Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

NAI UV Photography


JimpyL

Recommended Posts

I’m new here and feel totally out of my depth in ultra violet photography. Apologies that I haven't posted in the 'Introduce Yourself' first.

 

I’m a clinical photographer and I am currently researching the use of UV photography to help document ‘Non Accidental Injuries’, mainly in young children, which mostly involves bruises.

 

I started looking into using infrared photography but soon found it had its limits, when it comes to the formation and depth of bruises. Sometimes we are photographing an area where the bruise is yet to fully form or some time has passed and the bruise has almost faded away. UV photography seems to be the way to go but I’m having trouble putting together some cost estimates for a business case that is required from where I work.

 

We can only use digital cameras and have a few choices in converting one which seems to be around £250-300. The problem I am having and seem to be going round in circles is the use of flash, lighting, filters and lenses!

 

The problems I see with UV photography in young children, is that we can’t use tripods (to be able to set focus) as the subjects will often not want to sit or lay still. The areas being photographed are sometimes difficult enough to capture with a normal hand held flash! I’ve read conflicting articles about the use of lighting kits; some have even mentioned the risk of UV exposure.

 

I realise this might be a bit of dead end with but can anyone recommend a set up that will fall under the following restrictions?

 

• Utilise a converted digital SLR

• Not use a tripod

• Not involve any health risks

 

Thanks!

James

Link to comment

Hello James and welcome to UVP.

 

You are doing some important work forensically and we will certainly try to help you. I also suggest you consult any forensics sites which may be online. I'm sorry that I don't have any specific recommendations there, but forensic questions don't come our way often.

 

UV light is naturally limited. It is only about 3-5% of sunlight. So it is very difficult to avoid using artifical UV illumination or to avoid using a tripod. But let me run through some suggestions which may help.

 

Camera with good/excellent high ISO capability: A digital camera with good/excellent high ISO capability would help reduce exposure time when the ISO is set to a high 800-1600 setting. If a camera does not have good high ISO or if ISO is set too high, then the UV photo will be too noisy. The determination of the highest ISO you can use for your particular camera will be by trial-and-error. Cameras with the very best high ISO capability will probably be from the Nikon, Pentax or Sony line. But possibities exist in the Olympus and Panasonic lines also. Can you let me know your budget range for the camera? We will then try to make some suggestions. There are a lot of good sources for a used camera. And if everything did not work out, any converted camera can be resold fairly easily.

 

ADDED 2016.03.24: Either a DLSR or a mirrorless camera will be just fine for a full spectrum conversion using a clear broadband internal filter replacement. Both camera types record beautiful UV photographs. However, for a UV-only conversion (see next), only a DSLR should be chosen. This is because the electronic viewfinder of a mirrorless camera is a copy of LiveView which would be 'looking through' any internal replacement filter. Thus, electronic viewfinders would be dark & noisy with an internal UV-pass filter.

 

UV-Only Conversion: I'm going to suggest you get a UV-only conversion. An internal UV-only filter rather than an external UV-pass filter on the lens permits you to use the viewfinder of the camera to set up and focus your scene. This will be faster and easier to do when hand-holding the camera. External UV-pass filters require Live View and tripod. The drawback of a UV-Only converted camera is that it can no longer be used for visible or infrared work with external filters.

 

NOTE: I am not currently fully conversant with what internal filters are currently used for UV-Only conversions, but we can look into this. It is possible that a UV-only conversion might also require an external blue-green filter on the lens to block infrared. That should not interfere with viewfinder use if external filter thickness is minimal.

 

Lens: The UV-capable lens you use will be important to reduce exposure time. Did you have a particular lens in mind for your work? Dedicated UV lenses are rather expensive, but we have a lot of other lens suggestions. You would need to be able to work close to the subject, yes?

 

Sunlight: Shooting outdoors in bright sunlight would preclude use of artifical UV illumination, but this is certainly not always feasible.

 

Strap Tripod: There is a long strap gadget which can be screwed into the tripod socket on the bottom of the camera. The photographer steps on the strap and pulls upward to provide some steadiness for the camera. We need to Google around for a reference to this gadget.

 

Internal Camera Stabilization: This would be very useful for you. I know some Pentax and Sony cameras provide this. But I'm sure other lines do also. We will have to check on this as it's not something I know off the top of my head.

