Hybrid Nepenthes in UVF

[Adrian]

An interesting hybrid pitcher plant: Nepenthes ventricosa x talangensis in visible light, and UV induced fluorescence.

 

Technical details Camera: Nikon D800, at 200 ISO. 105 mm micro Nikkor at f/16. UV source: Convoy S2+ UV (365nm) . Approx. 20 second exposure, "painted" with UV source (I held my breath during the exposure to minimise movement of the swaying pitcher!)

 

I have done several species and hybrids of Nepenthes in UVF, and this is the first one with a fluorescing rim to the lid of the pitcher.

[Andrea B.]

Stellar, Adrian! Thanks for showing us this.

 

You are making quite a nice collection of Pitcher Plant photos. What do you plan to do with them? I ask this because I am always wondering what to do with my own botanical photographs. :D Please note that we would love to see a formal entry in our botanical section for your various Pitcher Plants. (Reminder: All photographers retain full ownership and copyright to any photographs posted there.) For a long time I have been intending to at least provide links in the botanical section to the various botanical photos shown elsewhere, but alas, I never quite seem to have the time. Perhaps Bjørn and I could use an assistant at this point! But I digress....back to this very cool Nepenthes.

[Andy Perrin]

That’s stunning.

[Guest]

Adrian, those are very nice images. I am curious about one thing though. Regarding the rim of the pitcher - can it be said with certainty that this color is fluorescence? Could it be that this is blue light bleeding through your lens filter? While the Convoy S2+ is a great little torch, unfiltered it does also throw a lot of violet light (in addition to UV). Over the course of very a long exposure some of this could be bleeding (forcing) through your filter. So I wonder whether that rim is blue-fluorescent, or strongly UV/violet/blue reflective. There is also some very rich purple in parts of the pitcher as well, furthering my suspicion.

 

Its not my intention to criticize your images (I do like them very much), its just that I struggle with this question in my own images and I'd like to hear what you (and others) think about differentiating true blue-fluorescence versus source/filter bleed.

[Adrian]

Thank you to everyone for their comments. I will re-shoot it with a Baader U filter over the lens, to ensure that it is just UV reaching the specimen.

 

In answer to Andrea, about what I do with the images, I am thinking of doing another book possible on "Invisible Plants", including not only UV and IR but also high speed time-lapse and long exposure photography.

 

I also send images to various picture libraries, though the income is negligible!

[Andrea B.]

I also send images to various picture libraries, though the income is negligible!

 

Sad but true these days. I gave up on this. I'm hoping to someday simply donate my botanical work to the Library of Congress or the American Botanical Society. A book would be nice but I don't know if I have the "energy" for that.

 

---

 

If concerned about capturing blue fluorescence only or not, do look into narrowband filtration. We will always have the problem of discerning what we have actually photographed when using our broadband filters and unfiltered light. Don't let some reviewer snag you on this if your are considering publishing your images as anything other than "art". Be clear about what you have actually captured.

 

Minor edit.

[Andrea B.]

Adrian, come back, I have a question!!!

 

May I ask please, what are you using as a non-fluorescing background for your UVI-VF images?

 

I really need to clean up the backgrounds I use when I bring a flower indoors for photographing it. I'm sure other readers might like to hear your insights on this. Thank you!

[Adrian]

Some very old but high quality black velvet (difficult to find nowadays) . It obviously picks up dust and other specks, which need to be retouched with Photoshop's spot healing brush. I try to keep it as far away from the subject as possible. If necessary I use the black slider in Adobe Camera Raw, or the histogram, to take it to black.

[Andrea B.]

Thank you. B)

I do have some velvet. But the dust is quite a problem, isn't it? I also have a faux velvet platform made for displaying jewelry in a jewelry store. It has the same dust problem, of course.

 

However, I think that perhaps I have not been placing the background far enough from the subject. When working inside a little light box, there is not much room for distancing subject and background. But the light box is likely not necessary, only convenient for blocking stray light and moving air. (Even indoors, sometimes there are air currents.) I will try a few without it.

 

I have used the Color Points in Capture NX2 for the same background darkening effect. Or sometimes for a bleaching effect. Occasionally I try to cut out a flower and make a drop shadow for the cutout. But that is often rather artificial looking in the end. And very tedious!

[Adrian]

Andrea

Not sure about "faux velvet". Mine is a 25 year old 1 metre square piece which I bought for £30 then - a lot of money. When it gets dirty you can clean it by steaming the back of it with a boiling kettle. It is brilliant for any application in photography needing a black background, but, as I said before not easy to get hold of nowadays.

[Andrea B.]

I think that jewelry platform material which I called faux velvet is actually called "velveteen"? Not entirely sure. The platform has

reflection problems sometimes so is not the best solution. But I still should try placing it further away from the subject.

 

That was expensive for fabric !! That's approximately $30/yard.

 

We no longer have fabric stores here in my township. I suppose nobody sew clothing or curtains any more. For awhile the fabric stores stayed in business because making quilts was a big thing here. But the last one of those selling quilting fabric closed 2 years ago. There might still be some elsewhere.

[bobfriedman]

quite nice!...