Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

Prunus salicina (Japanese Plum fruit tree) in comparative VIS and UV exposures


Recommended Posts

This is a VIS / UV photo comparison test, via a copy of a Super Lentar 35mm F/3.5 preset lens, in T2 mount, mated to a T2-to-M42 adapter, and an M42 focusing helicoid (for added macro-focusing capability), and mounted to my full-spectrum-modified Panasonic Lumix G5.

 

It is said (by a few individuals in the "UV community") to have a similar optical formula to the Kuribayashi / Kyoei 35mm F/3.5 in M42 mount (the variant with a 23mm front element diameter, and a 46mm filter thread), even though it has different coatings (with some traces of faint blues, as opposed to just the gold-colored coating of the Kuri).

 

The UV-pass / IR-block scheme involved the stacking of U-340 in 2mm thickness, and S8612 in 2mm thickness, custom-white-balance set to PTFE (in camera).

 

Upon shooting with the Super Lentar 35mm F/3.5 preset / T2 variant, this morning, to test the UV claims, I have confirmed through my own results that it is indeed quite UV-capable. Although its precise transmission curve remains a mystery, unless tested with a spectrometer, of course.

 

1. Settings for the VIS exposure: ISO 160, Aperture F/11, Shutter 1/300 sec, S8612 / 2mm glass for IR suppression. Color-cast correction, in PP editing.

 

2. Settings for the UV exposure: ISO 160, Aperture F/11, Shutter 10 seconds. U-340 / 2mm stacked with S8612 / 2mm.

 

Both shots maintain the same framing / positioning of subject (using a steady tripod), so that one can do an "overlap" comparison, if need be.

 

No change in focusing was required, between the VIS and UV shots. This indicates that the focus shift, like the Kuri, is minimal (at least when stopped down to F/11, anyway).

 

As for the test subject, itself:

 

This is a pair of photos of one of the now-blossoming plum trees that my wife and I planted on our property, just this past weekend.

 

The first photograph, as seen here, is of what the human eye typically sees. A macro photo of off-white colored blossoms - just 15mm in diameter (average size of a human thumb nail) - belonging to the cultivar of Prunus salicina, or a "Japanese Plum" fruit tree.

 

It was so much fun for us to go picking out more trees to grow on our land, and this time it was decided that we wanted to grow some of our own fruit. Thus, we commenced our ongoing "adopting" of various plants into our family, by purchasing two, cross-pollinating plum cultivars, to keep each other company for years to come.

 

This one (lovingly named "Ozark", because of the name of the cultivar ... "Ozark Premier") is now in full blossoming phase, and simply stunning to behold.

 

(The other tree nearby but not in this photo, named "Morris" for the "Morris Plum" cultivar), is a bit of a late-bloomer, and is just budding for the time being.

 

Furthermore, these blossoms are more than just pretty to look at. They are substantially fragrant, and that is no surprise, since plums are members of the Rose (Rosaceae) family of flowering plants and shrubs. Quite closely related to your typical garden rose ... but with added benefits: Yielding edible fruit. :D

 

Note: You can see, in the second photo (UV-only) that the individual stamens at the center of each blossom appear BLACK in color (UV-dark). Clearly, the plum blossoms exhibit some sort of "nectar guide", or so I suspect. (Of course, it's also possible that the UV-darkness of the individual stamens is just due to random biology and consequent reflectivity. Any thoughts on this?)

post-34-0-95231400-1394063121_thumb.png

post-34-0-81138400-1394063131_thumb.png

Link to comment

Thanks so much, Col!

 

I just edited my post, and added in additional information (concerning the lens / set-up info), in the first half of the post.

Link to comment

Pretty blossoms. Wish we had the warmth here for such. I am ready for spring. Please send some my way !! :D

 

The UV exposure at f/11 is 10 seconds long. That is fairly long and may indicate a lens that is not quite as UV capable as, say, the UV-Nikkor with which I think I would only expect a 3-4 second long exposure at f/11. However, I suspect that shooting the blossoms on the tree may have put you into a more shaded area

and thus the long exposure is reasonable ??

