Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

Poinsettia


Recommended Posts

Same subject different lamp.....

I mentioned my work on an 'improved' 75w Mercury HID lamp......here.... http://www.ultraviol..._5845#entry5845 Particularly the last two updates.

 

I have set up the 'improved' 75w Mercury HID 365nm lamp to illuminate the Poinsettia flower.......

 

post-31-0-16506900-1418909498.jpg

 

UVIVF 75w Mercury HID filtered to 365nm with CuSO4 cell with LW UV filter & IRC + GG420 filters on camera.

Sigma DP2, ISO 100, F8, 15 seconds.

Link to comment

Now we are getting somewhere. That looks much better and really cool that you made such a filter. Keep trying.

Also--a quick note on Blak-Rays: The risk of a leaky woods glass filter appears to be higher when purchasing an older Blak-Ray. I got one recently for $29 (aluminum) and it powers on and everything but the amount of what looks like visible light is unacceptable. Get a newer plastic one or just buy a new filter--they are not that expensive actually. I just may do that. You know, cause I gotta have 4 going :)

 

BTW--I invite criticism of my technique. Don't ever for a second think that you should not extend some constructive criticism. I need some of that in order to get better.

 

That polished balls thing was pretty funny.

 

Anyway, I desire to have a list of stuff that demonstrates that we are seeing/capturing UVIVFL as it likely would be captured at 365nm ( yes I know there are other valuable wavelengths! :)

I have some time off for a bit and will attempt to compile what I can as far as stuff fluorescing in 365. Perhaps I can then correlate that within others who can do 365 and we can compile a list of what things that should look like. Although, the camera/lens variable is immense. But I do feel that nothing is gained if we do nothing. Yes it is flawed but oh well, it's a start. It can't be too complicated or nobody will do it.

One of the main reasons I have stayed on this site is that experimentation is promoted and nobody is degraded for trying something, no matter how their experiment turns out. As far as that goes--this site stands within a very small group that has pulled that off. You and I joke a lot which is great but it is known we have respect for each other and others. That kind of freedom and nuance is rare these days on forums.

 

Wow my soap box was on fire there! I blame the Double Dog IPA ...

 

-D

Link to comment

Double Dog IPA................. 11.5%......... how many did you say.......

 

We are on these forums to learn & grow, I think we both have that idea anyway.

 

I question everything I do & see, to the best of my ability, that is why I persevere with Sigma Foveon cameras, because I want to see wavelengths, not just pretty colours. I will be getting a Bayer CFA mirrorless camera next year, just for the pretty colours :)

 

Your photos are brilliant Damon, no one can take that away from you. I was/am just questioning the differences in wavelengths that I & my camera was seeing compared to what you are getting.

 

Now of course I have to question why the differences in my lamps........

I think I have read about the degradation of these 'Woods Glass' filters in the past & that maybe why the older Blak-Ray lamps seem different ??

I am looking for a Blak-Ray lamp to add to my arsenal & to compare with.

 

Anyway I have been shown/found fault in my own setup & that is great, hopefully I have fixed it without spending a bunch of $$$$$.

 

It is all a bit like the girl with the pregnancy test....... when ya gotta know, you have gotta know :)

 

Cheers

Col

Link to comment

11.5%. Crap...he looked it up...D'oh!

 

My hypothesis is that half the amount of beer need be consumed to render the desired effect. Why drink 2 when 1 will do? :)

 

Anyway, I will say this...for under $200...if you want a empirically guaranteed rendition of Ultraviolet Induced Visible Fluorescence (UVIVFL) at 365 nm, then spend ~$100 on fleabay, for a "YP" Blak-Ray

(plastic housing is nice but not critical) then get a B-100AP filter (the thick piece of glass all the way in the front of the contraption) for it and enjoy all manner of cool fluorescence. The "YP" is for a different wavelength but the power supply for all of them is the same. The "black box/power supply" that runs these lights, runs "YP" and "AP" lights just the same. I have currently a "YP" light with a B100-AP Glass/filter in front of it and it works the same as the bonafide B100-AP lights.

The only difference I have seen with these Blak-Ray pistol type lights in the filter/glass in the front. For the most part--it is pure "UV" where we want it. I am now sounding like a Blak-Ray salesman...:)

***I am still leery of the older ones though***

 

I am just a seedling in a forest of giants, but thanks for the nice comments!

 

-D

Link to comment

Nectar oozing from poinsettia nectary gland.

