Don't worry about a thing.....Added: UV Rainbow Attempt

[Andrea B.]

Cause every little thing's gonna be alright.

 

Hang tough, you all !!

 

 

Rainbow over my back yard

Santa Fe, New Mexico

13 March 2020

 

[Andrea B.]

There are other versions of that song. I like the one I linked to. Kinda makes me feel better for a minute or two.

[dabateman]

Thats an excellent rainbow.

Did you get it in UV and IR?

Every time I see one here, I run to set up a tripod and just miss it.

I almost caught a polarised rainbow, where it was only visible through a polarizing filter. Saw it only with my sunglasses on driving home. But too just missed getting a good image. It was high in the clouds.

 

One day I will catch the rainbow.

[Cadmium]

Oooo! Nice Southwest Rainbow!

[Andrea B.]

Yeah, I did get a UV rainbow shot. But it is really not very good. I'll post it anyway because I was able to use the typical UV processing on it to develop some false colour.

 

(see UV rainbow below)

[Cadmium]

Even as visual rainbows go, that is a very good one! Hard to catch them if you ask me, harder to get one that good.

[Bill De Jager]

Beautiful capture, Andrea! EDIT: Those are cottonwood trees no doubt, Populus deltoides var. wislizeni. You are going to have some spectacular yellow color this fall.

 

I've wanted to go to northern New Mexico since I first read The Man Who Killed the Deer by Frank Waters and looked at Ansel Adams' photos of the region back in the early 70s, but I've never been closer than the Albuquerque area. Your photo conjures up that old longing. One of these years it'll be Santa Fe, Taos pueblo, then north to Great San Dunes National Park in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains of southern Colorado, really a continuation of the region you're in. Definitely in late September or early October.

[Cadmium]

This stuff I think:

https://en.wikipedia...erus_monosperma

 

Maybe?

https://www.google.com/search?q=Juniperus+monosperma&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiepd-i_aDoAhVWFzQIHfwpDdcQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=Juniperus+monosperma&gs_l=img.3..0j0i24l3.47687.49530..49938...0.0..1.103.845.9j1......0....1..gws-wiz-img.....0..0i67.9SQaaWoCmW4&ei=OntwXp6gONau0PEP_NO0uA0&bih=925&biw=1920

[Andrea B.]

Bill, thank you.

I'm not sure which trees you were referring to? Most of the green stuff in the rainbow photo is either juniper or piñon. Our quaking aspens (a kind of cottonwood) have not yet leafed out here at 6800'. Soon, though.

---

 

Cadmium, yes. As you have linked, they are Juniperus monosperma. The darker green ones with the blue "berries" are the female trees. The green-yellow ones are the male trees which have tiny little orange-brown "cones" on the tips of each twiglet.

---

 

Here is part of the rainbow in UV. I couldn't get focused on anything! There was just too much atmosphere and drizzle by the time I got back outdoors with the UV-Nikkor after photographing the visible rainbow. But at least this UV photo shows a bit of the rainbow false colour. I'm not sure how accurate the white balance was because my UV profiles are for sunlight. The usually false yellow is more of a yellow-green in this photo. But I've seen a false yellow-green or green-yellow before when shooting distant foliage landscapes.

 

As usual I extracted the Raw Digger raw composite (no white balance applied) to show everyone. This time I also got the separate channels because I was curious how much would be recorded in each channel. No surprise that with the BaaderU the red channel was the brightest.

 

D610-full spectrum conversion + UV-Nikkor 105/4.5 + BaaderU UV-Pass + sunlight (not too much actually)

UV [f/4.5 for 1/60" @ ISO-800]

Saturation was pushed a bit.

 

 

Raw composite, no white balance applied.

This has a typical BaaderU raw color appearance.

 

 

Raw red channel.

 

 

Raw green channel (average of both green channels).

 

 

Raw blue channel.

[Cadmium]

Nice, that first UV photo. You don't see many UV rainbow shots.

Is your visual rainbow up top using a stock D610? Or converted with UV/IR filter?

[Andrea B.]

Thank you, Cadmium. "-)

The first visible photo was made with the D850.

It was a really vivid rainbow! So cool.

 

I really was not paying any attention to composition, just trying to capture those colors. So later when I saw the the curve of the courtyard gate kind of matched the rainbow arc, I was pleased. Sometimes we luck out.

[dabateman]

You definitely pulled out a lot from that rainbow in UV.

Is the visible color to the left? Closer to that shed.

 

[Stefano]

You definitely pulled out a lot from that rainbow in UV.

Is the visible color to the left? Closer to that shed.

It should be. Longer wavelengths are outside and shorter ones inside. You can see that “blue UV” is outside “yellow UV”, as you would expect.

[colinbm]

It should be. Longer wavelengths are outside and shorter ones inside. You can see that “blue UV” is outside “yellow UV”, as you would expect.

 

Not quite Stefano

On double rainbows the reds are on the inside & the blues are on the outsides....

[GaryR]

Beauty !

[Bill De Jager]

Andrea, I goofed. I went back and looked at the photo at full size and now I see the juniper appearance clearly. Looks like I got a quick impression and went with it rather than being careful.

[Cadmium]

Andrea has a very nice place. I have not been there or anything, never even set foot in New Mexico, but it seems like a great place.

Very different from where I live, and where she use to live,. but fascinating, and so many variations and aspects.

She has a great place to live.

[Andrea B.]

I don't have a photo in Visible light of the rainbow over the buildings, but I do have an unfiltered Vis + IR photo which shows the Vis + IR rainbow's position to the left of the UV rainbow. There doesn't seem to be a huge effect from the IR. Maybe the red portion is a bit wider than usual?

 

D610-conversion + UV-Nikkor 105/4.5 + Sunlight

No filter. Raw composite from Raw Digger.

Small saturation boost on rainbow.

f/8 for 1/2000" @ ISO-800

 

Repeat of the UV rainbow for comparison.

These are not perfectly "matching" shots, but they are quite close enough to make this comparison.

I layered the originals in PSE to verify this.

[dabateman]

Thank you Andrea,

I wanted to get a sense of the distance between the visible and the UV. Quite broad, about half a pinky finger on my phone. I am guess than that you may have seen to the limits of the Baader filter, about 340nm. Really cool.

[Bill De Jager]

Andrea, thanks for posting - most interesting. I wonder if it's possible to somehow capture the entire width of the NIR-vis-NUV rainbow in one shot, perhaps by using HDR with a multispectral-modified camera?

[Stefano]

Andrea, thanks for posting - most interesting. I wonder if it's possible to somehow capture the entire width of the NIR-vis-NUV rainbow in one shot, perhaps by using HDR with a multispectral-modified camera?

Maybe we can design a filter stack that balances the different camera sensitivities in UV, VIS and IR.

[Andrea B.]

Bill, I think the easiest way to get a UV-Vis-IR rainbow is to make matching shots with quick filter changes in between. Then layer them up in Photoshop and mask for UV, Vis and IR to make a composite rainbow photo.

 

To make matching UV-Vis-IR photos does require being set up in advance so that you can work quickly. Something I have never seemed to manage.