 

That is probably a Tokina lens ??

 

The visible frame is showing up a bit dark on my MacPro monitor. What are you using to convert ?

Link to comment

Pretty blossoms. Wish we had the warmth here for such. I am ready for spring. Please send some my way !! :D

 

Shouldn't be long, now. Hang tight! ;)

 

The UV exposure at f/11 is 10 seconds long. That is fairly long and may indicate a lens that is not quite as UV capable as, say, the UV-Nikkor with which I think I would only expect a 3-4 second long exposure at f/11. However, I suspect that shooting the blossoms on the tree may have put you into a more shaded area

and thus the long exposure is reasonable ??

 

Actually, I have already ruled out that the longer (than typical) exposure time is not due to anything related to this lens's optical formula or coatings.

 

How so? Well, because I have also done quite a good deal of UV work with its supposed equivalent optical "cousin", the Kuribayashi / Kyoei 35mm F3.5. Both lenses give good exposures at about 4 to 8 seconds, at ISO 160, with my UV-pass/IR-cut stack (depending on the direction of sunlight), and not 10 seconds.

 

So, why the 10 seconds, in this particular case? Well, recall that I also attached an additional macro tube / extension (with adjustable helicoid, betweem 35mm and 90mm extension length), in between the lens mount and the camera mount. From what I understand, extreme MACRO extension (whether by bellows, tubes, or any hollow design) can effectively act like a stop increase, by cutting down on the total luminosity of light exiting the rear element, especially as you pull the lens increasingly further from the imaging plane / sensor. A proportionate loss of light, due to increased scattering (more stray and unused light particles) and hence less "transfer efficiency", when the exiting image (from the rear element) has further and further to travel to the imaging / sensor plane.

 

Or so, this is what I presume is the reason for why an ever-increasing macro-extension-distance from the imaging / sensor plane progressively darkens the image / exposure, based on my own experiences. (If I am wrong in the specifics of these observed dynamics, then someone please correct me).

 

Rest assured, though, that when I mount just the lens, by itself (with no macro-extension tubes or macro-focusing helicoids in between the lens and the camera mount), exposure times are more in line with the typical observations.

 

Thus, the equivalent "f-stop" that I probably got with this particular shot (based on a 40mm added extension or so) is probably more closer to F/16. But that is estimated. I guess I should have mentioned that. :P

Link to comment

That is probably a Tokina lens ??

 

I doubt it. I suspect that it is actually a Kuribayashi / Kyoei-manufactured "blank" ... which was stamped, re-branded, and resold under the "Lentar" brand. This is because this particular design uses the same exact 23mm-diameter front element, the same rear-element protrusion / design, the same lens body construction, and even the same 46mm filter-thread barrel.

 

Kuri / Kyoei sourced a lot of their over-stocked "blanks" (unstamped) units to other re-sellers, from what I understand.

 

True, that Tokina (as well as Cosina and Komine, among others) began doing the same things (manufacturing for brand re-sellers), but their versions of the Preset 35mm F/3.5 T-mount exhibited a slightly different design: 49mm filter threading, a larger front-element diameter, and a completely different rear-element protrusion / extrusion design. They also typically started including an "H" lettering code, in front of the serial number (or so, I have read in several intensive forum discussions), whereas the Kuri / Kyoei-sourced variants had a "K" (for "Kuribayashi") or "KA" ("Kyoei Acall") letter "identity" code in front of the serial numbers.

 

I cannot confirm if the "H" is sourced by Tokina (or alternatively, Cosina), but I am almost 100% certain that the "K" and "KA" designations are indeed Kuri / Kyoei Acall sourced blanks.

 

Someone once suggested that the "H" could also stand for 'Hanimex'. But, I don't think that Hanimex made its own lenses. It was simply another re-brander / re-seller venue, as far as I know? Shrug. :D I would place my bet on the "H" standing for a Tokina or Cosina-sourced blank. The letter doesn't necessarily have to reflect the Anglicized moniker for an otherwise Japanese manufacturing plant name. ("Hanimex" is clearly not a Japanese name, but Kuribayashi / Kyoei definitely are).