Those tiny little structures I was wondering about earlier look to contain pollen grains? The stigmas I guess. These guys are crazy small.

However, I am not sure what that small drop is. It's not the milky bleeding sap because that is a different color under UVIVFL as you will see when I post those pics tomorrow. I didn't put it there or water the plant yet. I spotted another one after looking around a bit.

 

Hold on--I just looked at Andrea's diagram again and now am pretty sure it is a nectar drop. Sweet! :)

 

These plants just keep getting more wierd.

Now I am tempted to taste it and see if it is sugary. It is ridiculously small though and it may not register on my taste buds. Unless of course it is a cardiac glycoside and I will simply croak from a heat attack. Kidding of course.

 

 

Visible: Canon 30D Unmodified, Canon MP-E65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro, Halogen light, 1/40 s @ f/8 ISO 200, No Filters.

post-51-0-57832400-1419140276.jpg

 

 

UVIVFL: Canon 30D Unmodified, Canon MP-E65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro, 3 Blak-Rays B-100AP, 8 s @ f/8 ISO 400, No Filters.

post-51-0-37083200-1419140290.jpg

 

 

Diptych

post-51-0-84260900-1419140400.jpg

 

 

-D

Link to comment

Probably nectar given it is oozing from the nectary and slightly fluorescent. Don't think it is latex or water. Touch it and see if it is sticky. Some folks are allergic to latex, but I don't know if the latex could get into the nectar.

 

BTW, the issues discussed in this thread make it obvious why we like to see clear explanatory labeling for each photo. If later we discover any "problems" with our choices of UV illumination & filtration for fluorescence, we will not be accused of claiming anything other than what is clearly labeled.

Link to comment

Thanks Col & Andrea!

Andrea, am I labeling stuff ok? Please let me know.

 

This plant is also very beautiful at the macro level. I am so glad to be on this planet and able to appreciate such things. I could be a slime mold at the bottom of a shower stall.

 

In my mind I see an insect landing to imbibe this sweet treat (nectar from previous post) and hitting those pollen heads while there. Give and take--a wonderful way to go. Shame many Homo sapiens seems to struggle with such a simple concept.

Unless it was an extremely tiny insect, I think it would be a given to rub against the pollen. Those who may have a poinsettia can look at the flowers and structures and see how this could be. Of course it doesn't absolutely need a pollinator--it is hermaphroditic. In general though, nature desires a partner (don't we all?) :)

 

A flower without petals is a little strange.

 

Making a studio/beer shack certainly has helped get this close. Stacking, patience, and my setup has allowed me to get such a ridiculously small object completely in focus.

 

Poinsettia latex sap fluorescing bright blue under UV lighting.

I cut a leaf and it started to bleed immediately. Normally I don't make my subjects bleed but this was in the name of science. :)

The challenge UVIVFL photography speaking was the drop was brighter than the surroundings. I didn't want to end of with just a glowing bluish dot and nothing else. I also need a camera that can do iso 3200 or more with no problems. This UVIVFL @5X stuff is just brutal with lower iso's. I guess I need more UV! :)

 

I also think I will switch back to LED lighting for visible. The halogen, although impressive and blazingly powerful (and cheap)--is throwing a yellowish cast to everything and it is not as easy to remediate in software for unknown reasons. Perhaps I will just try a flash--duh, never though of that. Although with 25 or more stacked pictures just for one of many desired pics--that technique may not be as practical or economical.

What is a good studio light for visible? (cheapish)

 

Anyway:

 

Visible: Canon 30D Unmodified, Canon MP-E65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro, @5X, Halogen light, .3 s @ f/8 ISO 400, No Filters.

post-51-0-71431900-1419220294.jpg

 

 

UVIVFL: Canon 30D Unmodified, Canon MP-E65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro, @5X, 3 Blak-Rays B-100AP, 10 s @ f/8 ISO 400, No Filters.

post-51-0-13500400-1419220302.jpg

 

 

Diptych

post-51-0-26426400-1419220335.jpg

 

-D

Link to comment

Col, that's why they pay you the big bucks.

I thought I tried all the WB options available but apparently not. I will try again today and see. Hope it works because the standard home depot shop light with a 1000W halogen bulb is crazy bright.

I think what I ultimately need is a sheet or box of woods glass ~ 2ftX2ft. I could then shine 20 Mercury Vapor lights at it and get only the good stuff out the other end. :) Or better yet, a filter that only lets in 365nm. No that wouldn't work, never mind.

