Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

Some specimen from a small garden


Recommended Posts

My first time trying to make UV florescence pictures, please suggest how I can improve.

Camera: Sony A7S Lens:Steinheil Triotar 40/3.5 from Rollei35LED

I used f11 throughout, however the aperture does not click into place, so it is a rough f11.

 

VIS:

Internal UV-IR cut filter in front of the lens with House LED light

ISO100 f11 3.2s

 

 

UVIVF:

Internal UV-IR cut filter in front of the lens

I used a UV torch(Ultrafire WF-501B, said to be 375nm) with a 2mm ZWB2 filter(no IR/VIS leak when stacked with BG39).

ISO1600 f11 30s

 

 

UV:

AndreaU MKII

I used a combination of UV LEDs, eight 365-370 and eight 395-400, together they produce some false color but not as rich as flash or sunlight.

ISO100 f11 10s

 

 

UV+UVIVF:

Same UV torch light as in the UVIVF shot, no filter in front the camera, just to show how much the reflected UV overpowers UVIVF

 

 

IR(720):

"Fourth eye" China made 720nm filter with the house LED light

ISO500 f11 8s

 

 

UVIIF:

Same IR filter as above, no additional UV cut filter, this filter does everything for me.

Using 32 UV LEDs I connected together, 3W each totalling 96W, 5 different types of wavelength, ranging from 365 to 400nm, light is not filtered also

ISO1000 f11 30s

 

Link to comment
Andrea B.

That is a nice collection of organic materials which you have gathered to illustrate fluorescence, UV and IR responses.

 

We would need to know the camera, lens and filters used to make the photographs in order to better make suggestions.

 

Perhaps if you label your photos similar to the following examples, we will be better able to know what we should be seeing?

 

Example Gear:

Nikon D5200-stock + Novovlex 35/3.5

 

Example Visible:

Internal UV/IR-Cut filter + Sunlight

f/8 for 1/200 second at ISO-400

 

Example IR:

R72 IR-Pass filter (2.00mm thick) + On-board Flash

f/8 for 1/100 second at ISO-400

 

And so forth.

 

*******

 

Did you shoot the fluorescence photo in the dark?

 

If the ZBW-2 filter is too thin then it will leak a lot of Visible light. The data we have for a 1mm Optima ZBW-2 shows an 8% visible leakage. What thickness do you have for your ZBW-2?

 

UV-Leds with a peak between 390-400nm are putting out close to half UV and half Visible light so must be strongly filtered to block the Visible output when used for Visible fluorescence.

 

 

 

Edit: I accidentally wipe out my original comment and have attempted to restore it.

Link to comment

Given the right light you should not need to filter the light with anything other than U glass. I would not use ZWB#, however it should work, just not to sure how much blue it actually blocks,

I don't trust graphs for the Chinese knock off glass).

Also, often QB39 from China is sold as BG39... (there are a few other QB versions also... that are often sold as BG39) about the same? Maybe... you will never know for you unless you compare them...

Best torch to use is Convoy S2+ (365nm version, about $20), or MTE 301 or 303 (much more expensive, no real advantage over Convoy).

Your 'no filter in front of the camera' shot seems a bit odd.

Link to comment

That is a nice collection of organic materials which you have gathered to illustrate fluorescence, UV and IR responses.

 

We would need to know the camera, lens and filters used to make the photographs in order to better make suggestions.

 

Perhaps if you label your photos similar to the following examples, we will be better able to know what we should be seeing?

 

Example Gear:

Nikon D5200-stock + Novovlex 35/3.5

 

Example Visible:

Internal UV/IR-Cut filter + Sunlight

f/8 for 1/200 second at ISO-400

 

Example IR:

R72 IR-Pass filter (2.00mm thick) + On-board Flash

f/8 for 1/100 second at ISO-400

 

And so forth.

 

*******

 

Did you shoot the fluorescence photo in the dark?

 

If the ZBW-2 filter is too thin then it will leak a lot of Visible light. The data we have for a 1mm Optima ZBW-2 shows an 8% visible leakage. What thickness do you have for your ZBW-2?

 

UV-Leds with a peak between 390-400nm are putting out close to half UV and half Visible light so must be strongly filtered to block the Visible output when used for Visible fluorescence.

