Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

My work


Craigo79

Recommended Posts

I think your work is beautiful! The detail is so impressive. And the photos are quite nicely finished.

 

Do you make use of any white balance techniques? We have a lot of discussion about that here. :grin: Some of us attempt to tune the fluorescent images to match what we have seen. OTOH, the artistry of fluorescence does not always require precise colour. Your thoughts?

 

That scorpion is beautiful! But I surely would not want to meet up with that guy anywhere. It looks pretty big.

Link to comment

I think your work is beautiful! The detail is so impressive. And the photos are quite nicely finished.

 

Do you make use of any white balance techniques? We have a lot of discussion about that here. :grin: Some of us attempt to tune the fluorescent images to match what we have seen. OTOH, the artistry of fluorescence does not always require precise colour. Your thoughts?

 

That scorpion is beautiful! But I surely would not want to meet up with that guy anywhere. It looks pretty big.

 

Thanks so much for the kind words :) I used Flash white balance for every image so far. I am not quite sure what to use for white balance. The scorpion is fairly small I used a Canon 180mm macro lens to capture it.

Link to comment

That's really beautiful stuff.

 

I've only been doing UV reflective work, but this inspires me to have a go at UVIF.

 

Are you illuminating with a single or multiple flashgun? What ISO & aperture?

Link to comment

That's really beautiful stuff.

 

I've only been doing UV reflective work, but this inspires me to have a go at UVIF.

 

Are you illuminating with a single or multiple flashgun? What ISO & aperture?

 

Thank you :) Single flash , ISO varies depending on how bright it glows , the scorpion was with 180mm macro , ISO 2000, F13 and 2 seconds , popped the flash once at 1/1 power. Here is a link to the 3d model I redesigned to suit Yongnuo yn 560 iii it is good to have my own 3d printer.... In the description it has a link to the filter set I am using. https://www.thingive...m/thing:3956427

Link to comment

Thanks.

 

What was the 2 seconds for? To get some detail in the non-fluorescing background? Won't you wash out the fluorescent image?

 

I'll probably get started using a 77mm U340 filter which a vendor gave me as a freebie when I bought a U360 filter: it's marked and no good for use over a lens, but is fine and big enough to fit over the flashgun.

 

The filters you're using are bit expensive for me to experiment with - and I would have thought the S8612 is redundant. If I get into this, as a next step I might try one or two ZWB2 filters, which you can get for £24 for 150mm x 50mm.

Link to comment

Thanks.

 

What was the 2 seconds for? To get some detail in the non-fluorescing background? Won't you wash out the fluorescent image?

 

I'll probably get started using a 77mm U340 filter which a vendor gave me as a freebie when I bought a U360 filter: it's marked and no good for use over a lens, but is fine and big enough to fit over the flashgun.

 

The filters you're using are bit expensive for me to experiment with - and I would have thought the S8612 is redundant. If I get into this, as a next step I might try one or two ZWB2 filters, which you can get for £24 for 150mm x 50mm.

Craig, Amazing, beautiful, stunning...!

Very nice UVIVF shots. :smile:

 

The 2 seconds was enough time for me to turn the torch off and fire off the flash. There was some ambient light that contributed to the exposure but the flash going off does not wash out the image as it is a short burst of light , you just need to have your settings right. I have also done images where I pop the flash multiple times to get a larger subject to illuminate.

 

Cadmium , thank you!!

Link to comment

Here is a YouTube showing the conversion of a YN660 (maybe not the same as converting the YN550?).

 

Something to think about however:

The video shows two graphs, one for the U-340, which is correct, and another for the MIDOPT BP365 which they are using for the UV only flash stack.

U-340 suppresses IR fairly well in the 800+ range, but not good enough for me, borderline, about OD3, so you should be suppressing all of the IR range with the IR suppression filter.

The BP365 transmits a huge amount of IR above 800nm, so I would not us that, I would use S8612 which has a much stronger suppression for the full range of IR up to 1200nm.

The ideal flash stack is U-340 2mm + S8612 2mm.

Link to comment

Here is a YouTube showing the conversion of a YN660 (maybe not the same as converting the YN550?).

 

Something to think about however:

The video shows two graphs, one for the U-340, which is correct, and another for the MIDOPT BP365 which they are using for the UV only flash stack.

U-340 suppresses IR fairly well in the 800+ range, but not good enough for me, borderline, about OD3, so you should be suppressing all of the IR range with the IR suppression filter.

The BP365 transmits a huge amount of IR above 800nm, so I would not us that, I would use S8612 which has a much stronger suppression for the full range of IR up to 1200nm.

The ideal flash stack is U-340 2mm + S8612 2mm.

 

That is the stack I am using U-340 2mm + S8612 2mm , converting the yn 560 iii is exactly the same. I just could not afford the midopt filter set so i went with https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/293294398326?ViewItem=&item=293294398326 and redesigned a holder and 3d printed it for my flash. Going to be doing another flash soon and making a youtube video about the process.

Link to comment

Thanks Craig.

Also, looking at the MidOpt BP365 graph and data page, I see that the BP365 has borderline 500nm-and up range suppression, a few spots that are only OD3 suppression in the 500nm to 800nm range.

https://midopt.com/filters/bp365/

 

The S8612 2mm is much better suppression, so I think you have a better UV only stack using the S8612 rather than the BP365.

post-87-0-61227900-1574032802.jpg

 

For OD suppression reference:

post-87-0-44763600-1574032956.jpg

 

U-340 2mm + S8612 2mm flash stack = minimum out of band suppression is OD5

post-87-0-73559400-1574033665.jpg

Link to comment

Bernard,

As Cadmium has indicated above the S8612 is not redundant, but needed. The Xeon flash has a lot of IR output. With peaks especially in the 800nm range. So for just UV induced fluorescence, you will need to block that IR.