 

UV-LED torches (flashlights): This might be the way to go for extra illumination rather than UV flash. The 365nm Nichia chipped torches provide a strong directed UV illumination. What we would need to investigate is whether the injuries you seek to document do indeed show up when the UV illumination is centered around 365nm as in a UV-LED torch. I happen to have a spare bruise currently on my leg from whacking myself with a tripod, so I'll test this out and report back.

Torch Link:

 

Shielding Eyes: If old enough, the subject could be asked to close their eyes while you illuminate, focus and shoot. If very young, perhaps a person could shield the subject's eyes with their hand for a moment. You could also have the subject sit behind a panel from the head up or have someone hold a panel in front of the face. Using a UV torch instead of a UV flash would permit quick redirection of the UV illumination should a subject move suddenly.

 

Conversion: You mentioned a budget sum in pounds, so I take it you are not in the US? :) We have 3 shops here in the US which do UV-only conversion if you cannot find a place in Europe: MaxMax.com, Kolari Vision and Life Pixel.

 

Filter Expense: Either external or internal, the UV-pass filter will be an expensive item. For an internal UV-only conversion the price here can run between $400-500(US). Exernal filtration in the form of a U+BG filter stack can be had for much less ($150-200), but you still would need to convert the camera ($250-350). So the total price either way will come out to be about the same.

 

Camera Expense: Could be anything from $500-2500(US) depending on the camera features. Your lens choice will help determine which camera you can use.

 

Lens Expense: If we can find the right UV-capable lens for your needs from Ebay, then cost could be in the $50-500 range. I'm thinking a Novoflex Noflexar 35/3.5 might be a good choice. They can be found for a somewhat reasonable price these days and they have very good close capability when extended for macro use. I think I know someone who might have a Novoflex for sale. Let me check on that. Noflexars are usually found in Nikon, M42 or Exakta mounts. So an adapter might be needed. There are good inexpensive adapters available. There are also other 35/3.5 lenses which might be useful and could be used for close work if an extension is added.

 

Lens, then Camera: I think your lens choice might very well determine which camera is feasible for you to use. Try to figure that out first. The reason is because of the "flange focal distance" which we can discuss later. Too technical for a first pass.

 

OK, read this over and see if it helps you better determine a possible gear selection for your needs. I hope so! We are here to answer any questions which come up. And I'll get back to you with a bit more info as I find out more myself.

Link to comment

While our member James is likely aware of the following information, I thought it might be interesting to post some links to some online forensic material. The selection is a bit random. I'm sure there are many more useful links.

 

**********

 

Digital infrared and ultraviolet imaging part 2: ultraviolet

Tetley, C. and Young, S.

J Vis Commun Med. 2008 Jun;31(2):51-60. doi: 10.1080/17453050802195009.

 

This paper might be very interesting to get. I wonder what Tetley & Young recommend? Only the abstract is given in the PubMed link. I hope the authors are up-to-date on digital UV photography!!

 

**********

 

Use of Reflective Ultraviolet Photography to Photo-Document Bruising to Children

on Crime Scene Investigation Network

by Detective Patrick Cochran

 

I found this write-up by Detective Cochran from the the Austin, Texas police department to be informative but It a bit outdated because it references the use of film.

 

There are good bruise photos. (And those made me very sad for the children.) Also this paper pointed out that fresh bruises do not show up in UV. I just learned this fact myself when attempting to photograph my leg bruise!

 

Detective Cochran suggests the use of normal flash for UV photos because it does output some UV.

I will try to test that and get back here with a report.

 

(There is one factual error: "long wave penetrates deeper into the skin than visible light". This is not true.)

EDIT: I misquoted by leaving out the "UV" in that sentence.

 

From the paper: "long-wave UV light penetrates deeper into the skin than does visible light"

This is a incorrect statement because UV light is not "long-wave". And it is Infrared light which penetrates deeper into human skin. UV wavelengths are shorter than visible wavelengths which are in turn shorter than Infrared wavelengths.

 

From the paper: "Since UV light penetrates deeper into the skin, the film will pick up the image of a bruise or bite mark, which has been absorbed too deep into the skin to be able to be seen using visible light."

This is again incorrect. UV light does not penetrate deep into the skin. As it turns out, UV light picks up old bruises because UV-absorbing melanocytes migrate to the bruise. (See below.) At the time Cochran wrote this paper that was likely not known.