 

 

 

Edit: I accidentally wipe out my original comment and have attempted to restore it.

Thanks for the reminder Andrea, I will add in the capture details. The ZWB2 filter I used is 2mm thick, it is one of a handful ZW/ZWBs I bought which actually works in UV photgraphy, of course there are a few other ZWB2 which do leak IR.

I shot fluorescent photo in almost complete darkness, when my UV light is off, 30s exposure yield completely dark photo.

I did another UVIVF shot using AndreaU MKII in front of the torch a day after, the mushroom has shrunk quite a bit:

ISO3200 f11(around there) 10s

 

I lost the comparison shot of using ZWB2, however I remember AndreaU gave much shorter exposure time. The increase in red color as compare to the previous photo is due to an additional UV-IR cut filter I used previously, which did not block UV effectively but I forgot to remove before putting on another one, what it did was cutting down some red.

The reason I suspected visible light contamination was because I still can see the moss being green in the photo, the mushroom is yellow but I can tell it is fluorescence because of its intensity. However, now I think the green color is reflected from other fluorescent light around it.

Link to comment

Given the right light you should not need to filter the light with anything other than U glass. I would not use ZWB#, however it should work, just not to sure how much blue it actually blocks,

I don't trust graphs for the Chinese knock off glass).

Also, often QB39 from China is sold as BG39... (there are a few other QB versions also... that are often sold as BG39) about the same? Maybe... you will never know for you unless you compare them...

Best torch to use is Convoy S2+ (365nm version, about $20), or MTE 301 or 303 (much more expensive, no real advantage over Convoy).

Your 'no filter in front of the camera' shot seems a bit odd.

In fact I have tried almost all types of made in China glass that looks has a potential, including QB glass, which was purchased alongside BG39 from a same factory, it shows they are differnet types of glass at least for the manufacturer. However, these glasses perform different than on graphs, BG39 was supposed to have a slight IR leak with ZWB2 according to their graphs, however they came out as the best performing pair, the second best among these Chinese glasses was BG39 with ZWB1. The best ZWB2 with BG39 gives similar exposure time to that of UG11 U360 stack of the same thickness. (I got 2mm for all my filters)
Link to comment
Andrea B.

Thanks for the exposure updates, Bruce. That helps. I had forgotten to mention that the UV and IR photos in the first series look good. No problems there when imaging those wavelengths. :)

 

 

In a 30 second fluorescence exposure with broadband filtration you are most likely going to pick up any stray light which is present, so the questions arise: Does the stray light induce any fluorescence which would not be there otherwise? And, has that stray light been recorded by the camera? It is difficult to say just by looking at your fluor photograph (or any fluor photo) whether one is seeing light other than emitted light and reflections of that emitted light.

 

Does minor stray light leakage really matter in our UVIVF work? No, not really. We are photographing fluorescence for its intriguing beauty. We aren't in a laboratory trying to pin down fluorescent properties of some subject under scientific investigation. As long as any leakage is minor, then ignore it. :lol:

 

I sometimes forget to say that!!

 

I know and have recently been reminded that top bin Nichia chipped flashlights/torches are really quite tight for leakage, at worst some violet/blue. For a 365nm Nichia torch filtration you will not see very little spill into the visible so 365nm Nichia fluor photos will be quite similar in filtered or unfiltered version. However --->>>>> if you are using any peak UV-LED beyond 365 nm, then you will have spill over into the visible and those torches must be filtered. I have a 385 nm Nichia torch, for example, and it does definitely produce visible blue if unfiltered.

 

Bruce, I would suggest making photographs of each individual item in your original array. Then you will learn how that item fluoresces - or does not fluoresce. Also, note whether what you were seeing matches what you photographed. I do not mean the fluorescent colors (which can be difficult to reproduce), but rather the areas of fluorescence for each subject. Then when you put the materials together in one photo you will be better able to judge the outcome.

 

And please, show us some more of this cool organic stuff !! I have never looked at lichen fluor. I'm intrigued and want to try it. And I've been surveying the yard every few days looking for some mushrooms which seem to have really interesting fluor properties.

 

Kindly forgive me if I have written and suggested things which you already know. I sometimes write too much because I'm thinking of those readers who might be learning.