 

-D

Link to comment

Your labeling is good, Damon.

 

Labels should have UV/Vis/IR designation + camera + lens/filter + illumination/filter + exposure data, not necessarily in that particular order. Anything else which is useful or descriptive is welcome -- such as the magnifications which you have been listing.

 

Brief captions are nice for our viewers but not mandatory.

Example:

Nectar oozing from poinsettia nectary gland.

Poinsettia latex sap fluorescing bright blue under UV lighting.

 

I don't always have the patience for captioning everything, but they are nice when you have the time.

Link to comment

This poor Poinsettia flower is getting a bit tired in my laundry & starting to get snowed under with dust particles.

I have continued to develop & refine my technique to try & match Damon's wonderful efforts.

For this shoot I have modified the Mercury HID lighting. I have swapped the LW 365nm UVA filter to a U-330 to use all the available UV AB&C of the Mercury HID Lamp, the CuSO4 cell is still inline to cut the IR out of the picture. The camera remains unchanged, still the Sigma DP2, with the original IRC filter & a GG420 filter to only capture the visible light.

Col

 

post-31-0-22360300-1419339679.jpg

UVIVF, of a Poinsettia flower.

Lighting is a 75w Mercury HID filtered to UVAB&C with a U330 SW UV filter & with a CuSO4 cell to block the IR.

Sigma DP2 with original IRC + GG420 filters on camera to capture visible light, with settings, ISO 100, F8, 5 seconds.

Link to comment

That looks pretty nice and much, much sharper than the last ones. You are improving quickly! I wonder what that bulbous green thing is left of center? None of mine seem to have that.

 

Those dots all over the bracts would likely be fluorescing blue with my setup. Now I don't know exactly what your dots are. But being in a laundry room, odds are they are tiny pieces of fabric dust which should glow like crazy.

Your dust is actually fluorescing but a different color.

 

Which makes sense since you are hitting the plant with many different wavelengths because your Mercury HID is shining UVA/B&C. Is that an accurate take?

 

-D

Link to comment

Poinsettia leaf underside, margin, stem & micro hair fluorescence.

 

I decided that I am not quite done with these guys yet. It turns out there are at least 3 varieties at my local grocery store. So I bought the 2 others that were different than what I had. One is white and the other has orange in the flower/pollen parts.

Anyway, while probing for more secrets to unravel I noticed major fluorescence from underneath. None of this is really noticeable when just looking at the plant normally with UV light.

 

Below is an image of the underside of a leaf from the "White" variety. BTW--the green normal leaves and colored bracts/modified leaves both express this to varying degrees. I zoomed into that network of veins and hairs quite a bit further and will post them later--getting too late here. That whitish web-like look you see between the veins are all small hairs. I did get to use my new clamping deal to hold the leaf. Pretty happy with that rig.

Certainly one of the greatest aspects of UVIVFL (Ultraviolet Induced Visible Fluorescence) that I am thankful for, is that I am free to use my entire arsenal of cameras & lenses completely unmodified and off the shelf...

 

 

Visible: Canon 30D Unmodified, Canon EF24-105mm f/4L IS USM , Halogen light, 1/50 s @ f/8 ISO 400, No Filters.

post-51-0-98388700-1419398770.jpg

 

 

UVIVFL: Canon 30D Unmodified, Canon EF24-105mm f/4L IS USM, 3 Blak-Rays B-100AP, .8 s @ f/8 ISO 400, No Filters.

post-51-0-70644100-1419398860.jpg

 

 

Diptych

post-51-0-12849900-1419399305.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

Poinsettia UVIVFL Macro of orange coloring in stamens & other reproductive structures of Red-leaved variety

Here is a macro of the new Red-leaved variety I picked up recently (I confess, it might be the same as my other red one, but this one for whatever reason has different colored parts). I unfortunately had to trim some leaves off otherwise is not possible to get in so close. The way these bleed I am beginning to feel like some kind of botanical butcher.

This plant got shaken around a lot so there is "stuff" all over it. Perhaps next time I will do a little house cleaning beforehand. Yeah right, sure I will.

I will post a general pic of the plant also so you can appreciate the size of these structures. Those nectary glands look like wide mouths of some strange creature.

