• Ultraviolet Photography
  •  

Yooperlites specimen UVF

Fluorescence
21 replies to this topic

#1 Adrian

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 192 posts
  • Location: Ashtead, Surrey, UK

Posted 28 August 2020 - 10:57

Some time ago there were a couple of posts about the discovery of Yooperlites in 2018: https://www.ultravio...__fromsearch__1

I have since done some more research, and finally managed to get my own (very small) specimen recently (from a UK dealer - the cost of sending a pebble from the US was exorbitant!)

To recap, Yooperlites are a newly discovered rock type found in Michigan's Upper Peninsula It has been called "yooperlites" after Yoopers the name residents of Michigan's Upper Peninsula give themselves ("U.P.-ers").
The rock has been identified by scientists in Michigan as "syenite rock that contains fluorescent sodalite", a mineral that had never before been identified in Michigan.

As can be seen the specimen photographed here was just 10mm across.


Technical details:
Camera Nikon D850, with 105mm micro Nikkor. UVF: 10 seconds @ f/16, 200ISO, light painted with Convoy S2+ UV torch.

Attached Images

  • Attached Image: Yooperlites lo res comp.jpg
  • Attached Image: Yooperlite comp lo res.jpg

Adrian Davies
www.imagingtheinvisible.com

#2 colinbm

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 2,279 posts
  • Location: Australia

Posted 28 August 2020 - 11:16

Good score Adrian
It looks like the Moon when it was still volcanic....;-)

#3 Stefano

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 1,719 posts
  • Location: Italy

Posted 28 August 2020 - 12:24

Yes, it looks almost incandescent, very cool.

#4 JMC

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 1,262 posts
  • Location: London, UK

Posted 28 August 2020 - 12:51

Funky. It'd be interesting to see if its fluorescence is different with different UV wavelengths at some point.
Jonathan M. Crowther

http://jmcscientificconsulting.com

#5 UlfW

    Ulf W

  • Members+G
  • 1,566 posts
  • Location: Sweden, Malmö

Posted 28 August 2020 - 14:22

https://www.fluomin....DALITE&debut=10
Ulf Wilhelmson
Curious and trying to see the invisible.

#6 JMC

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 1,262 posts
  • Location: London, UK

Posted 28 August 2020 - 18:05

View PostUlfW, on 28 August 2020 - 14:22, said:

Nice, thanks Ulf.
Jonathan M. Crowther

http://jmcscientificconsulting.com

#7 Bill De Jager

    Member

  • Members
  • 305 posts
  • Location: Northern California, USA

Posted 29 August 2020 - 23:15

Nice find, Adrian. The fluorescing rock looks like a flaming meteor from a science fiction show.... that is, some movie/TV industry notion of what a meteor would look like.

The Upper Peninsula of Michigan, aside from being a beautiful place, has considerable mineral deposits stemming from events long ago in the Mesoproterozoic which ended about 1,000,000,000 years ago.The area is known for its deposits of native (naturally nearly pure) copper metal, among other diverse minerals.
Studying the botany and plant geography of California and western North America for almost 50 years.

#8 Andrea B.

    Desert Dancer

  • Owner-Administrator
  • 8,674 posts
  • Location: UVP Western Division, Santa Fe, New Mexico

Posted 02 September 2020 - 23:15

Very interesting!

And "Yoopers" made me laugh.
Andrea G. Blum
Often found hanging out with flowers & bees.

#9 JMC

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 1,262 posts
  • Location: London, UK

Posted 01 November 2020 - 10:44

I've taken the plunge and bought a little sample of this (probably from the same place you got yours from Adrian - as you say postage from the US was not good). I plan on looking at it with fluorescence from 300 to 400nm illuminating it using 10nm bandpass filters on the light source to see if it makes any difference.
Jonathan M. Crowther

http://jmcscientificconsulting.com

#10 Adrian

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 192 posts
  • Location: Ashtead, Surrey, UK

Posted 01 November 2020 - 10:58

Look forward to seeing the results!
Adrian Davies
www.imagingtheinvisible.com

#11 JMC

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 1,262 posts
  • Location: London, UK

Posted 03 November 2020 - 14:51

My sample of Yooperlite arrived. Described as "Syenite with Sodalite. UV Reactive. Location: Lake Superior Mine, Michigan". My sample is about 2cm across.

Imaging done with an EOS 5DSR and Rayfact 105mm lens, with a 420nm long pass filter to block out the UV. UV Light source was a Hamamatsu LC8 200W lamp with a Xe lamp and collimator. Normal room lights used for visible light shot. White balance on Daylight for UV images, and Auto for visible light image. Captured as JPEG in camera and cropped and resized for sharing. No other modifications.

Visible light (f11, ISO1600, 1.3s)
Attached Image: 578A0485 visible light_jpg_jpg.JPG

Using a Baader U to filter the light (wide wavelength range of UV illumination, f11, ISO1600, 10s)
Attached Image: 578A0486 Baader U f11_jpg_jpg.JPG

I also did a set of images with different UV bandpass filters on the light (10nm width from 310nm to 390nm). These were from Edmunds and Thorlabs. All are claimed to be OD4 blocking in the out of band regions. This was to try and see whether different wavelengths resulted in different fluorescence colours, and also different degrees of fluorescence.

However not all the filters let the same amount of light through, and the spectral distribution of the light source is not flat. To try and account for this, I measured the Irradiance spectra of the light, and then multiplied this by the transmission of the filters between 290nm and 420nm, the aim being to get some idea of 'total amount of light hitting the subject'. Then I used this to try and correct the exposure used for the visible light image. I have not idea whether this is correct, but it was the best I could come up with. Images below (these were all done at f4.5 as using the bandpass filters reduced the degree of fluorescence).