 

(***I*** am still learning!!!!! I hope to still be learning until I'm 89. Then maybe I will stop for a moment.)

Link to comment

In fact I have tried almost all types of made in China glass that looks has a potential, including QB glass, which was purchased alongside BG39 from a same factory, it shows they are different types of glass at least for the manufacturer. However, these glasses perform different than on graphs, BG39 was supposed to have a slight IR leak with ZWB2 according to their graphs, however they came out as the best performing pair, the second best among these Chinese glasses was BG39 with ZWB1. The best ZWB2 with BG39 gives similar exposure time to that of UG11 U360 stack of the same thickness. (I got 2mm for all my filters)

 

If you got BG39 from China, then it is not BG39. BG39 and S8612 are the strongest suppression, they are the same Red/IR suppression, however S8612 has deeper UV transmission, BG39 cuts off UV more than S8612,

so S8612 is better for UV stacking. These is no reason to use BG39, for much of anything, if you have S8612, unless the visual transmission contour difference is something that is important to the situation.

post-87-0-99473400-1525891707.jpg

post-87-0-48638900-1525891728.jpg

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

If you got BG39 from China, then it is not BG39. BG39 and S8612 are the strongest suppression, they are the same Red/IR suppression, however S8612 has deeper UV transmission, BG39 cuts off UV more than S8612,

so S8612 is better for UV stacking. These is no reason to use BG39, for much of anything, if you have S8612, unless the visual transmission contour difference is something that is important to the situation.

post-87-0-99473400-1525891707.jpg

post-87-0-48638900-1525891728.jpg

Thank you, Steve!
Link to comment

Thanks for the exposure updates, Bruce. That helps. I had forgotten to mention that the UV and IR photos in the first series look good. No problems there when imaging those wavelengths. :)

 

 

In a 30 second fluorescence exposure with broadband filtration you are most likely going to pick up any stray light which is present, so the questions arise: Does the stray light induce any fluorescence which would not be there otherwise? And, has that stray light been recorded by the camera? It is difficult to say just by looking at your fluor photograph (or any fluor photo) whether one is seeing light other than emitted light and reflections of that emitted light.

 

Does minor stray light leakage really matter in our UVIVF work? No, not really. We are photographing fluorescence for its intriguing beauty. We aren't in a laboratory trying to pin down fluorescent properties of some subject under scientific investigation. As long as any leakage is minor, then ignore it. :lol:

 

I sometimes forget to say that!!

 

I know and have recently been reminded that top bin Nichia chipped flashlights/torches are really quite tight for leakage, at worst some violet/blue. For a 365nm Nichia torch filtration you will not see very little spill into the visible so 365nm Nichia fluor photos will be quite similar in filtered or unfiltered version. However --->>>>> if you are using any peak UV-LED beyond 365 nm, then you will have spill over into the visible and those torches must be filtered. I have a 385 nm Nichia torch, for example, and it does definitely produce visible blue if unfiltered.

 

Bruce, I would suggest making photographs of each individual item in your original array. Then you will learn how that item fluoresces - or does not fluoresce. Also, note whether what you were seeing matches what you photographed. I do not mean the fluorescent colors (which can be difficult to reproduce), but rather the areas of fluorescence for each subject. Then when you put the materials together in one photo you will be better able to judge the outcome.

 

And please, show us some more of this cool organic stuff !! I have never looked at lichen fluor. I'm intrigued and want to try it. And I've been surveying the yard every few days looking for some mushrooms which seem to have really interesting fluor properties.

 

Kindly forgive me if I have written and suggested things which you already know. I sometimes write too much because I'm thinking of those readers who might be learning.

 

(***I*** am still learning!!!!! I hope to still be learning until I'm 89. Then maybe I will stop for a moment.)

Thanks so much for the information, Andrea, they are very helpful indeed. I am just beginning to explore the method of UV fluorescence, and there is still a lot for me to learn. I have tried a few more fluorescence photos since then, on flowers, and I think a purer UV light source would be helpful especially for subjects with weak fluorescence. When I have time, I would definitely go take a walk in the forrest after dark, with a UV torch, just to find out the fluorescence properties of different plants and organisms.

Link to comment
Bruce, I think you are off to a great start. Please be sure to show us some of your interesting fluorescent discoveries as you have time to do so.
Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...