• Ultraviolet Photography
  •  

XNite Canon 600 UV-Converted Flash

12 replies to this topic

#1 The Skin Doc

    Member

  • Members
  • 19 posts

Posted 19 December 2017 - 19:28

My name is Dr. A. Geronimo Jones. I am a General/Cosmetic Dermatologist practicing in the British Virgin Islands. Presently I have a UV modified Canon 5D Mark III DSLR camera with a Canon 50mmMacro Lens . Free of charge I show patients the effects of UV sun damage and the benefits of using sun block with comparative photos. However I am limited to using sunlight as my only UV source. I would like to use the camera indoors at my clinic. It was suggested to me by Max Max (https://maxmax.com/) to use the "XNiteCanon600-UV" Converted Flash. However they could not supply me with any examples of indoor UV photos using the converted flash. Does anyone have any experience using this UV converted flash? Also, what are your opinions? And do you have any portrait photos you would be willing to share with me? Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Kind Regard,
Dr. A. Geronimo Jones
Attached Image: Canon600EXLargeIR.jpg
Attached Image: thumbnail_UVrays001.jpg

#2 Andy Perrin

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 2,257 posts
  • Location: United States

Posted 19 December 2017 - 19:38

Geronimo, did you see the other responses in your original thread?

By the way, the image size here is rather large -- I usually use no more than 1000 pixels across for images on the site, and Andrea requests we use JPEG quality at 6 or so.

#3 The Skin Doc

    Member

  • Members
  • 19 posts

Posted 19 December 2017 - 19:44

Andy,
Yes, Jonathan was very helpful and referred me to MaxMax. However they couldn't supply me with any examples of photos. Sorry about the size of the pic I sent. I'm new to this site and still learning. I would appreciate any of your input.
Kind Regards,
Geronimo

#4 DonPilou

    Member

  • Members
  • 89 posts
  • Location: Paris, France.

Posted 19 December 2017 - 21:22

Hi Geronimo,
You already sent me a mail with a similar question, and I gave you an answer for continuous uv light solution.
Here I see no interest to spend 1000$ for a dedicated UV flash, as you are also using a uv bandpass filter in front of the sensor of your camera. A 70$ Yongnuo 560ex IV will give you good results. This is what I use for my indoor uv portraits.

#5 Cadmium

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 2,602 posts

Posted 19 December 2017 - 22:28

Unless you are shooting fluorescence, or trying to shoot UV without anyone knowing, then you are best to use no filter on the flash, just a full spectrum (modified) flash
(in the case of fluorescence photography, then of course you need to block all out of band light except UV 365nm).
Use of any UV or full spectrum modified flash can be dangerous to the subject and the photographer too, especially eyes.

Edited by Cadmium, 20 December 2017 - 02:20.


#6 nfoto

    Former Fierce Bear of the North

  • Owner-Administrator
  • 2,310 posts
  • Location: Sørumsand, Norway

Posted 19 December 2017 - 22:43

The last sentence cannot be repeated often enough.

Shooting in UV with a powerful unit outputting a lot of UV will give sore eyes, or worse, lest you remember the mandatory use of UV-protective goggles.

When I do such stuff in studio of my flowers, I control the camera remotely and busy myself elsewhere in the house. My newest Brons are a healthy 1600 W/s units and to indicate the UV levels in force here, I can shoot (through the Baader U) flowers at f/22 ISO 100, CO 60 or UV-Nikkor lenses, with the flash more than 1 m away from the subject.

#7 The Skin Doc

    Member

  • Members
  • 19 posts

Posted 21 December 2017 - 03:29

View PostDonPilou, on 19 December 2017 - 21:22, said:

Hi Geronimo,
You already sent me a mail with a similar question, and I gave you an answer for continuous uv light solution.
Here I see no interest to spend 1000$ for a dedicated UV flash, as you are also using a uv bandpass filter in front of the sensor of your camera. A 70$ Yongnuo 560ex IV will give you good results. This is what I use for my indoor uv portraits.

Pierre-Loius,
Yes, your information was very helpful. Thank you again. You suggested the "Omnilux 105W 230V UV Bulb" and the "Kaiser Lighting Kit KAI5862". However, after contacting distributors for both in Europe I could not find anyone willing to ship to the USA or the Caribbean. Could you suggest any other options? Any information would be appreciated.
Kind Regards,
Geronimo

#8 Cadmium

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 2,602 posts

Posted 21 December 2017 - 07:00

Perhaps I should ask if you want to do UV-only photography or UV induced visual fluorescence photography ('black light' photos)?

#9 The Skin Doc

    Member

  • Members
  • 19 posts

Posted 21 December 2017 - 13:15

Cadmium,
I would like a light source to do UV-only photography of my patients.
Regards,
Geronimo

#10 Cadmium

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 2,602 posts

Posted 21 December 2017 - 19:56

It is just that a strong UV source might also be bed for the skin, not only bad for the eyes.
I donmm't know who would be able to say exactly what danger you would be exposing the patient to by radiating them with UV.
Your photos above are exposed in sunshine, which seems safe enough, but I am not an expert to say how the flash would treat the skin, but definitely cover the eyes with UV blocking goggles, and for you also.

#11 Andy Perrin

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 2,257 posts
  • Location: United States

Posted 21 December 2017 - 21:14

If this is purely a gee-whiz thing, rather than being diagnostic, it does seem like a good idea to make sure you aren't putting patients in danger? I have heard that UVA is significantly less dangerous than UVB, so probably making sure you keep it over some threshold wavelength (maybe 370nm? I don't know how the risk varies with wavelength, but it might be good to find out) would let you take pictures showing the skin darkening without putting people in much danger. You don't have to go very far into the UVA to see the skin spots.

#12 Cadmium

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 2,602 posts

Posted 22 December 2017 - 07:07

Solarmeter makes a UV index meter. Might be quite handy for Dermatologists, perhaps.
I think you could compare the amount of harmful UV emitted from different light sources with that of sunshine.
However, I don't know of any way to measure a flash, given the short strobe time.
A black light could be measured (like the Omnilux 105W 230V UV Bulb), and compared with sunshine, I think.
https://www.solarmet...om/model65.html

Or perhaps you could use their standard UVA+B meter.
https://www.solarmeter.com/model5.html

No mater what kind of UV illumination you use, I am always wary about looking directly at even black lights.
I know they sell them for homes and parties, but UV-A can cause eye problems for sure. So I would advise not to look at UV-A light. Wear goggles.

Edited by Cadmium, 22 December 2017 - 07:17.


#13 JMC

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 715 posts
  • Location: London, UK

Posted 22 December 2017 - 10:32

With regards to the safety of flashes for UV reflectance work, the Police Scientific Data Branch (PSDB) in the UK produced a guidance document for UV converted flash guns back in 2001. This is aimed at camera flashes use in data gathering for forensic work. The article is called "Revised guidelines for the use of flash guns emitting Ultraviolet light for the photography of evidence - July 2001".

I'm not sharing the document itself here, as to be honest I do not know whether this is a controlled document (a quick search on line didn't bring it up, so I shall err on the side of caution). However I can provide contact details for the PSDB if needed, just let me know.

The key conclusions were;
1. Flashguns fitted with black-light-blue filters may be used for the photography of the human body without eye or skin protection for operator or the person being photographed,
2. Flashguns with guide numbers up to 60 are safe for multiple exposures.
3. The use of studio flash units has not been assessed and is not recommended.