Canon 1D Mark IV unmodified for UV

[JCDowdy]

Careful now, upgradation can lead to upgraditis!

 

I did qualify my comment about the 60D on the premise that if I had to switch to Canon. I did so because I had assumed your were a dried in the wool Canon man. You do seem to have a collection going, to bad so many of them are fixed lens models. As Colin suggested you might shed some of them in favor of a convertible live view Canon if keeping the brand is important to you.

 

I decided to start with a mirrorless camera and settled on the Lumix G3 as affordable "beginner's gear" as Andrea aptly describes. When the upgraditis hits I will likely stay mirriorless and very well may stay in the µ4/3 format. Your Canons come in a mirrorless flavor too, with an 18mm flange focal depth and an adapter so all your EF mount glass will work. I have not read anything good about the EOS-M but that may not mean a thing for UV.

 

Added later:

 

Speaking of upgraditis, have y'all seen the new Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II? Fully articulating screen, five axis sensor stabilization, 40 megapixel sensor shift mode for just north of a grand!!! Oh man, I am starting to feel a fever comin' on!

[Damon]

Re: Dried in the wool Canon man -- that's too funny.

Re: fixed lens -- Well I have 3 DSLRS that I listed earlier....but 2 are too old and noisy and the 3rd is neither but I am using for vis for the time being.

Brand isn't important so much--just have a lot of Canon lenses and am doing some experimenting.

 

I think a new mirrorless canon is being announced soon.

 

Speaking of new--Check this out: Holy resolution Batman

 

-D

[Shane]

How about 365nm for 15 seconds 250 times. I don't know about the flux capacitor part though.

 

I am not aware of any specific studies however prolonged, or high intensity, or SWUV can cause ionization defects which will effect thermal noise. Other issues could be optical bleaching of the CFA (not such as bad thing if your goal is B&W).

[JCDowdy]

I think a new mirrorless canon is being announced soon.

 

The news online is that the new EOS M3 will not be released in the USA.

 

I read it on the internet so it must be true......

[Damon]

Re:internet must be true

Is there any other place left to get current information? :)

 

-D

[Damon]

Exciting Update with UV EL-Nikkor 80mm f5.6 on Stock/Unmodified Canon 1D mark IV!!

 

First--these are preliminary test shots with a grocery store flower that has no UV signature that can be distinguished. This is a small flower--about 1/2" across. I need good flowers!

Anyway, all I am trying to do is see if this unmodified camera can detect & capture the subject under good UV light using a known decent performing and affordable UV lens. I was able to see a flower under UV with both a stock camera (this one) and normal lens ( Canon 100mm macro) before but both shutter speed and iso were, in reality, prohibitive to use to satisfaction. So I eliminated the lens as a UV blocker to see what would happen.

 

I did not adjust for focus shift using the El-Nikkor. I can do that next time but was just seeing if it worked first.

​No Blak-Rays at all this time, because I will not have them when I try this outside somewhere this spring. I shot my 3 Vivitar's off though--which I can/will do when outside. This was all done in my shack with no other light aside from ambient light from my halogen and the modified Vivitar 285 HV's.

 

Holy tap dancing Jebus--it works! (and most importantly--with a pretty fast shutter speed and acceptable iso!!!)

Well kinda, see for yourself...

 

Visible: Canon 1D Mark IV Unmodified, EL-Nikkor 80mm f5.6, Halogen light, 1 s @ f/5.6 ISO 100, Auto WB

 

 

UV: Canon 1D Mark IV Unmodified, EL-Nikkor 80mm f5.6, 3 Modified Vivitar 285 HV's, 1/100 s @ f/5.6 ISO 800, Baader U filter, WB color temp 2500K (Converted to Black & White)

Yes, yes, yes I know it is out of focus...blame it on the focus shift or the 3 Double Dog IPA's...

 

 

Here is the setup I cobbled together tonight: (man that Baader U is dusty!)

 

 

 

 

I am really looking forward to trying this out in the field!!

 

-D

[Damon]

FYI--The plant is a small white Hyacinth. Do Hyancinth's have any stand out UV signature? (aside from reflectivity)

Since this flower was white I am sure it helped with the reflectivity from my Vivitar's. Had it been a dark flower, it may have been a little harder to get that shutter speed. But if I also had the bright sun helping, who knows maybe it would be even better.

