Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

Ultraviolet Photography Beginners Questions


Fred

Recommended Posts

Dear community,

 

i am new to Infrared photography and i would love to experiment with ultraviolet photography outdoors and in a studio-enviroment (especially with portraits). I have started to google a little bit and found a list of necessary tools like a super expensive KolariVisionFilter, special lenses and modified flashes. I am afraid of spending a lot of money for tools that arent necessary, overpriced or do not give me a clear advantage imagewise.

 

I wanted to ask you whether you could help me to set up an affordable combination.

I currently own a full spectrum modified Sony A6000, Sony Zeiss 55mm 1,8 and Canon EF-S 10-18mm, and one Hoya R72 Filter. I also own plenty of other Canon EF, Sony E and Pentax lenses, but i guess those arent suitable for IR or Ultraviolet.

 

thank you !

 

cheers,

 

Oliver

Link to comment

You may be OK for IR. The problem would be hot spots at some focal lengths and apertures - you probably just need to try the various lenses to see how they go.

 

UV is more of a problem. You'll need a filter - the standard general purpose filters are the Baader U, and a sandwich of a UV transmitter (like Hoya U340) and an IR blocker (like an S8612). But you'll find more than you ever want to know about UV filters on this forum.

 

In terms of lens, you'll get images of somesort with your lenses, but better to go for a known UV-friendly UV lens. Again, lots of advice and discussion on this forum. My favourites are Cassar S 50mm f/2.8, Leitz Focotar-2 (the -2 is important) 50mm f/4.5, El Nikkor (metal) 80mm f/5.6, and El Nikkor (metal) 105mm f/5.6.

 

Be aware that UV exposure times are a lot longer than for IR or vis. If you use flash, you'll need to remove the plastic lenses which absorb UV.

 

I'm sure you'll be bombarded with helpful advice from forum members.

Link to comment

Advice:

 

1) read everything here on the forum :cool:

 

or

 

2) get the books by Adrian Davies and David Prutchi, they will give lots of info in a compact package

Link to comment

Dear Bernard, Stephan and Stefano; thank you so much for your instant feedback! I am a little bit overwhelmed by the amount of information in this forum, so maybe its a good idea to start with the "unseen world" book by Adrian Davies.

 

Depending on the filtersizes and lenses it seems to be quite an investment to start experimenting. Am i correct that i will need to invest at least another 300-600€ before i take my first picture?

Link to comment
Depends. If you want to take initial UV photos, in the upper UV quarter (375-400 nm), most lenses will work and chinese filters are OK, so you may stay under 100 €. If you want better filters (made of Schott and Hoya glass) and better UV reach, then probably 200-300 € is a normal amount you can expect to spend.
Link to comment

so maybe its a good idea to start with the "unseen world" book by Adrian Davies.

 

Perhaps "Digital Ultraviolet and Infrared Photography" by Adrian is better? (but get the other one as well, by all means, I've ordered it and can't wait to get it. You'll find quickly that topics like IR, UV, high-speed, time-lapse, long-time exposure, etc. , i.e. anything which one can't see with the naked eye, are of interest to many people)

Link to comment

All books mentioned are really useful. & I have them all.

But don't forget our Stickies contain this info also.

 

I would say that you can easily get into reflected IR with the least expense -- just a filter (like the Hoya R72), a converted camera (like your Sony A6000) and any lens (as long as the lens does not form a "hotspot" in IR).

 

It is reflected UV photography which requires some extra expense for finding a lens which can pass enough UV to be useable in the 360 - 400 nm waveband and which requires a good "non-leaky" UV-pass filter or filter stack. (Check the Filter Sticky for all possibilities.)

Link to comment

It is reflected UV photography which requires some extra expense for finding a lens which can pass enough UV to be useable in the 360 - 400 nm waveband and which requires a good "non-leaky" UV-pass filter or filter stack. (Check the Filter Sticky for all possibilities.)

Per our other recent discussions, make that finding a GOOD lens that also passes 360-400nm. Heh. I like Bernard's list of lenses. Not all lenses from a given manufacturer (not even the EL-Nikors) are of the same quality and definitely they can have very different transmission of UV. So read carefully and if you want a lens, make sure the one you buy EXACTLY matches the one listed on the board, including things like old or new versions of the lens, which can be very different due to the addition of coatings.

Link to comment

First check the lenses you do own. Good UVA lenses include the Canon 40mm f2.8 stm and the Sigma smooth barrel 30mm f2.8 art lens. If you have either of those modern lenses then you might be set for a while.

 

Otherwise just test your lenses, you might be surprised.

 

You will need suitable filters. A 2mm S8612 is the best a cutting off IR while maintaining the most UV. The you can get away with coupling that with a cheap UV filter like a ZWB2 or ZWB1. I have bought a bunch recently and I am roughly comfortable recommending them now. However they can be a risk as may not have good surface quality or may leak into visible. I have been lucky so far with zwb1 glass. But if you don't want to buy twice an be on the safe side than 2mm U360 filter might be your best option.

 

You already have a converted camera so thats covered. A cheap 365nm led flashlight like a convoy you may want to add or a flash like the Canon 199A.

 

But first get the filters, test your lenses to see if you don't already have a winner and then add better light or a better lens.

