There is something weird about Infrared Photography I think. First of all, the photos aren't that spectacular really. Sure, stones and plants look a little bit different but that seems to be it. Plus, IR is an enormous hassle. Film is very expensive - if I remember correctly, that roll of film I have in my fridge cost me $13 - and extremely tricky to handle: You have to load the camera in total darkness. Exposure is very tricky, the best thing is to shoot an enormous number of bracket exposures. I can't imagine what a hassle it must be to get the stuff properly developed - given that most (US) labs won't even cross-process for you. And all that for some red (or white if you use b/w) trees? You can do the same thing using Photoshop in about five minutes. That doesn't mean that I am an advocate of Photoshop. Quite on the contrary. But I have to admit that Photoshop has its advantages. It's probably a question of what I'd call the hassle-result ratio: If the amount of hassle for a given result is way too big (IR photography) you might as well use an alternative process (Photoshop) where it's much smaller.