The thing I didn't like is that since flashes needed to be used as the power source, I couldn't use Live View because the screen was black. I need to get around this somehow so I can focus the UV shot with ease. I am going to try this again but crank the iso way was up so I can see the plant and then focus, then bring the iso back down and shoot. It may work.

 

I would love to have the same camera but broadbanded to test shoot with a regular lens.

Enough UV got through to the sensor with this El-Nikkor setup.

Would enough get through to the sensor of a converted Mark IV using a standard lens? This is why I was trying to figure out if the sensor or the lens has more powerful UV blocking ability. Is there a way to test this?

My gut feeling is that the lenses have stronger UV blocking qualities.

 

If I could use all my lenses for UV, that would be mind-blowing.

 

-D

[Damon]

Some new thoughts:

 

This is going to take some time to figure out.

I can't get a bead on how well this is working without a real world test with sunlight and something with a UV signature/pattern. This store bought junk is overbred/anodyne and doesn't show squat for a signature.

I don't know how much my Vivitar's are putting off either compared to the sun.

 

I can go all the way up to the sync speed (1/300) and the UV image doesn't really change. I guess because the same amount of light is getting to the sensor within all those different shutter speeds. I can shoot UV at 1/80, 1/100, 1/200, etc. and the image looks the same. My vivitars I would think are shooting hot--they are not ETTL. Do I have this right? I usually get this kind of stuff wrong. Matter of fact, I a pretty sure I got something wrong there.

I have a feeling this system won't produce an image without the flashes firing off. Even in the sun, I suspect I will need to fire them off. But that remains to be seen.

 

What I am pretty sure of is that it will capture a decent UV image. And I am working with an unmodified sensor. If I had it modified, I wonder what would happen. I really wish I had a coastal optics/UV planar lens or similar to use. El-Nikkor is a good one to work with though.

With the Baader U on there and a thick towel over the whole works--there is no way any other kind of light is getting in there. I turned on live view then took a powerful flashlight and shined it all over the whole system and saw no light. If I saw anything, I thought that would be a good indication of possible contamination of visible light anyway.

 

Figuring out the focus shift deal as well. One thing at a time. :)

 

I was able to get really close macro wise by just putting a couple more extension tubes behind it. I also suspect landscapes are out of the question. I can't "flash" a landscape. I don't really know that it won't work for that yet though.

 

All in all it's been pretty fun trying out new stuff and new techniques. Whether this turns out to be bollocks or good to go, I am enjoying fooling around with it. Sometimes I feel I like tooling around with stuff more than taking the pictures! It's weird that way once in a while.

 

Here are a few from some UV shack time tonight: My Mini-Daffodils are pathetic.

 

 

Visible: Canon 1D Mark IV Unmodified, EL-Nikkor 80mm f5.6, Halogen light, 1.6 s @ f/5.6 ISO 200, Adjusted WB incandescent

 

 

UV: Canon 1D Mark IV Unmodified, EL-Nikkor 80mm f5.6, 3 Modified Vivitar 285 HV's, 1/100 s @ f/5.6 ISO 800, Baader U filter, WB color temp 2500K (Converted to Black & White)

 

 

Egg-I was able to shoot all 3 (Visible, UV, UVIVFL) with the same camera/lens/setup--yippie!

Visible: Canon 1D Mark IV Unmodified, EL-Nikkor 80mm f5.6, Halogen light, .3 s @ f/11 ISO 200, Adjusted WB incandescent

 

 

UV: Canon 1D Mark IV Unmodified, EL-Nikkor 80mm f5.6, 3 Modified Vivitar 285 HV's, 1/100 s @ f/5.6 ISO 800, Baader U filter, WB color temp 2500K (Converted to Black & White)

 

 

UVIVFL: Canon 1D Mark IV Unmodified, EL-Nikkor 80mm f5.6, 1 Blak-Ray B-100AP, 1.6 s @ f/11 ISO 400, Baader UV-IR-Cut filter, Auto WB

 

 

-D

[colinbm]

Damon, in your Blak-Ray shop, do you have a Blak-Ray J221 LW UV Meter ?

If not, I suggest you get one real cheap off eBay & put it to use in testing & comparing your lenses for UV transmittance / attenuation.

It doesn't matter if the meter is not calibrated, just has to be working.

You can place a lens with the Baader U2 filter, on the meter & see what it reads with the Blak-Ray lamp above it, shining through the lens.

