Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

First use of Kolari UV filter in portrait


DonPilou

Recommended Posts

Hi everybody!

Long time whithout posting something here. I have just received a new ultraviolet filter designed by Kolari Vision, perfect opportunity to test a new 50mm lens by the same way.

To compare the properties of Kolari UV filter, I have also used my LUV U2 filter with the same adjustments. Let's see the results :

 

post-112-0-60804300-1483553881.jpg

Canon 6D + Yongnuo 50mm F/1.8 + Kolari UV filter

50mm, F/5.6, 400iso, 1/10s

 

post-112-0-96053200-1483553956.jpg

Canon 6D + Yongnuo 50mm F/1.8 + LUV U2

50mm, F/5.6, 400iso, 1/10s

 

As you can see, the Kolari UV filter offers very sharp and detailed result, contrary to LUV U2 filter which provides foggy effect.

 

I have also tested the same filters with the Nikkor E 50mm F/1.8 that I was using since now.

 

post-112-0-85899400-1483554106.jpg

Canon 6D + Nikkor E 50mm F/1.8 + Kolari UV filter

50mm, F/5.6, 400iso, 1/10s

 

post-112-0-74320300-1483554140.jpg

Canon 6D + Nikkor E 50mm F/1.8 + LUV U2

50mm, F/5.6, 400iso, 1/10s

 

Here, the Nikkor looks a bit less sharp than the Yongnuo, with same global exposition.

 

As a conclusion, I am really pleased by the Kolari UV filter. I have just bought 3 new lenses to test for large portrait : an Optomax 35mm F/3.5, a Soligor 35mm F/3.5 and a Steinheil EDIXA 50mm F/2.8. I hope I will achieve a better exposure time with them. So more to come ;).

Link to comment

Thanks for posting this comparison test!!

I have the new Kolari UV-pass filter but holiday activities got in the way of testing it. Soon I hope.

 

Did you remember to re-focus after each filter change? That's important.

 

[i'm sure you did, "-) but I mention it for possible newbs who might not realize there can be minor focus changes sometimes between different UV-pass filters due to coatings or layers or filter type.]

Link to comment
Many thanks to all of you. Indeed Andrea, I use a UV LED flashlight to focus, both of these lenses have an important focus shift in UV photography.
Link to comment
It is not just a difference in softness; as well, there are more visible melanin deposits using the Kolari UV Pass filter.
Link to comment

Looking at this again....

 

All shots were made at f/5.6 and 1/10", the exact same exposure. Thus, the only fair thing to conclude (until further tests are made) is that the LUV filter passes more UV light than does the Kolari filter -- all other things being equal (same light, same filter peak wavelength, no flare, etc). If one shot is brighter than another because that filter passes more UV light, then of course there will be some difference in how dark the melanin deposits appear.

 

To make a proper comparison between two filters, it is necessary to try to find the correct exposure for each filter (and each lens). I do this using some exposure bracketing. When I shoot filter comparisons, I bracket several steps around the presumed correct exposure in 1/3 stop increments. Then I look at the raw histograms and choose the two photos having histograms "most-pushed-to-the-right-but-not-overexposed" for the comparison. It can often happen that the two most nearly equal exposures have different exposure times at a given aperture due to differences in filter thickness, coatings or other construction.

 

Another possible explanation for the differences is because of different filter peaks between the two filters. I don't know the UV range in which melatonin absorbs UV, but it shouldn't be too hard to find. If one filter has a different wavelength peak than another, then one of the filters might show something legitimately different than another. So the transmission charts should be consulted to find what the approximate peak is for each filter in the comparison.

 

 

I have the Kolari filter but have not yet been able to find time to test it. Soon, I hope. :D

Everyone please think about my remarks here and let me know what you think about the best way to compare two filters.

 

DonPilou's tests are useful, but the conclusion is slightly wrong. DonPilou, can you try a reshoot with variation in exposure times? We love these kind of tests here!

Link to comment

Looking for charts, etc. I found the following.

 

I was correct in that the two filters do not pass equal amounts of UV light during the same exposure interval (all other things being equal).