 

UVIVFL: Canon 30D Unmodified, Canon EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, 3 Blak-Rays B-100AP, 3.2 s @ f/8 ISO 400, No Filters.

post-51-0-02461900-1419399890.jpg

 

 

 

Same Poinsettia picture normal view for reference

I just turned the light on and took a quick pic. Now you can see those tiny buggers there in the middle. These are the same ones in the above image. Also visible are my stalwart Blak-Rays doing their job with no complaints.

 

Visible: I am not bothering with the camera data below--it is a crappy image and is only here for a quick look.

post-51-0-41253800-1419401390.jpg

 

 

-D

Link to comment

Those close-ups are fantastic Damon......how do you fit the camera in there ?

 

That looks pretty nice and much, much sharper than the last ones. You are improving quickly! I wonder what that bulbous green thing is left of center? None of mine seem to have that.

 

Those dots all over the bracts would likely be fluorescing blue with my setup. Now I don't know exactly what your dots are. But being in a laundry room, odds are they are tiny pieces of fabric dust which should glow like crazy.

Your dust is actually fluorescing but a different color.

 

Which makes sense since you are hitting the plant with many different wavelengths because your Mercury HID is shining UVA/B&C. Is that an accurate take?

 

-D

 

The bulbous green thing....... could be a fertilized fruit getting ready to burst out some seeds ? It has grown off one of the pollen stems ?

Sorry for the lack of biological terminology :)

I'll try for a close-up tomorrow...in visible light, in lieu of the Christmas dinner I probably won't get.

 

The UV output of the Mercury HID lamps are too short for me to measure successfully, the transmittance of the lamp will be governed in part on the glass enveloping the lamp & any coatings applied. Here is an example of a Mercury gas discharge lamp.....see figure 8 & related texts http://www.olympusmi...my/sources.html

 

Cheers

Col

Link to comment

The flower structure is named a scyathium and is unique to the family. What you see is basically an inflorescence comprising compound flowers with 8 male flowers fused into a single unit ("the bulb") and a female flower riding piggy-back on that structure. It really looks female as well :) .

 

The large red bracts surround and support the scyathium.

Link to comment

Update on my Poinsettia experiment --- all the flowers fell off before I could get it photographed !!! :) :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

It has just been too busy around here with Christmas activities.

I guess I'll have to wait until next year.

Oh well.

 

Damon has done such a superb job of photographing his Poinsettias !!

The leaf study is superb.

Link to comment

Col--thanks and as soon as I receive my ice cream, I will have a Christmas turkey sent right to your door for dinner. I'm good like that--it's just how I am. :)

 

Let me know what happens to that pod thing. Don't let it die!

It is pouring rain here--so much for a white Christmas-usually doesn't happen around here until Jan anyway.

 

Recently, since I have been trying so diligently to get closer and closer to stuff, the Blak-Rays have sometimes been almost touching the end of the barrel of my macro lenses or even in front and into the view of the lens. I even will move them in until I can just begin to see them through my viewfinder. Since I am stacking images a lot, I have a moving rail--nothing can touch the lens at any point. I have learned a couple lessons about stacking that I will share later.

 

With the Blak-Rays, there is a dramatic difference in intensity between just a few inches--so it pays to get them as close as possible. I am going to make a few DIY funnels/snoots for them.

 

Bjørn--Thanks and I agree with your thinking... :lol:

I think that is just a nectar gland though. I have yet to see what has been described online as the female flower parts.

This is what I gathered so far:

Each cup-shaped cyathium/scyathium contains a cluster of red stamens which are the male flowers (like you said). Inside each cyathium/scyathium is a hidden female flower (which I have not seen) consisting of a single, minute ovary. The weirdness goes on with this plant.

 

 

Andrea--Thanks for trying anyway and the encouragement. At least you can still enjoy the plant!

 

-D

Link to comment

That might be a seed pod - "schizocarp".

Anything in the Euphorbaceae family has weird flowers. But cool. "-)

 

I did shoot what was left of my Poinsettia. So will try to get that posted. Nothing else to do in this rain. All our social stuff is tomorrow, so I can play today and this evening.

Link to comment

B--Exactly, yes that is what I read was the nectar gland. I will apparently need to wait to see the female part.

 

Check this link out--it is as good a view of these things as I have come across as well as descriptions. Very nice photography. 3 parts to it--the link is to the last part.

http://www.marcperkins.net/?p=1033

 

A--Glad to hear you didn't give up! :)

 

 

-D

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...