Is this how UV and IR photos supposed to look like?

[Chin Peng]

hi

I have taken several photos with Canon D60 modified to wide spectrum. also use UV bandpass filter and IR suppression.

Is this how the photos supposed to look like?

Also when i open the RAW (.CR2) in RawTherapee, the photos beomes violet. Is this supposed to be so? But if i open in normal photo editor they look grey (like attached).

 

The reddish photo is a wide spectrum without the filters.

 

Any comments and suggestion are welcome.

 

thank you

[Cadmium]

Chin, Those look normal, or close to normal for UV and FS. Your top photo looks very good, pretty much as expected for UV only.

Perhaps someone here can explain how to upload a RAW file where I (we) can download it and process it with Photo Ninja (for example), or other programs, to see if the white balance can get any better or not,

with your permission of course, and then post them here for comparison.

[Chin Peng]

Dear Steve,

I can upload the photos to Dropbox to share with you.

I hope this is ok.

you may need to give me your email address to gain access. I am not sure if this is ok to be done here?

thanks

chin peng

[Cadmium]

OK, I will send you my email in a private message here, up top, right hand.

[Cadmium]

Chin, I am sorry, I can not get Google's drop box to work. Can anyone suggest any other place to upload a RAW file?

[dabateman]

I have shared raw using Google drive. You need to supply the exact link and in settings make sure that people can access.

 

They look normal UV like. In Raw therapee you can set camera profiles. Its possible its not reading the WB correctly.

[ulf]

If you just want to look at and click-WB a raw-image the FastRawViewer https://www.fastrawviewer.com/ is nice.

It works on Windows and MacOS.

 

It is just a viewer and it cannot convert to TIFF or JPEG, but it is excellent for previewing and weeding out bad shots.

The WB works very well even with really odd inputs far worse than a typical UV-pass image.

The auto-WB in the program is very good and you can also click-WB with a sampler area of 3x3 to 33x33-pixels.

 

There is a fully functional 30-days trial version.

I have bought a licence and use the program very much.

IMHO it is well worth the price.

 

The only function I miss is a practical way of transferring WB-data to several images.

If more users than me request this, the developer might increase the priority of implementing this.

[Cadmium]

Hi Chin, I guess you changed something in the Google drop box for me, and now it works. Thanks.

Your UV white balance of the file you sent looks pretty close to what I got when processing it in Photo Ninja, and if I click around on the pic I can make it various tints and shades.

So here are some versions of the two files I downloaded.

 

First, here is the original white balance of RAW file you sent for the UV image. This is either out of your camera, or your RAW edit out of the camera, but I have changed nothing in this top photo,

I am only including it as an original comparison.

 

I like the banana trees, and I am curious about the rings that are around one of them.

 

Your version:

 

My white balance version in Photo Ninja, using full frame selection.

True white balance would just as easily be your version, given that your whites look more white, my version here is just how I liked it:

 

Same as above with Photoshop Auto Levels added, and sharpening added:

 

Here also is my Photo Ninja white balance version of the full spectrum shot you sent me:

[Cadmium]

One more pic.

With this close crop, which is like one of your examples above, this crop is 100%, "actual pixels" view in Photoshop.

Strangely, it is smaller than your example when enlarged to full size. So perhaps you enlarged the original larger than pixel view?

Perhaps your photo above is a different shot. I see some details that look slightly different.

Regardless, this pic is white balanced, but not sharpened, so the detail is true to the original shot, and this shows original grain, focus, and/or blur.

Blur can be caused by motion blur, which can be more with longer exposures typically needed with UV photos. I am not sure if there is any blur seen here,

it might just be focus or sharpness of the lens(?), I don't know.

That shot was Tamron lens f/635, 5.0s, +0.0, IS0 4000, 18mm, EOC 60D.

At 5.0s you used a tripod, otherwise this would not be as sharp as it is.

So you can definitely get some motion blur with the foliage or anything that moves in the wind, or from any kind of camera shake.

Also, there is the question of focus, so the edges of things may be soft/blurry because of movement and focus.