 

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

 

UV/IR Injury Photographs

by Crtis Klingle and Katie Reiter

in Evidence Technology Magazine

(The authors are also with Texas police departments.)

 

It is suggested here that using black & white is best for forensic photography. I'd say that it is certainly easier to "process" black & white photos whether digital or film. Most digital cameras have a nice Monochrome setting which can be used for this. With a couple of tweaks to contrast and sharpening settings in the camera, B&W JPEG photos would be easy to produce without the need for much additional editing.

 

There is a nice sequence showing the progression of a fresh bruise to aged bruise and how that photographs in Vis, UV and IR light. The conclusion is reached that IR is less useful for bruise/contusion work but useful for more serious injuries.

 

It was very interesting to see that Klingle & Reiter suggest that light in the range of 450nm (blue light) is most useful for viewing and photographing injuries.

 

These authors were still using film when this was written in 2008. Thus they reference the need for long exposure times which we can shorten greatly in the digital world by use of previously mentioned gear and settings.

 

***********

 

Forensic Medicine for Medical Students:

Ageing Brusing by Visual Assessment and Ageing Brusing by Other Techniques

 

Aha!

Finally we learn that UV photography is useful for detecting old bruise injuries because UV-absorbing melanocytes migrate to the area of a healing bruise.

 

In this 2nd article, the use of 450nm light does not help in determining the age of a bruise.

 

***********

 

Alternate Light Source, Part 2 (Subclinical Bruising)

by Jenifer Markowitz

Forensic Healthcare Online

 

Lots of excellent references in this article. Interested readers can go from there to find more.

Link to comment
Andy Perrin

Detective Cochran suggests the use of normal flash for UV photos because it does output some UV.

I will try to test that and get back here with a report.

 

(There is one factual error: "long wave penetrates deeper into the skin than visible light". This is not true.)

I think it is true. In general, scattering by small particles decreases when the wavelength gets longer than the particle diameter. That's why we can take infrared photos through fog more easily. Here is an actual measurement of the scattering coefficient in skin from a review paper, Optical properties of biological tissues: a review:

post-94-0-89787100-1458674744.jpg

 

Edit: Andrea misquoted. She meant longwave UV. Nevah mind!

Link to comment

My own bruise photo testing in UV, Visible and IR will now be shown.

 

The purpose here was to get a reading on sunlight versus UV-LED torch for illumination of bruises. It will not be definitive of course because for one reason, my particular UV-LED torch is very small. But it will give some initial insight into the problem which needs to be solved.

 

First a visible record of my leg bruise. I'm not sure exactly how old it is, but I do remember whacking my leg with my small RRS tripod - probably yesterday or the day before while I was working with the new Sony A7R.

 

Equipment: D600-broadband + Novoflex 35/3.5 Noflexar

 

Visible in Sunlight with Baader UVIR-Cut Filter: f/4 for 1/4000" @ ISO-200

Lens is not chipped so EXIF will read f3.5.

My lumpy knee faces left. Leg is bent. There is a small white scar to the upper left of the small blue bruise which is about 1.75" (4.5cm) in diameter. Michael made this foto for me. I forgot to tell him to tell me to move the knee so there was no shadow. The bruise isn't quite in focus but we forgive him because he was trying hard to help me. He's a great guy.

600_2717pn.jpg

 

Ultraviolet in Sunlight with BaaderU UV-Pass Filter: f/4 for 1/100" @ ISO-1600.

White balance was made on skin. Michael made this foto. Got the focus this time. The bruise is too fresh to be seen in this UV foto. The left knee shadow causes loss of texture detail to the left of the bruise area. The white scar really shows up well in UV.

600_2720pnPf.jpg

 

 

 

Visible Indoors with On-board Flash and Baader UVIR-Cut Filter: f/4 for 1/160" @ ISO-800

Knee faces up. I made this foto so I had to draw a ballpoint pen circle around the bruise for focusing purposes. It travels through the small white scar. An interesting contortion was required to place knee before lens and simultaneously focus via Live View. Photographing this bruise is not as easy as you think it would be. It is a darker blue in real life than it is in this photograph. I suppose the flash washed it out a bit?

600_2759pn.jpg

 

Ultraviolet Indoors with Nichia 365nm UV-LED Torch and BaaderU UV-Pass Filter: f/4 for 1/13" @ ISO-1600

White balance was made on skin. Again, the fresh bruise is not seen in UV. But how about all that skin texture!! Gotta love UV for its ability to reveal surface textures. And, again, look how well the white scar shows up.

