UV flash test: Canon 199A & Promatic FTD 4500 AF

[msubees]

Testing equipment: Panasonic DMC G5 full spectrum converted. El Nikkor 80mm F/4.5 old version. S8612 (1 mm) for visual, S8612+UG11 (1.75mm) for UV shots.

Flower used: a species of soapwort (Caryophyllaceae) from our front garden (did not know it is so pretty in blue!)

 

All photos are not processed (not even for exposure). saved as raw+jpeg and I resized the jpeg to 1000 pix mag and uploaded them here. ISO=160, F8, most photos at 2 seconds, last one with my glasses 10 sec. I wait till the camera shutter is open and then fire the flashes via test button.

 

1. setup. Flash is situated about 4-5" from the right side of the flower. I put the flower on a piece of virgin PTFE so I can see if my WB preset (under sunlight) would work ok with flash also.

 

2. Visual color. all white.

 

3. UV, with modified Canon 199A per John's instructions (thank you!). I had to wiggle/pry a bit to get the cover off. Right now the bulb+reflector box has too much room and it moves a bit.

 

4. I then tried an non-mofified Canon 199A, since I bought two! and it gave some UV! enough for a shot. but it has a bluish tint. this should be able to be removed vial WB adjustment, I assume. I bought Photoninja last night but did not try it on this photo yet.

 

5. I then tried my old flash. Promatic FTD 4500 AF, supposed for Minolta but I thought I used it for my Nikon FE/2020.

Yes! no tint and almost as good as modified 199A. I will stop my ebay to sell it!

 

6. I tried my Nikon SB600. no good! modern flashes do a much job in blocking UV? be careful with your old flashes... I did 2 tests and had a control (2 seconds exposure with no flash) and all three photos are the same. only one presented here (with SB600).

 

7. I then repeated the Promatic flash (just in case I made a mistake last time!), closer, and brighter, even brighter than the 2nd photo with modofied 199A.

 

8. So this means the UV blocks is not too efficient on 199A? Yes, it perhaps reduces UV by 50%, eye-ball test :D

 

9. My glasses with UV blocker seems to work much much better than the plastic UV blocker on the 199A!

 

Conclusion. we now have a cheap flash (similar price to 199A on ebay) that requires no modifications! I wonder if I burn the plastic whether the UV will increase 50% or not?

Another project.

[msubees]

I lost the beautiful blue though, after using photoninja to correct the tint. This is from the unmodified 199A.

 

[colinbm]

Thanks Zach

I am watching closely :D

Col

[nfoto]

PhotoNinja is very susceptible as to what you have set your light source to. The natural default would be 'Daylight/Flash, which obviously works well in visible light, but throws off colours in UV. You should process the UV capture with Illumination = No Profile. That'll return your blues.

[msubees]

Bjorn,

 

thanks! I will try. For some reason it assumes my last preset (e.g. UV, + 2 EV) whenever it opens a raw file. so if I open a visible light photo, everything is messed up.

PhotoNinja is very susceptible as to what you have set your light source to. The natural default would be 'Daylight/Flash, which obviously works well in visible light, but throws off colours in UV. You should process the UV capture with Illumination = No Profile. That'll return your blues.

[Andrea B.]

I do not agree with Bjørn's comment about using No Profile setting.

That gives a sort of cyan-ish blue rather than the blues and grey-blues

which we like to see in a properly white-balanced UV photo.

 

There is no real harm in using No Profile, but the proper thing to do is

to save a UV white balance for your camera and use that as your choice on the Color Correction page.

 

Actually your photo has a bit of light leak (or flash bounce? or something?) in the upper right corner,

thus it is slightly difficult to properly white balance, and so you are not seeing the customary dark blue-grey.

I clicked around in the shadows and got this version - a little more blue.

 

 

Zach, you gotta read the tutorials and the short instructions under the ? on each page.

