• Ultraviolet Photography
  •  

Some thoughts on white balance in UV images and control VIS images

6 replies to this topic

#1 enricosavazzi

    Member

  • Members
  • 456 posts
  • Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 12 June 2019 - 10:46

New on my site:

http://www.savazzi.n...iteBalance.html
-- Enrico Savazzi

#2 dabateman

    Da Bateman

  • Members(+)
  • 691 posts
  • Location: Maryland

Posted 12 June 2019 - 19:22

Interesting summary.
I think finding a filter combination to get back the look of the stock camera is some what camera specific.
My old full spectrum E510 did well with just a 486 filter, the auto white balance worked. However, this was not the case with my full spectrum converted Em1.
My early best filter for auto white balance was a 4mm BG38 filter.
However, using my same BaaderU custom white balance setting, my 2mm GRB3 filter, equivalent to a KG3 filter provides excellent back to normal colors. This is with sunlight.
Using a white led with low IR, the 486 works on my Em1mk1. So lighting will matter.

Edited by dabateman, 12 June 2019 - 19:24.


#3 nfoto

    Former Fierce Bear of the North

  • Owner-Administrator
  • 2,267 posts
  • Location: Sørumsand, Norway

Posted 12 June 2019 - 21:35

The BG40 apparently does well on my full-spectrum D600, at least with non-UV specialist lenses attached to the camera. I shoot my Colorchecker Passport and make a dedicated profile in Photo Ninja. Using the Baader UV/IR Cut filter on its own tends to produce a reddish cast that is difficult to get rid of. Haven't tried BG38 + UV/IR Cut yet on that camera -- might be worth a try in conjunction with the UV-Nikkor etc.

#4 Cadmium

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 2,458 posts

Posted 13 June 2019 - 03:12

I tend to use BG38 alone, usually, it is a little redder than BG40, and BG40 works nice also, and I think BG40 works best for some other cameras than for mine.
I don't stack Baader UV/IR-Cut with the BG38 or BG40, I have tried, and I didn't notice a difference.
I always white balance from RAW(NEF) when shooting a visual shot on my UV/IR cameras anyway.
But 90% of the time I use BG38, then white balance that from RAW.
Some like BG40 better. It tends to look just a little bluer for me, maybe too blue.
S8612 and BG39 are way too blue for me, and Baader UV/IR-Cut looks too red for me.

#5 UlfW

    Ulf W

  • Members(+)
  • 581 posts
  • Location: Sweden, Malmö

Posted 13 June 2019 - 04:11

I agree with Steve.
For my camera BG38 give the best results with simple white balancing even if the BG40 is not very different.
Ulf Wilhelmson
Curious and trying to see the invisible.

#6 Andy Broomé

    Invisible Light Enthusiast

  • Members
  • 137 posts
  • Location: Mississauga/Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 13 June 2019 - 17:29

I have never stacked any filters for vis - just used my Kolari Vision hot mirror filter (which I guess is the same as BG40) and set a new CWB without issue.

#7 enricosavazzi

    Member

  • Members
  • 456 posts
  • Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 15 June 2019 - 07:56

View PostCadmium, on 13 June 2019 - 03:12, said:

I don't stack Baader UV/IR-Cut with the BG38 or BG40, I have tried, and I didn't notice a difference.
I don't see a difference either, with ordinary subjects. With my Sony A7 II I do see a difference if the illumination source is particularly NIR-rich (sunlight or incandescent lamps) and the subject is dark in VIS and NIR-reflective (especially some types of black cloth and velvet that I use as VIS-black background).
-- Enrico Savazzi