Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

RAW file development aid


Concone

Recommended Posts

I state that I use google translate.

Hello everybody. I have read almost all the discussions but I can't find the solution to the problem or maybe I don't understand it. Being at the first experiences with UV photography, when I go to process the photos I can't get the expected results. Let me explain better, I use a D300 full spectrum plus Hoya U-360 filter combined with Shott S8612 on 70s optics. The photos obviously have magenta cast and after having balanced the white on both gray and white and magenta (sample photo with use colorchecker) the photo is turned almost black and white. If on the contrary I use a color profile created with the colorchecker and photoninja, the photo becomes dominated by green. How do I get the results of the various photos seen among those published such as flowers and then get the shades that UV photography should capture and return? Thanks so much.

Link to comment

Not all old lenses are good for UV. My zeiss Pentacon six lenses cut off before UV and are useless.

What lens are you trying?

Being mostly black and white, it sounds like your lens is the problem, cutting off too high.

 

The list of good UV lenses is actually much shorter than useful ones and there aren't clear rules. Some 13 element lenses work great. Some 5 element lenses are horrible. Depends on the coatings and types of glass used.

Link to comment

Concone, here are some thoughts which might help.

 

White balance tools work best on raw files (NEF for Nikon) and not so good on JPGs.

You did not say which whether you were working with a raw file?

Excuse me, I did not read the title of the topic. Duh!!

 

When we white balance a raw UV file, we produce false colours. But not every scene or subject gives a range of false colors such as the blues and yellows we get from certain subjects. You did not say what your scene/subject was. If we can see an example, then we might be able to tell you what the white balance should look like.

 

Also, a range of false colours in only produced under broadband filtration (which you do have) together with a lens capable of transmitting from about 340/350 - 400 nm. As Dabateman has noted, if your lens is transmitting only from about 375 - 400 nm, then sometimes you might not get a full range of false colors. However, even if the lens has restricted transmission, remember that the UV reflection and UV absorbance of your scene and subject plays a role. So sometimes you get false blue & yellow and sometimes only one or the other. Sometimes you get only black/grey/white tones.

 

If the shot is underexposed, then false colors can be subdued. In the converter, try pushing the exposure or illumination sliders to reveal details and possibly improve false colours. When shooting, make sure your UV exposures are long enough to reveal detail (but not so long as to blow out some areas of the photo.)

 

Use of the Photo Ninja color profile is mostly for restoring proper color to Visible photos made with a converted camera using an IR blocker on the lens. Not all IR blockers are capable or restoring the original colors of the camera. It is not necessary to use a color profile for a raw UV file. Choose the No Profile setting in Photo Ninja if you are not using a color profile. First apply the color profile and then make the white balance. After white balance, Profiled UV false colors can differ slightly from No Profile UV false colors, but typically the difference is very small.

 

After you translate this, please let me know if you have any questions and I will try to explain further. :cool:

And please show us one of your photos so we can see the subject and determine what it should look like.

 

Finally, if it would be useful or helpful to you, then you can upload one of your raw UV NEFs in this topic. I will then download it and convert it for you. I always remove the NEF after downloading as a space-saving step.

Link to comment

queste sono

 

le mie lenti

Nikon 24-70 2.8 G ed

Helios 44m-4

Nikkor Q auto 135mm

Nikkor Q C auto 200mm

Varo 135 multi rivestito

Mayer optik gorlitz domiplan 50

Nikon af d 28mm f2.8

Super varexon mc 135mm

Nikon af d 85mm f1.4

Nikon af d 16mm f2.8

Nikon af d 50mm f1.4

Nikon af d micro 105mm f2.8

Nikon af d 35mm f2

Nikkor af d 24-85 f2.8-4

 

domani carico una foto in grezzo e la stessa bilancia semplicementeta come mi sembra.

per ora grazie

Link to comment

The Nikon micro 105mm f2.8 if it has an aperture ring (the AF-D version not the IS version) works well in UV. Try that lens.

The others I don't know.

 

Link to comment

A modern zoom lens like the Nikon 24-70 2.8 G ed you used for this image is just marginally UV-capable.

It has an optical design of 15 elements in 11 groups.

https://www.kenrockw...4-70mm.htm#spex

 

For good UV-transmission there are almost no current lenses available, except some quite expensive specialist lenses.

There are several older manual focus lenses and enlarger lenses that works well, but you have to pick the right ones.

On this forum there are some information about that.

Link to comment

Most lenses on that list don't work well for UV. Many, in fact, do the opposite.

 

Try the 200mm f/4 Nikkor-Q. It should better than the others.

Link to comment

I am trying to understand what objectives, not UV specific, to be able to use for UV photography but using a translator as I have a bit of problems with the English language I find it difficult to identify in the forum the dedicated area.

I'm checking them all out but the translation that comes out of it is very rough and I often don't understand if it's just a description of the optics or recommended lenses.

On the net I did a research but of UV if it speaks really little.

Often we only talk about unsevable and very expensive optics. For example, many of the optics I have have been bought cheaply and allow me to do various photographic experiments in other fields. For UV photos, a field to which I would like to understand and get as close as possible, instead it seems much more complex to find lenses that are not excessively expensive to experiment with.

Link to comment
A simple Nikon Series E 50mm f/1.8 or Nikkor 50/2 doesn't cost much and would be a good starting point.
Link to comment

Are all nikon E-series lenses usable with UV photography?

Could you kindly link me to the forum discussion where we talk about the easiest non-specialist lenses to find?

Thank you very much

Link to comment

My language is Italian. The lens you put me in the link is excellent but between customs and shipping costs double.

I already bought the filters, and i would prefer to take only lenses. Maybe a wide angle, a 50mm and a long focal length.