Then compare the result with the lamp at the same position above the meter, with the Baader U2. The lamp with the least difference (hopefully none) is the best UV lens.

Then compare the result with your other lenses & see which is the best at UV.

Col

[Andrea B.]

Damon, keep up the experiments.

Bback laterr with more chat - I'm on impossble ipAd until new power cube arrives. Lousy keybord and wifi interrupts.

 

SUNFLOWER. There has to be one within a 25mile radius of wher you live??? Has dark area at base of petasl. Find at grocery or .florist. Classic example for uv testng. if petals are too tight aruond centr , just remove somme & shoot them off te main flr 2 c the dark blotch,.

[Andrea B.]

o forgot in addition to prev post.

Teacher 2 student: All flowers have UV sig. iN the case off daff, the uv sig is that "the daff is moderately uv-absorbing with trumpet slightyl dark er than the pet als". What u r looking 4 is a flr with "patterned uv sig" or "bullyeye sig".

Bjørn gives us this lecture regulrly until we get it down.

 

(sry 2 go all txty on u - horrble old ipad1)

[DaveO]

Damon,

Look at this post by Bjorn

http://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php?/topic/81-how-to-make-uv-colours-reproducible/

In the images you will see that Teflon (aka PTFE or Spectralon) is highly reflective across the whole spectrum which makes it a good white balance target. SO... go down to your nearest friendly plumbing supplies shop and buy (at great expense) a roll of Teflon thread sealing tape. You won't get ANYTHING more reflective in UV.

Dave

[Damon]

Fantastic suggestion Col. Yes I do have a Blak-Ray meter which we discussed before. I like the idea and will try out asap. I had a feeling you were important to have around here.

 

Andrea--you are right as usual. In my passion for seeing a classic pattern I overlooked the simple fact that everything has a UV sig. Grocery stores have proven to contain flowers that I am becoming leary of. I will seek out a sunflower or bust!

Thanks so much for responding within such a handicapped computer. Your dedication is duly noted. :)

 

Dave--top shelf suggestion and I thus used my Teflon from my D70 setup whence shooting this past season. Thanks for reminding of that. I was so engrossed in UVIVFL that I forgot to ground my UV shots with that. It's the only means we all have to stay on the same page. Kudos. You can see in the second photo my little piece of teflon ptfe. No more B&W conversions. That little El-Nikkor is one sharp little sucker. Can't take that from it.

 

So I got some orchids to try tonight. I ran out of time due to the fact I still have to go to work (hoping, all the while, that in the end I will be able to enjoy a questionable liberty when I am old and gray).

Anyway, as with the others--not much to see (however--it's still working capturing UV!)--that white sure is still showy isn't it? Is that what is important here?

I think this time I have got closer... I swear by the power of Zeus and Thor I will come across a sunflower soon...

 

Visible: Canon 1D Mark IV Unmodified, EL-Nikkor 80mm f5.6, Halogen light, 1/2 s @ f/11 ISO 250, Adjusted WB

 

 

UV: Canon 1D Mark IV Unmodified, EL-Nikkor 80mm f5.6, 3 Modified Vivitar 285 HV's, 1/100 s @ f/8 ISO 1600, Baader U filter, WB color temp 2500K in camera. 1 clicked WB with Photo Ninja using ptfe

 

 

-D

[Andrea B.]

It certainly looks to me like the Canon 1DM4 works well enough for UV in its unmodified state. That's not too shabby getting 1/100" with f/8 & ISO-1600 and 3 flashes.

 

If I'm recalling correctly, my exposure for the typical indoors close range shot with the Nikon D600 mod is about 1/30" with f/11 & ISO-400 and one flash. But while you do need a more illumination and signal boost with the unmod C1DM4, it seems to work. So, hey, go with it man !!!

 

[bTW, I often take a longer exposure simply to let a little ambient UV float onto the sensor in conjunction with the UV flash. Or take a really long exposure and fire the flash 2-3 times.]

 

 

Added: The orchid's UV sig looks good.

We seem to have a steady supply of sunflowers in the grocery stores up here. Maybe I should email you some?

[colinbm]

Looking good Damon

Gazania's in all their shapes & forms, are good for UV signatures.

Col

[DaveO]

Damon

I haven't tried that sort of orchid but I reckon you have nailed it, see this

http://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/1198-philotheca-verrucosa-bendigo-waxflower/

I've sort of got a rule of thumb that what doesn't go black or yellow often goes blue, see if you come to the same conclusion with yours.