600_2756pn.jpg

 

 

 

Conclusions:

(1) Bruises are not so easy to photograph in either visible or in UV light. I need some practice myself.

 

(2) Outdoors in strong March sunlight in the Northen Hemisphere at about 150' (46m) above sea level, there were 8.33 stops between the Visible and the Ultraviolet photographs. This is because there is little UV present in sunlight. Nevertheless, outdoors in strong sunlight at ISO-1600 it is probably feasible to hand-hold the given set of gear for UV photography at a wide aperture like f/4 to f/5.6.

 

(3) Indoors using on-board flash for visible illumination and a small UV-LED torch for UV illumination, there were 4.66 stops between the Visible and the Ultraviolet photographs. However, with this particular UV torch it probably not feasible to hand-hold the given set of gear for UV photography. We're gonna need a bigger boat UV-LED torch.

 

 

For what it is worth, here is an IR photo to complete the series.

 

Infrared Indoors with On-board Flash, Ambient Tungsten Lamp and B+W 093 IR-Pass Filter: f/11 for 1/160" @ ISO-800

It was really hard to focus the bruise in IR through Live View, so I also turned on a lamp. Even with lens stopped down to f/11, it was difficult to capture much detail of the bruise in the inherently soft IR light (which also penetrates the skin). This isn't too bad though.

The ballpoint ink disappeared in IR.

600_2760pn.jpg

 

 

That is one horrible looking knee !! I may be embarrassed.

I have yet to solve for X.

 

This ends all I have for today.

Link to comment

Andy, my apologies -- I did not quote correctly from the paper. I left out the qualifier "UV" from in front of the word "longwave". I have repaired my error in the reference to the Cochran article.

 

I need an Editor. I'm terrible at editing myself.

 

Thanks for the great chart and reference !!

Link to comment
Andy Perrin

Gotcha. I have to say, I am enjoying the contrast of your elegant swirly signature font on these grisly bruises! :) :) :P

 

On the infrared one, I bet you could crank up the contrast and make the bruise stand out more.

 

ETA: Photoshop experiment. I took your IR pic, did a Smart Blur to remove the skin texture, used Curves and Auto Tone to bring out the bruise, then added the original image back on top of it at 50% opacity (also with an Auto Tone).

post-94-0-05477200-1458701370.jpg

Link to comment

Very gruesome indeed !!! Nice edit.

 

I'm going back and forth about how much we should edit documentary photos. Should a documentary photo appear as much like the "reality" as possible? I think for any visible light documentary photo, we would have to say yes to that. For documentary IR and UV photos, it is much tougher to figure out what the reality is in the first place because we can't see it. (She said, stating the obvious.) When I was viewing the bruise in Live View under the IR filter, it appeared pretty much like the IR photo I posted - except for some false colour variation between the in-camera setting and the final posted version. However, a Live View view of an IR bruise is already an artificial construct, dependent upon so many variables that it would take paragraphs to list them all. Thus, why not edit the IR bruise to provide better contrast and thereby delineate the boundaries of the trauma?

 

Fortunately I don't have to decide the answers to such questions about documentary photos. But anyone using UV/IR photos for documentary forensics work needs to carefully think through the pros & cons of any edits which could, for example, possibly cause injuries to appear better or worse than they really are. I'm sure there has been already a great deal of thought about forensics photo editing standards, but I'm simply not familiar with the forensic literature in this area.

 

*****

An easier IR edit. Reset black point. Add strong S-curve. Not as dramatic though. "-)

bruiseIR_sCurveBlkPt.jpg

Link to comment
enricosavazzi

I would like to add that UV-enabled Xenon flash (i.e. converted electronic flash, or electronic flash with non-coated flash tubes) would seem to be the most suitable NUV source for hand-held photography at close range. No UV sources are completely safe, but electronic flash has the advantage of exposing the subject to UV radiation only during the exposure. In most cases, only electronic flash provides sufficiently short exposures to avoid subject and camera movement in hand-held close-up photography, at the relatively low UV sensitivity provided by typical converted digital cameras. Electronic flash also provides a broader spectrum of UV emission than LEDs. Watch out for quartz flash tubes though, which emit substantial amounts of UVB (quartz is transparent to UVB, and quartz xenon tubes typically can be built with a narrower inner diameter than glass/Pyrex tubes, which results in a higher current density and probably an enhanced UV emission).