Link to comment
  • 2 months later...

Dear community,

i am new to Infrared photography and i would love to experiment with ultraviolet photography outdoors and in a studio-enviroment (especially with portraits). I have started to google a little bit and found a list of necessary tools like a super expensive KolariVisionFilter, special lenses and modified flashes. I am afraid of spending a lot of money for tools that arent necessary, overpriced or do not give me a clear advantage imagewise.

I wanted to ask you whether you could help me to set up an affordable combination.

I currently own a full spectrum modified Sony A6000, Sony Zeiss 55mm 1,8 and Canon EF-S 10-18mm, and one Hoya R72 Filter. I also own plenty of other Canon EF, Sony E and Pentax lenses, but i guess those arent suitable for IR or Ultraviolet.

thank you !

cheers,

Oliver

 

It seems that Oliver has condensed all the questions on this site into one

please… all of you what do you think of my answers ?!

 

- outdoor photos; I advise you to use your Hoya R72 filter but also try a simpler red r25, then play with photoshop or gimp or Sony sotware or Capture One for Sony free to increase the contrast and swap channels.

Landscape photos with UV filter in my opinion are not beautiful, they increase the haze, the vegetation is black and the sky is white , better IR which does the opposite with good clouds and trees in flower ...

Macro photos of flowers with UV filter are very interesting, I like those converted with bee vision.

 

- studio photos, without spending too much money use a normal 100W incandescent bulb with your R72

For UV photos use the normal flash, then if you can, remove the plastic lenses. ideal would be to remove the yellow layer from the quartz tube that blocks a lot of UV light, somewhere on this site there is useful information.

Then grab a cheap UV flashlight and play with reflected light (with normal digital or converted)

 

 

- do not use R72 in portraits both inside and outside , you lose contrast, there is no difference with the lips. looks like a ghost.

A tip: when once panchromatic black and white film was used, in portraits a green filter was used, it is much better.

Also try with dark blue filter. If you want to emulate the old orthochromatic films (before 1890) I have seen that a normal mirrorless + Schott BG25 makes very nice BW photos.

With the Sony A7 full spectrum I use BG25 + BG39 which blocks IR (S8612 would be better) looks like the analogue photos I take, with the ancient wet collodion technique (1854), which does not see the red orange IR light, but sees UV blue (approx.325> 510 nm)

 

P.S. for lenses, i use old nikkor from the 1960s they seem to work in a decent way. I don't have to see UV-B or C

Link to comment

It seems that Oliver has condensed all the questions on this site into one

please… all of you what do you think of my answers ?!

 

- outdoor photos; I advise you to use your Hoya R72 filter but also try a simpler red r25, then play with photoshop or gimp or Sony sotware or Capture One for Sony free to increase the contrast and swap channels.

Landscape photos with UV filter in my opinion are not beautiful, they increase the haze, the vegetation is black and the sky is white , better IR which does the opposite with good clouds and trees in flower ...

Macro photos of flowers with UV filter are very interesting, I like those converted with bee vision.

 

- studio photos, without spending too much money use a normal 100W incandescent bulb with your R72

For UV photos use the normal flash, then if you can, remove the plastic lenses. ideal would be to remove the yellow layer from the quartz tube that blocks a lot of UV light, somewhere on this site there is useful information.

Then grab a cheap UV flashlight and play with reflected light (with normal digital or converted)

 

 

- do not use R72 in portraits both inside and outside , you lose contrast, there is no difference with the lips. looks like a ghost.

A tip: when once panchromatic black and white film was used, in portraits a green filter was used, it is much better.

Also try with dark blue filter. If you want to emulate the old orthochromatic films (before 1890) I have seen that a normal mirrorless + Schott BG25 makes very nice BW photos.

With the Sony A7 full spectrum I use BG25 + BG39 which blocks IR (S8612 would be better) looks like the analogue photos I take, with the ancient wet collodion technique (1854), which does not see the red orange IR light, but sees UV blue (approx.325> 510 nm)

 

P.S. for lenses, i use old nikkor from the 1960s they seem to work in a decent way. I don't have to see UV-B or C

 

I need to remember all this.....!

Link to comment

I think the Deputy that he didn't shoot arrested him as he hasn't posted since.

 

Your answers are very opinion focused based on your style.

My opinion is also skewed based on what I like but I will make the following comments.

A R72 filter looks great for female portraits. Smooths out the skin and gives a nice glow.

Uv is great for male portraits. Make even the wimpiest Justine Bieber look rough and tough.

UV can work for a stream, woodland or even cemetery landscape.

IR can be colorful or black and white. Going above 800nm IR filtration isn't necessary unless you use a specific 980bp filter for dark water as Andy and Inka have.

Thats my quick response.

 

Link to comment
The two lenses mentioned by name do not seem the most promising for UV (though I could be wrong.) The others in the OP's collection might have more promise, depending on what they are. Learning to do a pinhole test might be a useful skill in evaluating an existing collection.
Link to comment
Andy Perrin
I own the Sony Zeiss 55/1.8. It’s a wonderful lens in visible light but performs terribly in both IR and UV, with short cutoff in UV and major focal shift in IR.
Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...