Dave

[Andrea B.]

This time of year in NJ, we can't get Gazanias unfortunately as they are considered a summer flower. We are stuck with searching out Sunflowers in grocery stores it seems. :P

[Damon]

Another exciting Update in the Canon 1D Mark IV experiment!

 

First--

Re: We seem to have a steady supply of sunflowers in the grocery stores up here. Maybe I should email you some?

Andrea--Yes if you can email me some sunflowers that would be great. :)

 

​So I went to a florist and grabbed a sunflower and a couple other flowers to try out. I need something with a bulls-eye pattern to keep my sanity in check with this rig.

 

Here we go...hold onto your hat

 

This sunflower was huge of course and required me to remove all my extension tubes. I tried to get it to open up by adding warm water but it remained partly closed. Can't really tell too much though.

Visible: Canon 1D Mark IV Unmodified, EL-Nikkor 80mm f5.6, Unfiltered Halogen light, 1 s @ f/11 ISO 100, Baader UV-IR-Cut Filter, Adjusted WB for Unfiltered Halogen source

 

 

Behold a beautiful UV bulls-eye with an unmodified Canon camera using an acceptable iso and darn good shutter speed--Yeeha! Crikey that little Nikkor is sharp!

UV: Canon 1D Mark IV Unmodified, EL-Nikkor 80mm f5.6, 3 Modified Vivitar 285 HV's Unfiltered, No Sunlight, 1/100 s @ f/8 ISO 1600, Baader U filter, WB color temp 2500K

 

 

Next up is an Orange Gerbera. No species level on this one.

Went with all 3 ranges with this to keep Andrea happy. No IR :P (yet)

Visible: Canon 1D Mark IV Unmodified, EL-Nikkor 80mm f5.6, Unfiltered Halogen light, .4 s @ f/11 ISO 100, Baader UV-IR-Cut Filter, Adjusted WB for Unfiltered Halogen source

 

UV: Canon 1D Mark IV Unmodified, EL-Nikkor 80mm f5.6, 3 Modified Vivitar 285 HV's Unfiltered, No Sunlight, 1/60 s @ f/5.6 ISO 1600, Baader U filter, WB color temp 2500K

 

 

It seems like I tried every WB option available to duplicate what I was seeing and in the end stuck in on Auto WB and it turned out perfect--just as seen. So that works with this Canon as well. There is something to that.

UVIVFL: Canon 1D Mark IV Unmodified, EL-Nikkor 80mm f5.6, 3 Blak-Rays B-100AP, .8 s @ f/8 ISO 800, UV-IR-Cut Filter, Auto WB

 

 

Triptych:

 

 

Here is another pretty Gerbera. The UVIVFL image with quite a few species so far is much cooler looking that Vis/UV. What in the blazes would you see if all were visible available to you?

Visible: Canon 1D Mark IV Unmodified, EL-Nikkor 80mm f5.6, Unfiltered Halogen light, .1/20 s @ f/11 ISO 400, Baader UV-IR-Cut Filter, Adjusted WB for Unfiltered Halogen source

 

 

This was a doggone dark flower in UV

UV: Canon 1D Mark IV Unmodified, EL-Nikkor 80mm f5.6, 3 Modified Vivitar 285 HV's Unfiltered, No Sunlight, 1/60 s @ f/5.6 ISO 1600, Baader U filter, WB color temp 2500K

 

 

What a splendid little beauty we have here in UVIVFL--just wonderful

UVIVFL: Canon 1D Mark IV Unmodified, EL-Nikkor 80mm f5.6, 3 Blak-Rays B-100AP, 1/2 s @ f/8 ISO 400, Baader UV-IR-Cut Filter , Auto WB

 

 

 

Tripych:

 

 

-D

[colinbm]

Damon, for accuracy sake, you are still not filtering your source lights.

This is important, & particularly with the intense IR these lights & flashes you are using produce. The filters on the camera won't stop it all.

Having said that, your photography is very good.

Cheers

Col

[Andrea B.]

Damon ---->>> SUPERB UV SUNFLOWER !!!!! Excellent experiment !!!!! It appears that your Canon 1dm4 can be used for UV in an unmodded state at high ISO in the studio setting under strong illumination^(note).