 

The visible frame is showing up a bit dark on my MacPro monitor. What are you using to convert ?

 

No, there is no error or issue, here. ;) The background in the VISIBLE exposure is indeed dark, in real life. It is a wooden fence (but treated with a coating, which likely also reflects UV). And it was also in partial shade, at the time of the shot.

 

However, the wood treatment / coating (varnish or something similar added to it) is apparently so UV-reflective, that even in partial shade, the fence appears to shockingly "light up" in a UV-only exposure! And that "UV illumination" is obviously from stray / errant trace amounts of UV radiation probably being reflected off of nearby objects, because the fence itself is clearly in shade! What an interesting discovery!

 

Perhaps this type of wood treatment / coating can be used as a UV-confirmation target, to confirm UV-transmissive lenses? Hmmm.

 

(Oh, and as for the flower blossoms themselves looking a bit too dark than they should be [even though they should be bright white], I mistakenly overexposed some of my highlights in the flower petals, in the visible shot. So, I had to play around with the dynamic range / shadow correction / and mid-tone sliders, to compensate in PP editing. I would say that I probably over-processed, in that case. Because now they look like a muddied off-white / cream). :P

Link to comment

The visible light reference is indeed quite severely underexposed and hence much darker than it should appear. Perhaps as much as 1-2 stops.

 

White petals should be that, white. Not almost transparent.

Link to comment

The visible light reference is indeed quite severely underexposed and hence much darker than it should appear. Perhaps as much as 1-2 stops.

 

White petals should be that, white. Not almost transparent.

 

Indeed, I agree.

 

But it's not "under-exposure." It's over-processing. In the original photo, the petals are a very bright-white in color. I will re-post the original photo, later, and show you.

Link to comment
We can only respond to what is shown us. As depicted the exposure is plainly inconsistent with the fact the flowers should be white. That is the rationale for my comment.
Link to comment

We can only respond to what is shown us. As depicted the exposure is plainly inconsistent with the fact the flowers should be white. That is the rationale for my comment.

 

I agree.

 

I just get too obsessed with blown-out highlights. And this time, my obsession made me over-process the image.

Link to comment

Ok. I just tried to upload a less-processed (closer to original) image ... and the forum keeps denying the upload.

 

It says: "Used 29.3MB of your 30MB global upload quota (Max. single file size: 719.53K)"

Link to comment

Interesting stuff about all these lenses - Petri, Kuri, Hanimex, Super-Lentar and so forth.

Hope we can find an authoritative source some day about who manufactured what.

When I do happen upon such stuff, I try to record it or link to it in the UV Lens Sticky.

 

Somewhere on the Manual Lens forum was an identification of one example Super-Lentar with Tokina as the manufacturer,

so I put our one UV-capable Super Lentar entry with Tokina.

But ya know, methinks I should probably give "Super-Lentar" its own "brand" entry in the UV Lens list

because that seems to be how they were sold.

Makes more sense to list it that way because that is how folks will search the list.

Link to comment

Just looked: My Kyoei branded W.Acall type lens has no initial letter in the serial number.

These lenses are all over the map !!

Link to comment

Hope we can find an authoritative source some day about who manufactured what.

 

Me too! I think the reason that info is so scarce and incomplete (even on the net), is simply because these business and manufacturing transactions occurred within an era when there was no internet. Heck, in many cases, not even a computer involved. Much info was either directly logged in paper records (filing cabinets), or stored on rudimentary computer systems.

 

So, when the era of the "legacy lens" faded into obscurity, as the digital age was ushered in, the "paper trail" records essentially died off, with it. And that likely includes much of the data on manufacturing codes, serial number designation patterns, and so on.

 

(Although, thankfully, we have those handful of individuals which were able to track down fragments of this missing "paper trail" of past transactions and manufacturing records, and start converting that info into web-based data).

