Many more photographers use IR these days than in the old age of film. Thus is is not surprising that the understanding of what constitutes IR and what particulars are manifested by this kind of photography is even weaker today. In order to make IR photography an efficient vehicle for our visual perceptions, we need to have an understanding of its particulars. IR is outside our realm of perception and often there are hidden surprises or treasures to be discovered therein.
There is no set "recipe" for IR photography. All colours arising from an IR scene are truly false, by definition. There is no such thing as a "false colour scheme". Black skies and white foliage are not the essence of IR and in many scenes these do not even appear at all. By using techniques such as "channel swapping", one is no closer to an understanding of IR as such. We, as photographers, do need these insights as IR itself cannot be perceived by our sensory circuits as it were.
To exacerbate matters further, the myths of IR are rooted in film and are the results of the nature of the two kinds of IR-sensitive material available to photographers back in the dark age of silver halide film. Kodak HIE instigated the myth of IR being high contrast with black sky and blocked shadows, set against hazy white foliage. This particular rendition is entirely the result of the properties of that film material, its inherent excessive contrast, its coarse grain, and lack of an anti-halation backing (probably left out in order not to fog the unexposed film through the opening slit of the canister). Kodak Infrared Ektachrome (IE) ushered in the concept of a special colour scheme for "false colours" by its colour dye coupling (red layer to IR, green layer to red, and blue to everything else). Without any filtration to block blue (or blue + yellow), you got basically a dirty colour mix of purple and cyan. If IR was blocked, you got mainly reds. If UV was let through and attempts made to keep everything else out, you got red or blue depending on what band(s) were eliminated. IE required special developers (E-4, AR-5) that most labs didn't offer, thus was developed in substandard chemistry further increasing the already excessive contrast and muddling up colours. Frankly, I found the last incarnation of IE downright garish in its colour rendition when run through E-6 chemistry.
A further point is that digital IR extends greatly the potential spectral range for near-IR work. Film hardly could reach 900 nm, whilst the digital sensor can do towards 1100 nm. Do note that lenses or sensors, or both, might attenuate IR response towards the longer end and this is in addition to the natural decline of intensity of longer-wave IR itself.
if one really insists, getting a close facsimile of what film delivered for IR is entirely possible in the digital domain. We are none the wiser as to what IR entails, though.
In fact, digital IR shows aspects of IR photography that film never could achieve. Sky is no longer jet black by default, it shows every trace of water vapour or polluting particles. Thus in most urban areas IR sky verges towards light grey, not black. Shadows are open and richly detailed. Gone is the graininess imparted by HIE/IE (if you don't introduce it yourself in the processing work flow). The inherent contrast of digital IR is very low leading to flat and dull images unless you are aware of this fact and take counter measures, either to increase clarity and 'pop', or capitalising on the low contrast to make high- or low-key images later. The false colours can be produced at your own discretion without any one claiming they are 'wrong' (nor will they be 'correct'), it is entirely a matter of taste. If you prefer ice-blue foliage and tea-brown stained skies, feel free to forge ahead. Everyone is free in terms of colour choices which is a good thing and obviously also a ripe breeding ground for creating true kitsch. Don't bother, you have escaped the constraints and untold rules with which traditional photography is ensnared.
In the end, any successful IR image must be able to stand its own and create impact without the IR contribution. This aspect cannot be stressed enough.
Finally, to answer the question about processing technique: I try to previsualise and do as much of the required steps directly in the RAW conversion software. Some times even going to the step of using additional converter(s) and merge results later as programs might lack the feature you request for a particular image. I never apply the traditional 'channel swap' as I feel it makes you rely on a preset recipe instead of an understanding of what you want to happen to your image.