Who'd have thunk?? :) :lol:

 

Now, you have made me want to test what happens if I try some UV work with an unmodified Nikon D810. I will do this asap. Have to go to the dentist's first, groan, but then I'll look for a sunflower. The grocery store versions do stay somewhat folded up sometimes. But you can usually shoot one at an angle that shows the UV-dark blotches at the petal base.

 

Col is correct about the filtering. For the sake of accuracy, please do add an 'unfiltered' designation to the labeling.

 

To determine just how much IR is present in your illumination, please make some shots with an IR-pass filter on the lens. If you don't already have one, look for uviroptics on Ebay who usually has some IR-pass filters offered. Look for an 830nm IR-only type.

 

For follow up, you might want to shoot an ISO series with the 1dm4 and let us know at what point the noise becomes unacceptable. And also to determine the trade-off between exposure length & ISO & noise. In the studio setting where the breezes are not at play amongst the flowers, longer exposures are acceptable until they begin to produce too much noise (which can damage detail).

 

It would also be useful to know whether the 1dm4 has a future as a field camera in good sunlight. That might have to wait until spring? :P

 

**************

 

^(note) I would be interested to hear from Damon and others as to whether this is a fair statement of the experimental outcome? Because I will want to add something eventually to the Sticky about this, and I want to be accurate.

[Damon]

Thanks Col! It has been so fun and exciting experimenting with this stuff!

 

Well I can stop using the Halogens as I don't know how to filter out the IR of a giant shop light. I can just go with bright LED's then. That is negligible IR right? If not, what is the least UR illumination available to regular folk? Never liked the look of LED's on flowers though. I found it tricky to WB but got lucky with my SX50.

 

Now my flashes are a different story. I am pretty sure I am going to need them. I don't know of a way to block IR on a rectangular end like that. Could I just put another IR filter on the lens? Is there IR blocking glass that is cheap enough to put in front of the flashes? I know that when these things shoot off it's like "Thump" and I feel them move if I am holding them. Whatever is happening in there is pretty serious so the filter glass may need to tack a wack if in front of the flash.

So the Baader U UV-IR-cut filter plus my cameras sensor and IR is still getting in? That is some invasive light!

On the plus side--if I get an IR pass filter maybe I can start shooting IR of the flowers as well--get some quadriptych's going.

 

Andrea-Thanks so much!

Re: it appears...

It certainly does!

I not only think it is fair I think it is a fact. :P

But I will try and locate some other flowers which may show a bulls-eye or something similar and keep working at it.

 

I suggest anyone with a unmodded camera that does pretty good a higher iso's try to shoot a sunflower with their setup. You most likely will need a powerful UV source though.

I will get an IR-pass filter of such design as your description.

 

I can begin to do some testing with noise, iso & long exposures. When inside, unless I fire the flashes more than once--a longer length of exposure is irrelevant as far as gathering more light. So in my UV shack anyway, having a longer exposure is not getting me anywhere. Plus, if I don't need to fire them off more than once--I won't :)

If the Mark IV was crappy with higher iso's then my exposures would be untenable--and probably noisy as well. I would guess that low iso + long exposure is worse for noise than higher iso + short exposure. I am not taking about iso 25,000 or something ridiculous like that. I am referring to iso 800-1600, maybe 2000. But probably you or Col know that for sure. Or someone here--there are many masters on this site.

 

Re: field camera in sunlight

I am itching to find that out. Nice full sun around these parts is as rare as a good hair day for Donald Trump.

I am sure the flashes will be needed in full sun--but since it is working in a shed with no sun, it should work at least a little better in full daylight.

 

What are the "classic" signs of IR contamination and do you see any in my images?

 

 

-D

[Damon]

Would this work Andrea.

 

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004MGMBX2/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_S_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=XY1HTQ28IOTS&coliid=I3NBPLOTHBZV1Q

[colinbm]

Yes, Damon, it is fun and exciting experimenting with this stuff, frustrating & a money sucker, but fun :P

 

IR, 'is some serious invasive light !'

 

Your Canon 1D Mark IV, dates back to 2009, it possibly has a type IR blocking filter inside, that passes some UV.

http://dslrmodifications.com/rebelmod12.html see the first illustration. Go over the whole site, Gary is a very knowledgeable man.

This shows the narrow band of UV this camera is operating in, but it is just enough for UVIVF & UV photography. It also shows the small, but significant, overlap or intrusion into IR that, 'is some serious invasive light !'