 

However, some fragments of that info may forever be lost to time, and thus we will only go on speculating, at best. :unsure:

 

Somewhere on the Manual Lens forum was an identification of one example Super-Lentar with Tokina as the manufacturer,

so I put our one UV-capable Super Lentar entry with Tokina.

 

And it's quite possible that such brand names as "Lentar" (as well as "Super-Lentar", "Tele-Lentar", and other derivatives) could have had multiple batch sources of lens manufacturers working for them.

 

Take the 'Vivitar' re-bander / re-seller, for example. Their lenses (during the 70's through the late 80's) were sourced by no less than at least five different manufacturers, even for some of the very same exact lens models! Tokina, Komine, Cosina, Kobori, and Kiron (a subsidiary of Kino Precision Industries, made up of a team of Nikon engineer defectors, who started up their own optical manufacturing company) all produced lens variants for the "Vivitar" brand.

 

So, it's anyone's guess as to the almost limitless ways that these manufacturing paths wind, twist, and intersect. It's enough to make a collector's head spin with speculations and conjectures, without any positive confirmation. :blink:

 

(Although, at least when it comes to 'Vivitar', the serial # patterns have been authoritatively confirmed: Kiron / Kino-manufactured lens = starting with 22 in the serial string. Komine-manufactured lens = starting with 28 in the serial string. Kobori-manufactured lens = starting with 77 in the serial string.)

Link to comment

But ya know, methinks I should probably give "Super-Lentar" its own "brand" entry in the UV Lens list

because that seems to be how they were sold.

Makes more sense to list it that way because that is how folks will search the list.

<Andrea goes to add this to her ever growing ToDo List.>

 

To tell you the truth, I think that you should list all lens with their actual stamped names, and not the actual manufacturing source ... given how wildly these business manufacturing transactions overlapped, twisted and turned in so many combinations.

 

However, if it were my own project, I would create two boxes (columns) of categories on the spreadsheet for the lens database. The first column would include the actual stamped name, on the lens (regardless of manufacturing source). And this indeed should hold the dominant "search by name" protocol. And the second column would include suspected manufacturer(s). (Or listed as "same as stamped name" under the suspected manufacturer(s) column, if not a re-brand. Or, stated as "N/A", if no information is forthcoming, for the time being).

 

That way, you can neatly address both sides.

Link to comment

That is pretty much how I am listing the lenses - by the brand or "name" actually on the lens

because that is how one would look for these lenses on ebay or elsewhere.

 

In the case of Petri, I did lump some of the brands but have just today worked on

adding pointers to the Petri block under the stamped brand so these lenses could be found either way.

(This is not posted yet.)

 

Of course, most of the UV Lens Sticky entries come from other folks, so there may be a few which are slightly inaccurate

with respect to the brand and/or "name" of the lens. Such as the Tokina Super-Lentar which I'm going to change later.

 

The UV Lens Sticky is always a work-in-progress :unsure: -- corrections or additions are made as needed when I have the time.

Link to comment

Just looked: My Kyoei branded W.Acall type lens has no initial letter in the serial number.

These lenses are all over the map !!

 

Well, that's because Kyoei was its own optical division at one point (or so, I believe ... to be a subsidiary of the Kuribayashi company, later changed to Petri), and thus it didn't need to put "source codes" (either letters, or repeating numerals) within their own serial numbers. (Whereas, "Acall" and "Super Acall" are model lines of Kuri / Kyoei lenses. Just like "Lumix" is a model line of Panasonic cameras.)

 

Ok, my head is spinning already. :unsure: Haha.

 

Regardless, I would think that It only makes sense for re-branders / re-sellers to be stamped with alpha-numeric source codes within serial numbers, since they don't actually manufacture their own lenses. But my reasoning is: Why would an actual manufacturer of lenses need identification codes for their own lenses?