Attached Image: 578A0474 310nm f4.5 rayfact_jpg_jpg.JPG

Attached Image: 578A0475 320nm_jpg_jpg.JPG

Attached Image: 578A0476 330nm_jpg_jpg.JPG

Attached Image: 578A0477 340nm_jpg_jpg.JPG

Attached Image: 578A0478 350nm_jpg_jpg.JPG

Attached Image: 578A0479 360nm_jpg_jpg.JPG

Attached Image: 578A0480 370nm_jpg_jpg.JPG

Attached Image: 578A0481 380nm_jpg_jpg.JPG

Attached Image: 578A0482 390nm_jpg_jpg.JPG

My primary goal here was to see if the different illumination wavelengths resulted in a change in emission colour. Between 310nm and 390nm that does not appear to be the case. There are some examples online where using 254nm for illuminating rock samples results in a different coloured fluorescence to 365nm, but I do not have a filtered source that goes that low to test it.

Overall, a very pretty rock under UV.

Edited by JMC, 16 January 2021 - 10:21.

Jonathan M. Crowther

http://jmcscientificconsulting.com

#12 Stefano

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 1,719 posts
  • Location: Italy

Posted 03 November 2020 - 18:31

Nice test Jonathan.

I do see a difference, it may be caused by the different exposures, but the lower wavelengths appear more orange. Maybe under UVC this rock would become reddish?

I am also curious to see another thing: usually strongly fluorescent substances appear darker than "usual" in reflected UV, since they re-emit a good amount of UV light as visible or infrared light instead of UV again. Thus common paper, highlighters and some laundry detergents appear dark or even black in UV. You can see this in this YouTube video by Veritasium at 3:30.

So, the point is: I expect the fluorescing areas of the rock to appear darker than the rest of the rock under reflected UV. Maybe you could try this if you want.

#13 Stefano

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 1,719 posts
  • Location: Italy

Posted 03 November 2020 - 22:58

I found a link similar to UlfW's: https://www.google.c...d=1604444094884

It appears that under SW UV sodalite is actually reddish-pink.

#14 colinbm

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 2,279 posts
  • Location: Australia

Posted 04 November 2020 - 01:47

Nice photos Jonathan, it sure is a bright fluorescence.

#15 JMC

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 1,262 posts
  • Location: London, UK

Posted 04 November 2020 - 12:20

Thanks all. Yes perhaps if I look at it, the 310nm and 320nm images have a bit more of a pink tinge to them.

Stefano, I'll try and get some UV reflection images done, to compare with visible and fluorescence. Probably just with the 365nm torch though instead of the Xe lamp (should still show the effect).
Jonathan M. Crowther

http://jmcscientificconsulting.com

#16 Stefano

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 1,719 posts
  • Location: Italy

Posted 04 November 2020 - 12:54

View PostJMC, on 04 November 2020 - 12:20, said:

Stefano, I'll try and get some UV reflection images done, to compare with visible and fluorescence. Probably just with the 365nm torch though instead of the Xe lamp (should still show the effect).
Yes, a 365 nm torch will work fine.

#17 dabateman

    Da Bateman

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

Posted 04 November 2020 - 13:22

Interesting. Your 330nm image and your 380nm images are significantly different. More rock is glowing in the higher illumination wavelengths. So might be some differences if you look at the green, blue red channels.
You could but them in the current USA colors with 0.2% green, 50% blue and 49% red. I should see what images look like with those distributions.

#18 JMC

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 1,262 posts
  • Location: London, UK

Posted 05 November 2020 - 14:06

Quick experiment using a multispectral converted EOS 5DSR with Rayfact 105mm lens. ISO 1600 and f11. Images captured as RAW and jpeg in camera. Spectralon diffuse reflectance standard imaged at same time.

Visible light image - LED room lights, Chinese BG39 (2.5mm) filter and 420nm long pass filter, white balanced in Darktable.
UV induced fluorescence - 365nm Nemo torch, additional filter on torch (Baader U), Daylight whitebalance
UV reflectance - 365nm Nemo torch, Baader U filter on lens, whitebalanced in Darktable.

Images cropped and resized for sharing. No other manipulation.
Attached Image: 1R4A0382 visible 420nmlp and BG39 chinese_jpg_jpg.jpg

Attached Image: 1R4A0385 365nm fluor daylight bal_jpg_jpg.JPG

Attached Image: 1R4A0387 365nm reflect baader U_jpg_jpg.jpg

For me, there is no strong correlation between 'dark in UV reflection' and 'strong UV induced fluorescence'. Some areas which fluoresce under UV look dark in UV reflectance, some look light.
Jonathan M. Crowther

http://jmcscientificconsulting.com

#19 Stefano

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 1,719 posts
  • Location: Italy

Posted 05 November 2020 - 14:32

Thanks Jonathan. Yes, it doesn't appear there is a strong correlation. The rock actually looks more uniform in UV.

BTW, the UVIVF image is so cool. It looks so bright.

#20 JMC

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 1,262 posts
  • Location: London, UK

Posted 05 November 2020 - 14:36

No problem Stefano. Yes the Yooperlite fluorescence is very strong. Certainly worth getting a sample if you can. And that Nemo torch is incredibly bright, excellent for fluorescence work - it'd be really good for light painting.

I may try putting it on my reflection microscope and try and get some high magnification images of fluorescence.
Jonathan M. Crowther

http://jmcscientificconsulting.com