There is enough IR there to take reasonable IR photos, if you get a Hoya R72 filter, or any Chinese cheap 720nm filter, you will be able to demonstrate that for yourself & take some IR photos & get some quadriptych's going, too.

The flashes can be filtered with some UG11 or U340 filters, but you need to block the IR with an S8612 too. When you get a bunch of at least 3 MTE 365nm LED's, you won't need the flashes any more.

Cheers

Col

[Andrea B.]

Let's take a second and look again at the filtration thing and the labels for the photos. I'll try to be clear-er. (? It's late !!!)

 

When you are making a Visible shot with Visible illumination using an unmodified camera of newer vintage, then you should not have to worry about UV/IR contamination because you are using the camera as it was designed to be used. So for those kinds of fotos, I do not think you need to mentioned that the illumination is unfiltered. Nor do I think you would need to filter those Halogens when used for Visible shots. (See IR filter test suggestion below.)

 

Note: I was assuming your 1DM4 is "of newer vintage". The page Col linked to does show an older internal Canon filter which passes UV down to about 350nm as well as a bit of IR. It appears to be a BG 39/40 filter.

 

Some older digicams which had these weak internal filters (the old Nikon D2H comes to mind) could sometimes show quite a lot of IR contamination in Vis/Vis shots of purples or blacks. Synthetic black fabric was famous for showing a magenta cast in D2H photos because it is IR-reflective.

 

The only sure way to test for IR contamination is to use an IR-pass filter. First make the Vis/Vis shot and then make the corresponding Vis/IR shot with the same exposure and the same lighting. After you have made a few of these test shots under different lighting scenarios, you should know whether or how much your particular camera is IR-contamination prone in the Vis/Vis shooting scenario.

 

In your Vis/Vis shots above I don't think I see any evidence of IR contamination which tends to give a washed out, slightly softened look with "off" colours.

 

**********

 

When you are making a Visible shot with Ultraviolet illumination (using any camera) in order to produce UV-induced Visible Fluorescence, then you do need to filter both the illumination and the camera lens. If one or the other or both are unfiltered, then this must be mentioned in the labeling.

 

It is possible that UV illumination can induce fluorescence in any longer wavelength, so if your lens is not filtered and your camera is prone to IR-contamination you might have accidentally recorded some IR fluorescence. This is very likely a very rare situation, but let's practice good science anyway.

 

If the UV illumination is not filtered and perhaps leaks some Visible light, then you are contaminating your Visible fluorescence with Visible light. (Yak-a-doodle I hope I stated that correctly. It sounds weird to talk about Visible contamination!)

 

**********

 

I would guess that low iso + long exposure is worse for noise than higher iso + short exposure

Only one way to find out for a particular camera - make some test shots. :P

 

**********

 

Marumi filter

I've never owned a Marumi filter, so I cannot speak to their quality. But an 830nm longpass will be an IR-only filter and is useful for testing. It's also nice to have a 700-720nm longpass for testing. And of course for making IR photographs.

[Damon]

Hey Col,

Yes I have noticed where the money sucker part is coming in. Better spent on this stuff than wasting it on good beer. No that's not right--I'll have that comment stricken from the record please.

My widgety junk list is growing by leaps and bounds with this deal. How am I supposed to keep track of this this crap!

That link is some very interesting stuff. Thanks for that.

 

I will admit right away my ignorance on this stuff so forgive me for my possible stupidity here :

The 300D on his site dates back to 2003 and I am a tad skeptical that this has the same filter setup as the Mark IV. I suppose they could have used the same Filters on a 6 year older $899 camera and their much newer $5000 flagship camera. Since it is not the Mark IV being tested I can only assume his numbers are relevant. Clearly the Mark IV goes into UV, but how do I know how far? I am not that nuts over that though. If I can keep taking good photos of stuff while pushing the limits here and there, then I am happy. I will be attempting some IR soon. And for Grins, I will take my unmodded Canon 30D and subject it to the tortures of my UV setup to see what happens.

 

3 MTE's would be a lot easier to deal with then my flashes I know that. While at my house I will probably drag one or two of my 38 million Blak-Rays over to the subject unless it is easier to pick up and move indoors.

Where is that triptych of that wonderfully amazing looking Allamanda flower?

 

Andrea, I found a filter awhile ago-no need to look my goofy link up.

 

One last question: Can UV Light be concentrated/magnified? Like when you use a magnifying glass to burn the ground.

 

-D