 

Right now, I can confirm at least a dozen or so re-branders / re-sellers, that were stamped with a "K" or "KA" in front of their serial numbers. (I can confirm Lentar, Prinz / Galaxy, Hanimex, and Spiratone as some of the re-branded / re-sold Kuri / Kyoei 35mm F/3.5 blanks, with either identical or nearly-identical UV-transmissive capabilities). But I will not reveal all of them, right now, because I am undertaking my own project. That being, that I am in the process of determining just how many re-branders / re-sellers where sold the surplus, unstamped blanks of the very UV-capable Kuri / Kyoei 35mm F/3.5 preset lens.

 

Among the Kuri / Kyoei rebranded blanks, stamped with re-seller names ... some of them have proven to thus be "one-offs", for the time being. Meaning, they have proven themselves to be so rare/ scarce to find, that I have only seen JUST ONE copy ever on sale, and I just so happened to snag those "one-off" rarities, recognizing exactly what they were when I saw them - based on external design cues. My search is ongoing, even now, for undiscovered "clones." I'm just not at liberty to reveal the names of these "one-offs" that I have procured. Not until I have a little more time to see if I can locate a duplicate on sale (or more), ever again. :blink: (Which would no longer deem them "one-offs", of course.)

 

(I have lovingly dubbed those "one-offs" [or orphans] as a "unicorn", because of their solitary rarity, thus far.)

Link to comment

Ok, So here is the close-to-original appearance of the visible exposure from the two photos, posted up top.

 

This one is only minimally processed ... involving only a correction to the color-cast, and a slight bumping up of contrast. And a subtle highlight slider correction, instead of the aggressive correction in the previous post. Nothing more.

 

Otherwise, I left the dynamic range (shadow / highlight / mid-tone curves) generally close to the original.

 

Thus, you can see ... that I was just a bit overzealous with my processing, the first time around. And the reason I went crazy, initially, is because I tend to be a bit obsessive-compulsive when it comes to potentially-blown or clipped highlights.

 

(Note a few parts of the white petals, those facing the sun directly, where they are just about at the upper threshold of highlight clipping).

 

So, this is why I got a bit crazy with the processing. I assume that this one is better, then? :unsure:

post-34-0-96561100-1394156660_thumb.png

Link to comment

Ig, you must be using Photoshop/ACR for conversion/editing as there is text on the photos ??

ACR has good highlight & shadow recovery sliders.

 

But with a Lumix, you can't always capture a wide dynamic range like the shadows/brights in your photo. Heck, it's even hard to do with a Nikon. I think I'd prolly bracket some shots and combine them - not via HDR (which is awful) but manually in layers maybe?? Then you could get a bit more of the detail in the branches -- *if* that is what you wanted. Artistically speaking, I rather like this second version with the bright blossoms and the dark background. There is always the artistry to consider. :unsure:

 

If you want me to try a conversion in Photo Ninja - which has an interesting Illumination slider and very good highlight recovery, then put a raw in Dropbox, post the link and I'll play with it.

 

Your post reminds me that I should get busy with more editing and post some Prunus blossoms that I have photographed over the years.

Link to comment

Ig, you must be using Photoshop/ACR for conversion/editing as there is text on the photos ??

ACR has good highlight & shadow recovery sliders.

 

Yes, I use ACR for my RAW editing, as well as Photoshop Elements for my processing, and not the higher-cost stuff. Elements, in fact, has 95% of the more vital tools that I need, anyway. All without the crazy overhead, and ridiculous month-to-month "Cloud"-based subscriptions just imposed on the latest edition of Photoshop's flagship software.

 

My version is Elements 10. The best and most robust version yet, in my opinion. After that, Elements 11 (and up) goes to total crap (they "dumbed it down"). Guess they didn't want the more sophisticated photographers having "cheaper" access to most of what is already found in their more expensive, higher-end Photoshop software. Ech.

 

The interface is fast, intuitive, and agile. Not overly bloated. It's got tools-a-plenty. More than what I will ever need, to get the job done.

 

(Don't even bring up Lightroom. I cannot stand its "suggested filing" system way of doing things. I already have my own way of filing and categorizing my work, thanks but no thanks, Lightroom. I don't neem some overly-bloated methodology, which can easily lead to errors and broken linking.)

