6 replies to this topic

[Andrea B.]

Added Later: This is not a scientific, peer-reviewed paper published in a known journal. It has some interesting photographs, so I have linked it.
***************

Reflected Ultraviolet Imaging for Forensics Applications
by Dr. Austin Richards
Adjunct Professor, Brooks Institute of Photography Partner, Oculus Photonics, Santa Barbara, CA Senior Research Scientist, FLIR Commercial Systems Austin@uvcorder.com +1-805-284-5757
Updated 3/28/10

Very interesting !!

Right at the beginning Dr. Richards notes that you do not necessarily need a quartz lens for UV imaging, as we all know here.
And there's a nice little history of the transition from film to digital imaging in the UV where Dr. Richards observes that at first folks didn't realize their UV-pass filters were leaking IR.

Some nice forensic photos including bite marks. Not sure I would want to try to set up a bite test myself.

Paper also includes Dr. Richards attempt to measure his Fuji-S3-UVIR. He wasn't happy with his results.

LINK: https://www.google.c...BDrrd3QWumKQU9w

[Andy Perrin]

It is interesting, but this can't be a real paper (in the sense of having passed peer review). There were no references at the end, and the tone was informal. I think it must be meant as an article for a magazine, perhaps, rather than a journal. At any rate, the information seems consistent with what I've read here from you guys. I wonder if there are any of these UVB-capable "Sirchie scopes" floating around...?

Edited for tone.

Edited by Andy Perrin, 11 January 2016 - 05:37.

[Bill De Jager]

That's a classic one, Andrea. Thanks for posting it! I especially like figure 8 on page 11, which among other things shows window glass blocking much more UV at shorter wavelengths.

[nfoto]

The contribution was an info-commercial of historical interest only. Not eligible for any serious peer-review journal of course. The only tidbit of significance was the observation that much digital "UV" in reality was destroyed by IR contamination, a fact this community is well aware of

[Andrea B.]

You guys are correct. So I must label my post accordingly. Apologies for not doing that in the first place. Sometimes I pay less attention than I should. I added a bold remark to the post and relabeled the title with "Article" which should suffice to warn all that this is not a rigorous write-up.**

I linked it because of the photographs which were interesting. Those bite marks! Not something we can easily set up in order to practice our forensic UV photography.

*******

** I note, in passing, that Bjørn and I from time to time have noted more than one non-rigorous experiment in peer-reviewed, scientific papers involving UV photography. As Bjørn noted once: Most scientists are not photographers.

********

Andy, there are UV scopes to be found "out there". An early member we had here owned one. I don't recall the details. We can just use our converted cams in Live View to achieve a similar result - although good illumination is required. I recall Bjørn prowling around the Mohave looking at stuff with his Lumix in Live View.

[Shane]

On a side note - I have corresponded with Austin Richards many time over the last ten years and was surprised to learn about his "other" life as Dr Megavolt. Google it for some entertainment.

[Bill De Jager]

nfoto, on 11 January 2016 - 09:02, said:

The contribution was an info-commercial of historical interest only. Not eligible for any serious peer-review journal of course. The only tidbit of significance was the observation that much digital "UV" in reality was destroyed by IR contamination, a fact this community is well aware of

There's no question that this article is in no way comparable to a peer-reviewed article in terms of rigor or authority, but for people starting out in UV it *is* informative regarding some basics. When I ran into it years ago I learned (what were for me at the time) some new things. Thus, it is useful for a certain audience. Yes, the informercial aspects are irritating.