 

Defaults for Unedited Photo:

Set under Defaults button (under Adjustments bar on Main page)

I usually set these to be very neutral:

• Neutral/As Shot/As Shot/Medium/Off
  
• Neutral/Neutral/Neutral/Off
  
• Noise_Ninja_4_Turbo
  

Defaults for Previously Edited Photo:

These will be whatever was saved in the XMP Sidecar or Preview when you saved the photo in PN.

 

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

 

So, if you open a photo in PN and it is applying the wrong defaults,

then you might have "accidently" saved that photo in PN instead of simply closing it.

That is all too easy to do in PN.

I've done this more than once by clicking the Done button instead of the Cancel button

 

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

 

Open a Photo in PN and later Close it without Applying Any Settings: Cancel

 

To See Photo without PN Edits: Double-click LEFT Arrow (bottom of Adjustments page).

 

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

 

As a final step in PN, you can always increase the blue saturation slightly. Typically we work in Neutral to edit a raw in PN, the better to control initial contrasts and oversaturation which can hide details. But after you have finished the editing work on the photo, you can always go to the Color Correction page and gently boost the saturation.

 

Usually for a UV photo, I click the Blue Patch and change its saturation slider to +20.

This can also be done for the Yellow Patch if your photo shows any yellow.

The goal is to put the saturation back to a normal level and not over-saturate.

 

OR, you can also change the selection from Neutral to Scenic and not use the patches at all.

 

Use whichever saturation boost method that works most nicely for a particular photo.

 

Here is your photo with the blue Saturation boosted a bit. Flower looks pretty good now.

[nfoto]

I recommend 'No profile' as the starting point for *setting* the UV w/b. My point is that by using 'Daylight/flash', incorrect information will be used and may thwart the later correction.

[Andrea B.]

Yes. Only for a starter.

 

Best just to make a profile and select that from the menu.

[msubees]

Thank you both, Bjorn and Andrea. The UV photo is supposed to be WBed by camera (preset with virgin PTFE) and i also have a preset for PN. but that unmodified flashed photo shows bluish tint, because the frontal plastic gave that....others were properly white balanced.

[Andrea B.]

aha !

I wonder how you can work around that ? Maybe you can make a preset which includes the flash?

 

Carry on !! :D :) :D

[msubees]

This is just a test. I have no intention to use the unmodified flash for UV work. just curious if unmodified ones show UV at all. I will proceed to modify the 2nd one. The other old one does not need mod, it seems. so now I will have 3 UV flashes!

 

bought 2 Seagull SYK-5. should be here next week.

 

aha !

I wonder how you can work around that ? Maybe you can make a preset which includes the flash?

 

Carry on !! :D :) :D

[Andrea B.]

Thank you for the flash tests, Zach. B)

[Alaun]

short thought with respect to the diffuser: the diffuser will not only "reduce" the amount of light, but probably will also cut more on the low side of the wavelengths, so you narrow the spectrum of your light source, which might influence the tint and the colors you can get ?

 

Werner

[JCDowdy]

The attribution for the 199A very easy DIY modification is not mine but rather Fotozones (formerly NikonGear) member tbyork2010, Speedlite 199A for UV 15Jul12. I also consider the simple 199A mod to be much safer, less extensive disassembly with less handling of potentially hazardous high voltage charged circuits.

 

Speaking of safety, the flash tube does need a cover to protect against Xenon tube explosion. Somewhere I read that a CD case worked so I checked that out. I only tested one specimen but it was apparently made of of a UV transmitting acrylic and transmitted much deeper into the UV that the Fresnel lens. Trace the outline of the Fresnel lens with a fine point Sharpie pen and with an X-Acto knife blade heated in a Bunsen burner and it cuts like butter! A candle will do if you don't mind sooty edges. The loss of the Fresnel lens of course means that the flash is now unfocused. If any of you know how to cast or thermoform acrylic it might be worth the effort to mold a UV transparent replicate of the original. I do not know how much power would increase but it could be significant but I am willing to try.