 

Craig,

Excellent images. I have mainly been using 365nm led bulbs for UVIVF. But I also modified my Canon 199A flashes to take filters. I simply glued a 52mm stepup ring to 77mm onto the diffuser that slides onto the flash gun. Then I can screw on a 52mm stack to the flashguns. I made 2 of these. The 77mm side fits perfectly onto the Canon 199A diffuser.

This allowed me to get my exposure down to 1/8 so I could do in camera focus stacking with my Olympus Em1. You can set a delay between shots for the flash to recharge. But the slowest the electronic shutter speed can go is a stupid 1/8 seconds.

Link to comment

Bernard,

As Cadmium has indicated above the S8612 is not redundant, but needed. The Xeon flash has a lot of IR output. With peaks especially in the 800nm range. So for just UV induced fluorescence, you will need to block that IR.

 

 

Before I got the Baader U I used U360+S8612 for UV Reflection photography, with the S8612 of course to mop up the IR leakage.

 

But for UVIF I will be using a standard (non-full-spectrum) to capture the flouescence, so any IR leakage is irrelevant as the camera won't capture it. But actually, looks like the U340 leaks a bit of visible far-red light as well, so I might need the S8612 for that. The ZWB2 spectrum looks like there is no leakage in the far-red.

 

Anyway, if I do need to use an S8612 I'll screw it over the camera lens - I won't need to fit it over the flash,

Link to comment

Bernard, I am not following the logic of why you need to use an S8612 on the camera lens if you are using a stock camera which you feel makes IR irrelevant.

What is the point of the S8612 on your stock camera?

When doing UVIVF shots, you want total darkness, and absolutely nothing coming out of the light source other than -400nm UV.

Any kind of U glass alone will transmit visible red, you don't want that, you want to remove that from the flash.

 

ZWB2 is more like U-360 than it is like U-340. I would not use that on a flash, because it will leak some 400nm+ visible violet.

U-340 cuts off below 400nm.

Perhaps you meant ZWB1?

Also there certainly IS far red leakage with both ZWB2 and ZWB1, and with all other U glass also.

All the graphs I have seen for ZWB type filters show red leakage.

 

Here is an example graph comparison.

post-87-0-40288500-1574098407.jpg

Link to comment

Hi, Cadmium.

 

The U340 leaks a bit of far red. And I'm sure the UV/IR cut filter in the camera doesn't cut off perfectly at the border between vis and IR - meaning that the camera will see a bit of IR that it shouldn't. So the U340 lets through a bit of far red and very near IR light that would seen by the camera. The S8612 would hopefully cut this out. The pictures of the Lily below (my first UVIF shots ever!) use a U340 over the flash: the first shot has no filter over the lens, the second a UV/IR cut filter (unknown spec.) over the lens, and the third an S8612 over the lens. This does seem to indicate red leakage which is blocked by the S8612.

 

Do I mean ZWB1 or ZWB2? By your graphs, I mean ZWB1. But the graphs posted by the seller on ebay (see below) show ZWB1 and ZWB2 reversed comapred to your graph, and that's why I said ZWB2. I'll need to get to the bottom of this before I buy.

 

post-245-0-59678200-1574108030.jpg

post-245-0-64128200-1574108041.jpg

post-245-0-24990600-1574108058.jpg

 

post-245-0-07017900-1574108017.jpg

Link to comment

Bernhard,

 

Please do not trust these Chinese spectrograms close to 0%

I suspect that they can have a severe offset error.

The thickness of the filter is not stated here making the information very unreliable for higher transmission-levels too.

What are we seeing?

The graph of ZWB2 at 375nm is unrealistically steep too. Are the graphs hand-sketched?

Link to comment

Yes, the graph that I posted looks odd at 375nm. Also it agrees approximately with Cadmium's graph on the right-hand side, but seems to have ZWB1 and ZWB2 transposed on the left-hand side.

 

If I use Cadmium's graph, the choice is between ZWB1 with far-red leak or ZWB2 with far-blue leak. I guess the far-red leak is easier to cure using an S8612.

 

BTW - the ad. where I got the graph says the ZWB2 is 1.9mm thick.

Link to comment
Here's a question for the experienced UVIF photographers: how can I confirm that I am capturing a UVIF image and that I'm not getting visible light contamination?
Link to comment

Here's a question for the experienced UVIF photographers: how can I confirm that I am capturing a UVIF image and that I'm not getting visible light contamination?

When I take UV induced visible fluorescence images. I have mainly been using my 365nm led bulbs with Zwb1 filters in front.

But I started with Canon 199A flashes with Zwb1 and bg39 filters mounted in the front.

You want no lights on in a controlled room. I use my basement furnace room. Then a light source that is just UV for inducing fluorescence. You can also use a 405nm light or use a lee filter over white LED to isolate 488nm. But you want your light source to be monochromatic.

Then use a 2A, 2E or Baader UVIR cut filter. A BW 486 filter leaks too much into the UV. My Sigma SD15 filters work great as they cut from 405nm to 680nm.

Then for UV induced visible fluorescence you will need to cut the IR from the camera.

For UV induced IR fluorescence I use a 720nm long pass filter on the camera lens.

 

Some will also use a U340 filtered Convoy 365nm led flashlight to paint the subject.

Hope that helps.

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...