In Photos: Iceland captured in infrared

I think Mattoid's question is very relevant. To me the images looks like dark images where the luma channel is minus red filtered and some effect filters, mainly adding blue, applied. I get no IR feeling at all.

These images are a combination of infrared and visible light. Personally, I don't care for "color infrared".

hahahahahahahaha viroy, IR photography isn't confined to just black and white

The term IR is confusing. A true IR camera, used for thermal imaging, records heat (long wave IR) emanating from an object. These photos are recording reflected light that is just outside the visible range - i.e. just off the red end of the visible spectrum. This is achieved usually by putting on filters that block out most of the visible spectrum. Obviously if you block out the blue end of the spectrum things like the sky and water will go dark however objects like brown horses will retain some of their colour they are more to the red end of the scale and are reflecting more IR light.

I think you've been watching to much Ghost Hunters.

Wrong. Awesome color IR can be seen e.g. In the work of Richard Mosse. He even shoots IR movies in color: http://www.richardmosse.com/works/the-enclave/

IR (or, rather, near infra red) has little to do with the temperature. You are thinking about thermal imaging. A lot of IR photographic techniques use a mixture of near infrared and parts of visible spectrum mapped to different (admittedly, false) colors.
IR light behaves quite differently when it comes to atmospheric effects often making it quite suitable for landscapes and cityscapes.

Most photos from Iceland are from the interior highlands (80% of the country) where there will never be forests. But a lot can be achieved in the lowland areas :)

Most of the remaining trees are in the East. Where there were tress, they were harvested many years ago. Significant replanting is taking place in the Southwest. In the West, there are very few places a tree, of any plant other that a scant few grass will grow other than moss, which is everywhere.

Thank you for information about Iceland trees

You would see plenty. A plant with more chlorophyll will reflect more near-infrared energy. More of them and you have a white photo. In fact, you custom white balance on a plant like grass. Here is an infrared photo from Iceland with only the tiniest bit of grass. My sensor filter blocks most visible light, so it contributes, but not much. This is very close to what you would get with a filter that blocks all visible light. I don't consider myself an infrared expert, but there are so many posts on this thread that are incorrect.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3404756/03.jpg

SMH, trying to figure out if that was a back-handed compliment, or a complaint.

Mitch that won't happen.
Ir is very hard to get even acceptable results.
You need tripod filters and knowledge before you will achieve anything.

HDR can be done easily in camera or automated in post.
Though an powerful technique it's often used poorly.

HDR wouldn't have become the mannerism it is if photographers approached it with a sense of nuance and mindful restraint. It is analogous to the early days of Photoshop when so many were seduced by filters available, often leading to very heavy handed application. As stated IR is distinctly different in the resulting aesthetic, requiring lengthier preparation. That said, some results are louder than concepts suggest appropriate. Not so in the images here - to my eye and mind so compelling. I think this is a product of approaching context/subject conscientiously. Excellent work.

I'm so glad I'm not alone in finding most people abuse of HDR to the point they make it a caricature.