 

In fact, this photo's processing (the photo we are talking about, here) was done from a JPEG, and not even a RAW file. The reason for that, being, is that I have not been able to have ACR retain the precise in-camera CWB (custom-white-balance) set by my Lumix camera, when opening the RAW version of the exposure. ACR just doesn't seem to hold the Lumix's CWB in place (when it comes to a full-spectrum-converted camera, that is).

 

Although, I admit, that I probably haven't played around with the custom "camera profile / calibration" options, yet. That is all new to me.

 

Honestly, the whole entire post-processing / editing game within any Photoshop product is still new to me (only 2 years that I have been using Elements products). Before that, I was getting by on Jasc software's PaintShop Pro for nearly 20 years.

 

(The addition of text / labeling, which you see in these photos, was still done with my ancient PaintShop Pro "freeware" copy, obtained in 1995! I kid you not! Shows you that we really DO NOT need the "latest and greatest" over-priced crap, for most of what we need, in terms of the more basic functions. Even today!)

 

But with a Lumix, you can't always capture a wide dynamic range like the shadows/brights in your photo. Heck, it's even hard to do with a Nikon. I think I'd prolly bracket some shots and combine them - not via HDR (which is awful) but manually in layers maybe?? Then you could get a bit more of the detail in the branches -- *if* that is what you wanted. Artistically speaking, I rather like this second version with the bright blossoms and the dark background. There is always the artistry to consider. :blink:

 

If you want me to try a conversion in Photo Ninja - which has an interesting Illumination slider and very good highlight recovery, then put a raw in Dropbox, post the link and I'll play with it.

 

Your post reminds me that I should get busy with more editing and post some Prunus blossoms that I have photographed over the years.

 

Regarding Photo Ninja, I actually have been meaning to try it for myself. I'd let you have a crack at it, but I don't want to spoil all of the fun of my own, first-time initiation, if you don't mind. :)

 

Oh, I absolutely agree that I should be careful with over-processing. I like the less processed photo better, too, now that I compared the two with a more rational and critical mentality, rather than getting so overly worked up about highlight clipping to the point that my photos do not even look natural any longer. Believe me, lesson learned! :unsure:

 

(I think it's time for me to download this Photo Ninja thing, and give it a spin. No more procrastinating!)

 

And as for the limitations of dynamic range, concerning the majority of the micro-4/3 systems, remember that I also have that newly-converted full-spectrum Pentax K-01 (which is basically a mirrorless Pentax K-5 under the hood). Plenty of dynamic range, there! So, next time, I will try that camera out, instead. Especially when it comes to such high-contrast scenes such as this one.

Link to comment
Yeah, what is it with ACR and broadband cameras? I can't get ACR to give a "proper" white balance to any of my UVIR shots made with any converted cam. Other converters don't seem to have that problem. Go figure.
Link to comment

Yeah, what is it with ACR and broadband cameras?

 

Here's what I believe to be the reason for this:

 

It's because ACR obtains the actual "developer's code" for each specific camera model's Bayer sensor array-to-RAW interface algorithms.

 

The way the hardware and software of each camera interprets information coming in through the sensor, so to speak. ("Analog-to-Digital" conversion interface, is the simplest way I can put it).

 

And, since that is the case, then no wonder that ACR cannot "understand" what it's looking at, when the associated "metadata" information stored in RAW falls outside of the camera's original operating constraints and design specifications.

 

It then searches (or rather, struggles) for the closest-possible white-balance "interpretation" that does fall within the conversion matrix's specified tolerances, as designated by the associated hardware / software interface with the sensor array.

 

Obviously, this editing software end of the "interpretation" falls WAY short, when it comes to in-camera CWB settings to full-spectrum radiation, or any radiation outside of the usual 400nm - 700nm bandwidth, for that matter.

 

Now, this corporate aim by Adobe to make ACR so highly-specialization for each camera model is certainly a good thing ... if, that is, you are not an alternate-spectrum photographer. That ACR goes to these great lengths (obtaining "developer's code" for each camera model, for the handling of RAW) is great, for normal photography.