 

It is necessary to add a continuous, relatively low-level NUV source to focus and frame with a UV-pass filter mounted on the camera lens. A 365 nm LED torch should be suitable. Exposure of the eyes to UV sources should always be avoided, but skin exposure to a UV LED torch for a few tens of seconds should be equivalent, in the worst case, to a brief (one minute to a few minutes) exposure to sunlight.

 

I have not read carefully all replies in this thread, so I may be re-stating things already said. I would question whether a converted DSLR is really the best choice. With an NUV-pass, VIS- and NIR-blocking filter on the lens as required for NUV imaging, the optical viewfinder of a DSLR is useless, and focusing and framing must be done on the LCD screen in live view. This is basically the same as using a converted mirrorless camera. So why not use a converted mirrorless camera instead of a converted DSLR? Mirrorless cameras allow the use of a greater variety of legacy lenses than DSLRs, including several lenses useful in NUV imaging.

Link to comment

Enrico, thank you for this valuable contribution about UV illumination.

 

Re DSLR: The listing of Sony in the first post camera recommendations implies that mirrorless is also recommended. I just converted a mirrorless Sony A7R myself for use with legacy lenses. Olympus and Panasonic, both mirrorless, were also mentioned.

Link to comment
Andy Perrin
There is a lot of specular reflection off of the skin surface, I'm noticing. Is it possible to do polarized UV photos somehow? That might let you block out a lot of the glossiness that's making it hard to see the underlying structures there.
Link to comment
The best of all variants is a DSLR with built-in UV bandpass filter. No need to fumble around with UV torches to focus.
Link to comment

For this kind of work, that is what I was thinking. And thus the internal UV-only conversion needs be a DSLR. I'd better add that above.

However, then the researcher would need two cameras per session: one for the visible record and one for the UV record. The added expense might potentially be a problem.

Link to comment
Is it possible to do polarized UV photos somehow?

 

Yes but it is not cheap. I have two pieces of UV polarizing material from 10 years ago and they cost a fortune then.

 

Also be sure to remove all skin oils prior to capturing the image.

Link to comment

Did a little consulting work in the past.

My recommendation would be a UVIR broad band converted DSLR combined with a UV modified flash (SB140UVIR was ideal for this application) as this allows the possibility to capture at several different wavelengths. This is a requirement as the light wavelength required for bruise detection varies with the age of the bruise.

 

IR has the ability to detect early bruising due to subcutaneous blood pooling.

Narrow Band Blue light 450nm is useful for revealing details not apparent in regular visible light. (450nm is the absorption region of bilirubin and biliverdin, breakdown products of hemoglobin.

UV can be used with some success for recent bruises but is required for detection of bruises between 3-6 months after occurring (takes this long for melanocyte migration).

Link to comment

 

 

Yes but it is not cheap. I have two pieces of UV polarizing material from 10 years ago and they cost a fortune then.

 

 

Why not try a few plates of fused silica at Brewsters angle to polarize the light?

Link to comment
Andy Perrin
You would have to limit the incoming light to just Brewster's angle (or a very small cone around it) and UV is already pretty dim...
Link to comment

I wasn't expecting so many replies, so thank you, especially to you Andrea!

 

Some of the points you've raised;

 

Camera: We have a couple of options for ones we already own, a Nikon D100 and a Nikon D60. If we were to buy one especially to convert then we would be looking at a budget of around £500 (UK). We would also be looking at a UV only conversion. We would be photographing the subject with a separate camera for normal photography at the same time, so this service would be a supplement to what we normally provide.

 

Lens: Ideally this would be between a 60 / 85 / 105mm prime lens. We do need to work close to the subjects and we can't work outside.

 

Shielding Eyes: I doubt we would be allowed to introduce a service where we need them to shield their eyes. Health & safety is a bit OTT here in the UK and for something not crucial to treatment might be shot down.

 

Conversion: We have a couple of options for conversion in the UK, Life Pixel as you've mentioned and also one called ACS.

 

Flash & Filter: A limiting factor for what we can use here is that, stupidly, we can't go second hand and we can't buy off sites like eBay! Ridiculous NHS structure and again, H&S gone mad.

