Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

Infrared Luminescence Photography


Recommended Posts

HI - I'm wondering if anyone has ever tried infrared luminsecence (fluorescence) photography? If so, what excitation filter did you use, and what light source?

Many thanks!

Adrian

Link to comment

Hi Adrian, I am currently doing some. Here is a topic I am showing some in, see also page 2.

http://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/1968-red-eyed-susan/

 

See also this facebook group if you want:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/459194287530636/

 

Use visual range light, or just green light, it must be filtered to under red.

Also I have tried using 365nm light, but this is a different thing.

Some people use green flood lights, multi-LED type, and filtered to block/prevent red/IR.

Link to comment

Infrared luminescence photography is very common in medical research, both in the lab and clinically. Typically their near infrared imaging is performed using microscope techniques or CCD cameras or machines like those for positron emission tomography. There are a gazillion references which pop up if you Google "infrared fluorescence". Quite interesting stuff!

 

The principle remains the same, however. Excitation filter over your illumination source and barrier filter your taking lens. :) Or perhaps very specialized illumination sources or ways of exciting the IR fluor.

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...

Read about it today and tried it this evening.

Stuff: LED 400 lumen, 4000K; UV/IR cut filter (BG40); IR pass filter (Travor 760 nm).

First processed the VIS/IR lit plant with LR and then copied the processing adjustments to the VIS lit plant.

Exposure time both images is 10 seconds. Post processing with NIK Dfine and NIK RAW Presharpener.

 

Uncovered LED: VIS/IR light spectrum. Camera captures the IR through the 760 nm IR filter.

post-132-0-78969600-1476732014.jpg

 

Covered the LED light with the BG40 filter: VIS light spectrum. Camera captures the IR through the 760 nm IR filter.

post-132-0-82324800-1476732013.jpg

 

I think the second image looks like IRF.

 

 

Herman

Link to comment
I tend to disagree. It just looks like a severely underexposed version of your first picture. Nothing appears to have changed?
Link to comment

Another try:

 

Uncovered LED; 850 nm filter; exposure time 20 seconds; exposure correction +3.20

post-132-0-32236200-1476737466.jpg

 

Covered LED with BG40; 850 nm filter; exposure time 120 seconds; exposure correction +3.20

post-132-0-48994300-1476737468.jpg

 

All suggestions welcome to improve on this.

 

 

Herman

Link to comment

Hi Herman, If in fact your camera + 850nm filter can not 'see' the light from the BG40 filtered visual LED light, then I think the shot is 850nm+ IR fluorescence.

BG40 2mm cuts around 740nm (OD3) to 800nm (OD5), so the 760nm longpass might be a little too close to isolate IR fluorescence from reflected IR entirely.

My point is that the 850nm longpass filter is a more solid test.

Also keep in mind that BG40 transmits UV also, so you can expect a mix of UVIIRF and VIIRF depending on the band width of your LED light, but that doesn't bother me too much, just saying.

Personally, I might use a different light source containing strong IR to shoot a reflected IR shot to compare with the UV/VIIRF 850nm shot.

 

Try pointing your camera + 850nm lens filter at the BG40 filtered LED light, and see what it looks like in live view.

You may still see something even with 850nm, because LED's can be very intense and cut through very tough OD sometimes.

So it may not be a very good 'real' test, but an interesting test in this situation.

If that test shows no light in live view, then you have IR fluorescence in that last shot above.

 

And just to make sure, you are shooting this in a totally dark room?

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...