 

But ... outside of that "normal" photography, this highly-specialized software easily gets confused, and therefore substitutes the closest interpretation within the camera's designated constraints and tolerances. Obviously, it doesn't do a very good job when it comes to an altered camera, does it? :unsure:

 

So, this is why some of the less dedicated RAW-editing software alternatives out there (which aren't bound by a specified camera's actual hardware / software programming code and associated algorithms) can ironically handle custom-white-balance much better than ACR, when it comes to information outside of normal constraints.

 

Other converters don't seem to have that problem.

 

In a way, this proves that there is such a thing as too much sophistication and specialization, because it can make software more rigid and less capable of being flexible with anything that suddenly is unexpected, or falls out of bounds. Funny how that works. Ironic, isn't it? :blink:

 

(Or so, this is what I believe to be the underlying issue, anyway.)

 

Although, from what I understand, the way ACR handles camera model-specific source code in RAW files can be "hacked" and subsequently edited. I am no expert on this. Whether such editing can compensate or atone for these issues (when it comes to alternate-spectral work) is not something I can answer. Maybe someone with better knowledge on this matter can comment?

Link to comment

I'm stuck with Elements 11, but I don't think it is missing anything. It is more that the interface lacks usuable space. I cannot keep the bottom tool choice area closed. Keeps popping open to take up space. Poor design.

 

I see some Elements 10 for sale on the 'Bay and on Amazon.

But can those be registered with Adobe if Elements 10 is no longer supported?? Don't know.

As I don't use PS Elements all that often, I'm just living with the version I've got.

 

The problem with false colour white balancd in ACR has nothing to do with demosaic-ing or Bayer filters, imho.

It is rather that there is no way to tell ACR not to apply the Nikon camera white balance temperature boundaries.

Even when using Adobe generic profiles, ACR still sees that it has a Nikon photo and won't let it go

outside a certain WB temperature range.

Generally speaking, the WB temperatures for UV click-white work

run between 1800-2000, depending on which converter is being used.

 

You can most certainly create your own camera profiles and use them in place of the existing ACR profiles,

no hacking needed. :unsure:

You need something like the CC Passport and its associated software to do this. It is not difficult.

 

But, if I recall correctly, the profiling methodology won't work for a UV photograph of the CC Passport.

I can't even make a UV photograph of the CC passport work in Photo Ninja for false colour profiling

because the colour patches are so far "off" in a UV photograph that the software coughs up a horrible mess.

 

Luckily for our UV purposes, a "click-white" step and no temperature restrictions is really all that is needed.

So any software permitting click-white over a wide range will get the job done for a decent false colour "white balance".

 

I'll go try to look into an ACR profile and see what's there.

 

ADDED: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/thankyou.jsp?ftpID=5493&fileID=5489

The ACR camera profiles are DNG profiles (extension .dcp). The editor at the given link allows you to alter them.

Link to comment

Here is one of the roses done up in ACR. Not too bad at all !!

Although this foto would not click-white in ACR, after converting it there

I then took it into PSE and applied an auto-levels and the color cast tool

both of which seemed to snap the colours around a bit.

 

I then used the Hue slider to turn some purple to blue

in an attempt to match our false colour standard here.

However I could not get rid of the cyan cast.

Probably would need more sophisticated tools from PS-CC for that.

 

I was waaaaay too heavy handed with the Clarity slider.

I love that thing, but have no self-control with it.

 

If I had to I could live with this.

rosaRedStripedUVBaadUSB14021414wf_16624orig.jpg

 

Well, no I couldn't.

Went back and used the Hue/Sat tool to simply desaturate the cyans and magentas.

That seemed to clean it up a bit more.

Seems like too much "work-around" to make up for lack of proper click-white !!

But it looks nice enough now.

rosaRedStripedUVBaadUSB14021414wf_16624res4.jpg

 

 

This is what it looked like in ACR. Absolutely could not budge the colours off the reds.

rosaRedStripedUVBaadUSB14021414wf_16624res2.jpg

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...