 

Safety point #3 and then lecture over:

UV and blue light hazard from UV flashes is a real concern. I do not trust un-tinted, clear, safety glasses because I have measured some that transmit to much UV and of course do not attenuate blue at all. Wrap around with side shields in an yellow, amber or orange tint are best, my personal preference is Ultra-spec 2001 OTG because they fit over my glasses and have adjustable temples. If you have larger glasses consider the Astro OTG 3001. I have no financial interest in UVEX, wish I did, I just trust them and have used them for 20 years.

[JCDowdy]

Zach,

Quick question on that Promatic flash, does the head swivel as well as tilt?

Like in this picture?

That seems rather handy!

[msubees]

John, Yes! the flash has a twist also besides the regular tilt. I just found mine got stuck at 90 degrees in tilt, but swivel still works.

 

so you are saying CD case is better than Fresnel lens? what is a Fresnel lens anyway.

 

I bought a cheap RODENSTOCK EL-OMEGAR ENLARGING LENS 1:3.5 f 50mm on ebay, it also seems transmit UV. all plastic and very light. but no frontal filter thread so I am buying an adapter to glue on it permanently.

[msubees]

My flashes did not come with any diffusers. The plastic I tested was the original cover inside the flash. It creates a blue tint under UV even though it was transparent under visible light.

 

short thought with respect to the diffuser: the diffuser will not only "reduce" the amount of light, but probably will also cut more on the low side of the wavelengths, so you narrow the spectrum of your light source, which might influence the tint and the colors you can get ?

 

Werner

[Andrea B.]

That Omegar 50 should work for UV. I found the Omegar 75 to be OK. I don't know how deep it goes.

 

These Omegars need a helicoid and some way to keep the filter on. So go for glue I guess. B)

I don't know the word for describing the lens ring of those Omegars, but it needs to be covered to prevent light leaks by the filter.

Could we say that ring has a square-toothed edge ??

 

My Omegar 75 test:

http://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php?/topic/722-rodenstock-omegar-75mm-f45-for-uv/

[msubees]

Andrea, yes, mine has an illuminating window, it seems. I will need to cover the window from below. In addition to the aperture ring window (which I am not sure how to cover it - i assume it is to allow light from below to come out so one can see the aperture setting in a dark room, so perhaps does not need to be covered if the rear side, larger window is covered?). waiting for the adapter ring to come from China. and then JB Weld it to the lens. not sure if it is worth the effort (e.g. perhaps not as good as Nikkor EL 80). I am using the existing helicoid (36-90mm) and it focuses only at one distance (quite close, about 3") and it seems to magnify a bit larger than EL 80mm.

[JCDowdy]

Zach,

 

The "cover" you removed is a Fresnel lens, see triangular grooves on the inside surface. It serves to focus the flash into a smaller area. The flat acrylic of a CD case, while more UV transparent and providing physical protection against flash tube bursting, is not acting as a lens.

 

I do not know what the flange focal depth of the 50mm Omegar but you need a shorter helicoid for it. If it is the same as the 50mm EL-Nikkor you would need a helicoid with ~17mm minimum length. 17-31mm is a common size on eBay. You should check the lens just in case is is not like the Nikkor, here is a link to instructions on how to determine the length of a helicoid for an enlarger lens. Note he calls Flange Focal Depth the "RLL" or "Register Length of a Lens".

[msubees]

John,

 

thanks! I will do....last time I saw it (a few years back?) i did not really understand it. but now I have the lens, maybe it is easier to do.

 

I got the Seagul SYK-6...but none of my flashes are able to connect to them! they have strange connector...I thought the flash would go to it though? but why not?

[msubees]

the SYK-5 seems to have a connector similar to my camera....not sure what is the difference between 5 and 6. and why 6 has such connectors such that a regular flash wont work?

[JCDowdy]

Zach,

Sorry to hear you had a mix up with your flash triggers, but I said SYK-5 not SYK-6.

According to product info:

Seagull SYK-5 Trigger is for Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Sigma, Sunpak and Vivitar.

while,

SYK-6 Trigger is designed for Sony / Konica Minolta.

[msubees]

John,

 

I did not read carefully enough...just thought 6 is newer than 5 and must be "better" :) :)

 

:( :( now i need to exchange for the right ones...