Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

Smooth Oxeye flower, and insect movie (Vis, UV-A, UVIVF, SWIR 1500-1600nm)


Recommended Posts

Andy Perrin

Visible (sunshine, Resolve 60mm quartz lens, S8612 1.75mm + DB850 filter, Sony A7S camera, F16 ISO200 1/60")

post-94-0-17422700-1565220865.jpg

 

UV-A (sunshine, Resolve 60mm quartz lens, 330WB80 filter, Sony A7S camera, F16 ISO3200 2")

post-94-0-02260700-1565220967.jpg

 

UV video of tiny insects or arachnids coming out of center of flower when UV light is shined on it. They would not come out for visible light. Click through to make it big to see them better. They are very very tiny.

https://youtube.com/52LwcRVlzF8

 

 

Visible (halogen, Resolve 60mm quartz lens, S8612 1.75mm + DB850 filter, Sony A7S camera, F8 ISO80 0.4")

post-94-0-00611300-1565221052.jpg

 

UVIVF (Convoy S2+ torch, Resolve 60mm quartz lens, S8612 1.75mm + DB850 filter, Sony A7S camera, F8 ISO1600 15")

post-94-0-69898000-1565221122.jpg

 

SWIR (halogen, Wollensak 25mm lens, Thorlabs 1500nm LP filter, Triwave camera, and god only knows how to quantify the exposure for this.)

This is a pano.

post-94-0-20276600-1565221252.jpg

 

In situ photo for ID help.

post-94-0-46472500-1565219054.jpg

Link to comment

I hope that video doesn't qualify as animal curalty. Did they leave the flower or just buzz around?

I have had flies come into my shots, but they come and go on their own. Also the exposure is long enough that you don't see them, unless they slow down and add a blur.

 

Link to comment
Andy Perrin

I don't think I was cruel to them, it just woke them up or something. They did exactly what you saw, crawled around briefly and went back inside. No wings that I could detect. My best guess is that they are earwigs:

Earwigs are generally nocturnal, and typically hide in small, dark, and often moist areas in the daytime. They can usually be seen on household walls and ceilings. Interaction with earwigs at this time results in a defensive free-fall to the ground followed by a scramble to a nearby cleft or crevice.[25] During the summer they can be found around damp areas such as near sinks and in bathrooms. Earwigs tend to gather in shady cracks or openings or anywhere that they can remain concealed during daylight. Picnic tables, compost and waste bins, patios, lawn furniture, window frames, or anything with minute spaces (even artichoke blossoms) can potentially harbour them.[28]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earwig

Link to comment

Funny you say he should use a macro lens.

The Resolve 60mm Macro lens he is useing is very good. He could take a closer 1.25x macro shot to see the things.

Link to comment
Andy Perrin
That was pretty much as close as I could get! Keep in mind I have a full frame camera with just 12 megapixels. On a micro 4/3 the image would be a lot bigger.
Link to comment

They are probably thrips. Usually very slender. May be light or dark. The behaviour in the video is typical of the ones I've seen. They roam around in the flower appearing and disappearing.

 

Insects on flowers do live in the sun so are probably ok with UV as long as the exposure to the "extra" UV is not too long. I do not say this with any certainty, so please let your own conscience be your guide. And your UV illumination should not be hot - a flash will certainly fry flower and insect if held too close.

 

If I'm using flash on flowers, I try to shake off insects. But there's always a few which remain. For anything large and lovely (bee, butterfly, caterpillar, etc.) I will only flash *once* and at a distance. If you are patient and the sunlight is strong and your ISO is set high, you can usually get a bee or butterfly without using a flash.

 

It is of course impossible to completely shake off all tiny things like thrips or "no-see-ums". More than once I've been working on a close scene and have not noticed that some critter has wandered into the frame. So far I've not killed anything with my UV flash. And I have gone back more than once to check on somebody I accidently flashed too close.

Link to comment
Nemo Andrea

Funny you say he should use a macro lens.

The Resolve 60mm Macro lens he is useing is very good. He could take a closer 1.25x macro shot to see the things.

 

Ah I didn't realise that was a macro lens. On the topic, how would this macro lens stack up against something like a nikon fluor objective? Of course they gather less light due to different NA, but in terms of relative transmittance of ratio of UV to Visible?

 

EDIT: I cannot find transmittance data for the macro lens (the main website for the company is not working for me?) so im curious if its much better for UV than a UV compatible objective. I can imagine anything <350nm is not so interesting for microscopy and that only such dedicated lenses go beyond that.

Link to comment
Andy Perrin

Ok, so the Resolve is a quartz lens and passes UV and visible roughly the same. It is designed for UV work and has a UV-C coating, which works pretty well even in UV-A from my experience so far. The coating does not work in visible, and I see quite a bit of chromatic aberration in visible light near the corners. So this is really a UV lens that you can use to get a visible snapshot, not one that’s ideal for both bands. But it passes visible light fine, the image quality just suffers.

 

You can compare the UV and visible flower photos above to see what I mean.

 

I have never used a Fluor objective before so I can’t say what their transmission is or what the chromatic aberration is like.

Link to comment
Andy Perrin

The flower is most likely a Heliopsis.

 

I'm going to look through my stuff and see if I have a Heliopsis which matches the UV-signature on yours.

 

ADDED: https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/494-heliopsis-helianthoides-tuscan-sun-smooth-oxeye/

Wow, your UV photo is so much nicer than mine! This flower’s bullseye was barely distinguishable in my photos, and with the quartz lens, I can be sure the issue is not the bandpass. I still don’t own a Baader however, so I guess it might be the filter.

Link to comment

 

 

Ah I didn't realise that was a macro lens. On the topic, how would this macro lens stack up against something like a nikon fluor objective? Of course they gather less light due to different NA, but in terms of relative transmittance of ratio of UV to Visible?

 

EDIT: I cannot find transmittance data for the macro lens (the main website for the company is not working for me?) so im curious if its much better for UV than a UV compatible objective. I can imagine anything <350nm is not so interesting for microscopy and that only such dedicated lenses go beyond that.

 

Not too many microscope objectives I know of are rated for less than 340nm. Even the Nikon UV fluor objectives have a mixture of quartz and glass and only rated to 340nm. Regular Fluor are not rated for UV, but can work. Just trial and error on the facility. You must be a microscopist. I haven't seen too many here thinking in terms of objectives. Its been about 10 years now since I have been in front of a proper confocal scope.

But I do have some RMS objectives that I play with. Still haven't tested their UV range though.

The Resolve 60mm Macro lens as Andy mentioned is a C-mount quartz lens. We were lucky to get at about 5 to 10% of the new price. Its optimized for UVC imaging. And I am now learning how to fully use it. Just figured out yesterday, how to image a wider field in UVC. You need to balance the lens focus point with the imagers eye focuser. Seems that they work together. The system we have included a phosphor detector to convert UV signal into visible light. I have mounted a regular Olympus Em5mk2 or Panasonic GM5 to the imager to snap a photo.

Link to comment

Wow, your UV photo is so much nicer than mine! This flower’s bullseye was barely distinguishable in my photos, and with the quartz lens, I can be sure the issue is not the bandpass. I still don’t own a Baader however, so I guess it might be the filter.

 

If you like, send me the raw and I'll see whether processing has anything to do with it.

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...