 

I have recently come across an article about photographing a skin condition called Vitiligo (skin pigmentation) and the photographer used the following equipment:

 

Nikon D100 with a 380-400nm UVA transmission filter conversion

Micro-Nikkor 105mm

76 MZ-5 digital Metz flash with Kodak Wratten 18A filter

 

I'm unsure if the depth level bruises require for UV photography would work with the above equipment, what do you think?

Link to comment
I'm unsure if the depth level bruises require for UV photography would work with the above equipment, what do you think?

 

UV has the lowest depth penetration and is therefore useful for telltale signs of old "bruising". Are you going to limit yourself to old bruising only?

 

Please re-read:

 

"the light wavelength required for bruise detection varies with the age of the bruise.

 

IR has the ability to detect early bruising due to subcutaneous blood pooling.

Narrow Band Blue light 450nm is useful for revealing details not apparent in regular visible light. (450nm is the absorption region of bilirubin and biliverdin, breakdown products of hemoglobin.

UV can be used with some success for recent bruises but is required for detection of bruises between 3-6 months after occurring (takes this long for melanocyte migration)."

Link to comment

James, I have a few comments. And I'll ask some others to comment where I cannot.

 

Nikon D100 or D60: Both have CCD sensors and will perform adequately after an internal UV-only conversion. Photo quality is much noisier in the older cameras when ISO levels are boosted. And you will need to boost ISO levels. A new Nikon D3200 with vastly improved high-ISO capability costs about £230 at Gray's (before conversion). Of course, you could always start with your existing D100 or D60 and if it does not test out well, then you could get a newer model.

 

IMPORTANT D100 NOTE: The D100 had a very weak internal filter. It is possible that the D100 may be useable for your UV work without conversion. I cannot say definitively because illumination and lens play a role here. You would simply have to test the D100 with your lens & flash and with an external UV-pass filter. However, don't skip reading the "however" below.

The unconverted D100 UV-transmission is shown to be between 55-68% in the 375-400nm range.

Here is a link to a transmission chart from Kolari Vision: http://kolarivision.com/articles/internal-cut-filter-transmission/

Would UV photography be easier with a converted D100? Yes, see next for why.

 

HOWEVER, it is very important to note that if you are using an unconverted D100, then you cannot through the viewfinder to focus the lens when it bears a dark UV-pass filter. So you must focus first without the external UV-pass filter, then add the filter and make a small focus adjustment to account for the shorter UV wavelengths. This is why it is nice to have an internal UV-only conversion so you can see to focus through the viewfinder.

 

Conversion: A typical UV-pass filter with IR-blocking that would be used in a UV-only conversion is most likely going to have a peak lower than 380nm. I am thinking along the lines of Schott DUG11 or 11x glass here. That may not be the only glass type offered in a UV-only conversion. I have no way to know what the desired UVA range is for your type of work, but do make sure you provide your camera with the appropriate range.

 

105mm Lens - which version? It would be important to know which version of the 105mm Micro-Nikkor you are referencing: the older 105/2.8D AF or the newer 105/2.8G AF-S ?? The newer model of this lens might have coatings which block some UV. I have the old 105/2.8D AF and can test it for UV capability. But I don't think you can buy the old version as a "new" lens if that is your requirement.

 

Buy New Lens?: This is a crazy requirement! New dedicated UV-capable lenses cost between (US)$5000-$7500. This forces you into buying a new, but non-UV lens and "forcing" UV through it. If it should work out that the new 105mm Micro-Nikkor is somewhat useable, that lens costs between (US)$700-800.

 

Flash: I cannot comment on the proposed Metz with Wratten 18A. But I will get someone else to look at this.

Link to comment

I have recently come across an article about photographing a skin condition called Vitiligo (skin pigmentation) and the photographer used the following equipment:

 

Nikon D100 with a 380-400nm UVA transmission filter conversion

Micro-Nikkor 105mm

76 MZ-5 digital Metz flash with Kodak Wratten 18A filter

 

Do you have a reference to this article? One might question if Micro-Nikkor 105mm was actually a misidentified 105mm UV-Nikkor.

Link to comment
Without having a 76 MZ-5 Metz on hand, it is difficult to determine whether factory UV blocking is accomplished using a coated xenon tube and/or a UV blocking Fresnel lens. Using this flash without modification will likely produce very limited UV. Making "nice fitting" UV filters for this may be difficult as their only appears to be one flash adapter available for this model and that is from Metz, and it does not look conducive to being modified into a "professional" looking UV filter adapter.
Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...