlight) to be nearly pure white. Though, that may not be what you're going for. :) Can't wait to see more!

Thanks for the tips! I had to play around because the guides my instructor gave me weren't accurate and all conflicted.
Hopefully I'll be able to purchase the filter for myself in about a month.... I would have it now, but it's expensive for a 77mm lens! Dx

Haha. Well, the tips you get from one individual to the next might be vastly different when dealing with IR photography. Quite honestly, many factors such as your camera and lens can be monumental in getting the results you want, even ignoring white balance and exposure. It seems like the photo you took is okay, but I'll mention this since you actually merged two pictures. Some lenses have a cheaper coating which will often produce hot spots (white area's of poor color) in the center of your photo's. Make sure your lens won't suffer from this before you spend the money on a filter. Do a quick google search for your make camera and 'hot spots' regarding infrared. That should give you a good idea.

When you do get the filter, take a look on Ebay. I'd found a 77mm Hoya R72 for about $150, but my wide angle is not a Nikkor, and produces those nasty hot spots.

For this image I used a Tokina 12-24mm, also borrowed from my instructor.
I've seen a lot of images done with my lens, a Sigma 10-20mm, that don't appear to have any hot spots.

Thanks for the tips....and by chance, what wide angle lens do you have?

Huh.. interesting. I shoot with that lens for my wide angle photography, and I was told specifically that the Tokina lens is prone to cause those hot spots. And, with that, I'd planned to get rid of this lens to pick up that same Sigma. ;) Do you by any chance have this original IR photo before post edit? I'm curious to see the results.

I've got it somewhere around. I'll upload it to my scraps on Friday when I have a better connection (currently running off neighbors networks :x means very sketchy connection and slloooowww uploads :P ).

The original shot does a bit of a hotspot in the dead center of the photograph. It's still a bit visible in the edit. Near the middle around the first branch off to the left of the tree, you can see a little bit of the remnants from the hotspot. I underexposed the original a little because I noticed the hotspot in the first few images, but was still just playing around.

So you have the Tokina 12-24? If you could trade it in for a Sigma, would you get the 12-24 or the 10-20?
Just a bit curious as to what others like to use.

Aww, sorry about the connection. :) Well, you can often use the burn tool in Photoshop to darken the hot spot, but that can be tedious to make it look proper. I also understand that you can battle them with shorter focal lengths, such as zooming in a bit.

If I made a trade, I'd go with the 10-20mm to get the extra 2mm view, but I've been reading mixed opinions of the Sigma vs. the Tokina, and I'm not certain I want to make the investment when I've already got a fairly high rated lens. Since you have access to both, you might consider taking a few shots under different lighting conditions with a tripod, switching lenses and see which you prefer. What make / model camera do you use?

Actually, I have very limited access to the Tokina nowadays. I nolonger have that instructor, but will occasionally be visiting him and possibly substitute for the class (highschool photography course, btw). But one of my coworkers who's into photography has the Tokina, but I still don't have an IR filter to use.
But when I did research the 10-20mm, I saw mostly good reviews, and I had talked with a member of dA that uses it often to get his opinion and he pretty much swears by that lens. As for myself, I've had a fairly nice time with it, though I haven't been able to do any IR photography yet.

I used to use the Nikon D50, which this photo was taken with, but a short time ago I worked out a deal with my mom to upgrade to the D70. ^^;

Ah, good deal. ;) I shoot with a D70s myself. Well good luck getting and IR filter for that lens. I might pick up the Sigma one day and give it a good test. I think that overall, when you buy a third party lens rather than a Nikkor in our case, the differences will be fairly minor when compared to one another.

I had the D70s for about a week, then downgraded to the D70 to save the $150 or so. I didn't really notice a difference in the two, and it's still a major upgrade from the D50 control-wise.

And I'm sure you're right about the lenses, but I sure as hell can't afford that Nikkor 12-24mm. I'll be lucky if I can get any-brand 80-200mm f/2.8 since a VR lens is so expensive.
I'm just trying not to buy Quantary lenses anymore...my 55-200mm is Quantary because it was cheapter than the Nikkor, and I'm midly satisfied with the quality of it. It works ok, but I despise external focusing...makes the use of some filters to be a real pain.

'..I despise external focusing...makes the use of some filters to be a real pain.'

That is does! As expensive as it is to stay away from third party, the unfortunate truth is that the lens you use is the key element between your photo and your desired result, especially when using filters. I simply plan to do my research before any more purchases. I am quite happy with the Tokina, but I find myself going back to my stock 15-70mm often, simply for the quality.

Well, Quantary lenses, and the brand in general, seems to be a little less quality than Tokina or Sigma.
But I occasionally do switch back to my stock 18-55mm lens as well, mostly because I can get an aperture of f/3.5 rather than the f/5 at the same focal length. Not too much of a big step, but in some cases I want an extremely shallow depth of field. I'm thought about getting a 55mm f/1.8 just for that reason, but it's a little bit too pricey for a set focal length...atleast with me in my current status it's too much.