• Ultraviolet Photography
  •  

My work

Fluorescence
60 replies to this topic

#1 Craigk79

    Member

  • Members
  • 17 posts

Posted 17 November 2019 - 20:46

I recently came up with a way to modify a Yongnuo yn 560 iii for UVIVF. Here is the link to the filter holder I redesigned that also ha a link to the filters I use https://www.thingive...m/thing:3956427 I have been experimenting with it and getting decent results:) Let me know what you think of my work.
Posted Image

#2 Craigk79

    Member

  • Members
  • 17 posts

Posted 17 November 2019 - 20:47

Posted Image

#3 Craigk79

    Member

  • Members
  • 17 posts

Posted 17 November 2019 - 20:48

Posted Image

#4 Andrea B.

    Desert Dancer

  • Owner-Administrator
  • 8,676 posts
  • Location: UVP Western Division, Santa Fe, New Mexico

Posted 17 November 2019 - 20:59

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.
Andrea G. Blum
Often found hanging out with flowers & bees.

#5 Craigk79

    Member

  • Members
  • 17 posts

Posted 17 November 2019 - 21:08

View PostAndrea B., on 17 November 2019 - 20:59, said:

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.

#6 Bernard Foot

    Bernard Foot

  • Members+G
  • 706 posts
  • Location: UK

Posted 17 November 2019 - 21:19

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?
Bernard Foot

#7 Craigk79

    Member

  • Members
  • 17 posts

Posted 17 November 2019 - 22:08

View PostBernard Foot, on 17 November 2019 - 21:19, said:

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

#8 Craigk79

    Member

  • Members
  • 17 posts

Posted 17 November 2019 - 22:11

Posted Image

#9 Bernard Foot

    Bernard Foot

  • Members+G
  • 706 posts
  • Location: UK

Posted 17 November 2019 - 22:20

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.
Bernard Foot

#10 Cadmium

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 4,141 posts

Posted 17 November 2019 - 22:22

Craig, Amazing, beautiful, stunning...!
Very nice UVIVF shots. :smile:

#11 Craigk79

    Member

  • Members
  • 17 posts

Posted 17 November 2019 - 22:56

View PostBernard Foot, on 17 November 2019 - 22:20, said:

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.

View PostCadmium, on 17 November 2019 - 22:22, said:

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!!

#12 Cadmium

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 4,141 posts

Posted 17 November 2019 - 22:59

Here is a YouTube showing the conversion of a YN660 (maybe not the same as converting the YN550?).
https://youtu.be/G7i3jKGwBr0

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.

#13 Craigk79

    Member

  • Members
  • 17 posts

Posted 17 November 2019 - 23:11

View PostCadmium, on 17 November 2019 - 22:59, said:

Here is a YouTube showing the conversion of a YN660 (maybe not the same as converting the YN550?).
https://youtu.be/G7i3jKGwBr0

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...em=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.

Edited by Craigk79, 17 November 2019 - 23:13.


#14 Cadmium

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 4,141 posts

Posted 17 November 2019 - 23:24

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.
Attached Image: BG_S8612_All.jpg

For OD suppression reference:
Attached Image: Test_Percent_Schott_OD_1E10_L.jpg

U-340 2mm + S8612 2mm flash stack = minimum out of band suppression is OD5
Attached Image: U340_2mm_x_S8612_2mm_Flash_Stack.jpg

Edited by Cadmium, 17 November 2019 - 23:37.


#15 dabateman

    Da Bateman

  • Members+G
  • 2,699 posts
  • Location: Maryland

Posted 18 November 2019 - 00:36

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.

#16 Cadmium

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 4,141 posts

Posted 18 November 2019 - 05:37

Craig, that 3D printed filter adapter is great!

#17 Craigk79

    Member

  • Members
  • 17 posts

Posted 18 November 2019 - 09:04

Thank you :)

#18 Bernard Foot

    Bernard Foot

  • Members+G
  • 706 posts
  • Location: UK

Posted 18 November 2019 - 10:57

View Postdabateman, on 18 November 2019 - 00:36, said:

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,
Bernard Foot

#19 Cadmium

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 4,141 posts

Posted 18 November 2019 - 17:43

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.
Attached Image: ZWB1_UG11_U340_1mm_and_2mm_8.jpg

#20 Cadmium

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 4,141 posts

Posted 18 November 2019 - 18:04

Years back, Pylon did some tests comparing the difference between a 199A flash filtered with U-340 alone, and filtered with U-340 + S8612,
there IS a difference.
https://www.ultravio...ndpost__p__9952