 

The two filters also have slightly different peaks and 25% transmission intervals, but that likely does not play much of a role. So when comparing these two filters, there will be differences in exposure length to get the "same" photograph.

 

I will be testing this out myself ---- eventually. :D

 

Kolari:

This filter has a 50% transmission peak at 365nm and >25% transmission between 340-380 nm.

Minimum rejection of >3.5OD (0.025%).

Coated.

LINK: https://kolarivision.com/product/uv-bandpass-lens-filter/

 

LUVU2:

This filter has a 65% transmission peak at 360nm and >25% transmission between 330-385 nm (approximately).

Minimum IR supression is OD4.

Uncoated.

LINK: http://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/1313-filter-transmission-charts/page__view__findpost__p__13718

Link to comment

Melanin -- wow, this was interesting!

Somewhat of an exponential chart with peak absorption at 335 nm.

 

Am I correct in assuming that a 330 nm peak filter would show melanocytes at their best?

 

Zeise, L. et al. (ed.) Melanin: Its Role in Human Photoprotection, Valdenmar Publishing Co.

See pp. 31 - 38.

 

 

melanin.jpg

Link to comment
I agree with all what you say, Andrea. However, the fact is I have the same histogram with both filters, using the same power of flash and the same EXIF. And I processed the two pictures exactly the same way. I agree that this is not logical, so we have to find what parameter could explain this similarity. Maybe the use of absorption based glass for Kolari. I will do the exposure time tests as soon as possible ;).
Link to comment

Thank you for the quick reply about the same histograms. Now I am really puzzled. :lol:

 

We will look forward to further tests to see if the results are repeatable.

Filters have many characteristics that affect the photo but which are difficult to pin down. Coatings and glass types and so forth can all affect the results - creating different contrasts, tones, micro-contrasts, etc.

 

I had an interesting time thinking about this. And also enjoyed looking up info and reading about melatonin.

Link to comment
Cement might be another factor. Is the LUVU2 cemented? What is the type of cement used by the Kolari? Obviously, some optical cements pass UV better than others. I used one cement that passed 83% at 350nm, but switched to a cement with both lower viscosity and 90% at 350nm. And the RI is a factor as well, of course.
Link to comment

Looking for charts, etc.......

 

Based on those rough numbers the Kolari may be passing ~4 times more relative out of band radiation. Not a lot in either case but enough to account for the observed difference?

 

Also, I was not under the impression that either of the two lenses transmitted as deeply into the UV as either filter, so the relative peak transmission of the filter is likely also clipped even more. This should have the effect of pushing the relative out of band signals even higher than what would be inferred from the filters alone.

 

Melatonin and melanin, while while related are not the same thing B)

Spell checker strikes again?

Link to comment

The plot of melanin absorbance is from a chapter in that book entitled The Spectroscopy of Human Melanin Pigmentation by my late friend and prominent photobiologist Nik Kollias who passed away the day before Thanksgiving. He did a lot of interesting spectral remittance spectroscopy of skin pigmentation.

 

Incidentally Nick held several patents including some on various aspects of UVIVF photography.

Link to comment
I'm sorry for the loss of your friend. Professor Kollias had a very distinguished career.
Link to comment

I am saving to convert my canon 6D into full spectrum, I am happy to see thas this camera seems to work well with UV! I have read so much things saying Canon is a bad brand for UV.

I think the Canon 50mm f1.8 II could be usable since it is a cheap two element lens (but light coated).

Link to comment

You are right : http://www.bobatkins...f_50_layout.jpg

 

I read this from Lifepixel website :

 

We recommend using a prime lens with the least possible glass elements and coatings, we’ve been successful with the Canon 50mm prime lens. You still need to make adjustments, shoot at higher ISO, wide aperture and in strong, direct sunlight when the UV index is highest (10am to 4pm).

 

https://www.lifepixel.com/shop/our-services/ultraviolet-camera-conversion/canon-dslr-uv-camera-conversion

 

EDIT : sorry for hijacking the thread..

Link to comment

We have not wandered to badly off the original posting.

 

The OP used the Yongnuo 50mm F/1.8, which as far as I know is essentially an equivalent lens.

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...