Link to comment

I took the liberty of downloading and processing your RAW-file the best I could. I hope that was OK.

After some processing i got this:

post-150-0-23241700-1616586278.png

 

When I increased saturation further I noted that there is a more green area at the bottom edge of the image.

Often that can be an indication of some light leakage.

 

Due to the underexposure the image has very much noise even after noise reduction with NeatImage.

This is a 100% crop:

post-150-0-88691500-1616587100.png

Link to comment

Excellent result .... much much better than mine, we are very close to what for my idea should be the result of a UV photo.

If I may ask and if it's not a secret, may I know how you processed the image? I've been trying for days with many guides and experiments but I can't get results.

So maybe I can try to replicate with other photos and see what results I can get.

Link to comment

Excellent result .... much much better than mine, we are very close to what for my idea should be the result of a UV photo.

If I may ask and if it's not a secret, may I know how you processed the image? I've been trying for days with many guides and experiments but I can't get results.

So maybe I can try to replicate with other photos and see what results I can get.

I use the Mac-only RPP64 found here:

https://www.raw-phot...64_1922Beta.zip

Here are some links that can be useful to learn using the program.

https://www.raw-phot..._and_Links.html

The user interface is very odd, but it also handles the worst RAW-files with very odd white balance demands and gives you very good control over the first processing of the RAW-conversion.

The output is then exported to photoshop for noise reduction with NeatImage and final contrast and saturation adjustments.

https://ni.neatvideo.com/

 

If you are able to run this RPP64 program I can guide you a bit for the settings I use.

 

To preview RAW-files properly FastRawViewer https://www.fastrawviewer.com/ is also a good tool to have.

It is very good for pruning bad images and selecting what to keep.

However it has some limitations in very extreme white balance situations

Link to comment

Ok this lens is our reference UV lens:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-EL-NIKKOR-80mm-f-5-6-Zoom-Lens-Nikon-Cap-Nikon-cp-2-/174702937421?_trksid=p2349624.m46890.l49292

 

But need 39mm thread to m42 ring and 17-31mm helicoid and m42 to Nikon adapter with no glass.

 

This is data on this lens:

https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/4280-nikon-80mm-f56-el-nikkor-nippon-kogaku-japan/

 

Ulf's reviews are a good place to look for lenses that are good.

Link to comment

First I looked at the file in Raw Digger. Raw Digger displays the file as a Raw Composite. That is, the file's pure data is shown as recorded with no white balance applied. The color in this Raw Composite indicates that UV was recorded between approximately 375/380 - 400 nm. Raw Digger indicates that the photo was underexposed.

 

*Per prima cosa ho guardato il file in Raw Digger. Raw Digger visualizza il file come "Raw" Composito. Cioè, i dati puri del file vengono visualizzati come registrati senza alcun bilanciamento del bianco applicato. Il colore in questo composite indica che l'UV è stato registrato tra circa 375/380 - 400nm. Raw Digger indica anche che la foto era sottoesposta.

[Non so come tradurre "Raw".]

 

lucFile_rawComp.jpg

 

 

Next I converted the file in Photo Ninja. The exposure was raised by 2 stops. Black was raised by .25. Highlights were pulled back by .65.

*Poi ho convertito il file in Photo Ninja. L'esposizione fotografica è stata sollevata da due fermate. Il nero è stato sollevato da .25. Le aree luminose sono state ritirate di .65.

 

*Il soggetto principale era in ombra e retroilluminato. Il soggetto è fuori fuoco. I fiori sono falsi blu.

La prossima volta, assicurati che la luce del sole sia dietro di te mentre fai la foto !! :cool: :cool: :cool:

lucFilepn.jpg

 

 

 

 

LENS EXAMPLE

Nikon El-Nikkor 80mm F:5.6 on Italian Ebay: https://www.ebay.it/...joAAOSwwdVgWyow

 

For this lens you will need a focusing helicoid.

*Questa obiettivo ha bisogno di un elicoide focalizzato.

The linked Ebay items are for illustration only. Look for the best price.

*Questi link Ebay danno un esempio. Potrebbero non dare il miglior prezzo.

 

1) M39-to-M42 thread changer: LINK

2) M42-to-M42 helicoid LINK (elicoide)

3) F-mount-to-M42 mount changer LINK

 

And you will need a step ring 34.5mm/lens-to-52mm/filter.

....Un anello adattatore 34.5mm/obiettivo-to-52mm/filtro

LINK

Link to comment
[Off Topic: Stefano, would you be so kind as to teach me how to say "raw file" in Italian? Grazie.]
Link to comment

Andrea

I recommended the 17-31mm helicoid as the back flange distance is 71mm for the Nikkor EL 80mm f5.6 lens. So:

71-46.5mm (F-mount) - 1mm (best m42 to F-mount adapter) = 23.5mm

Helicoid must be able to hit that for lens to focus to infinity.

Best is a 17-31mm to give your room in your filter selection.

Link to comment

[Off Topic: Stefano, would you be so kind as to teach me how to say "raw file" in Italian? Grazie.]

We usually call it "raw" too, referring to photos. Literally it would be "grezzo". "Crudo" is used for foods, "grezzo" is more general and means "raw", "unprocessed".
Link to comment

Thank you. I got stuck on that one.

 

I used a translator for about half of it. But one has to be so careful with translators of course. They can be quite literal and often interpret the context incorrectly. Before I posted it, Michael read it over to look for any really bad errors. However, he does not know photo words.

 

It was fun going on Italian Ebay. But like every other Ebay, many of the photo accessories (helicoids, step rings) are from China/Cina.

Link to comment

Andrea

I recommended the 17-31mm helicoid as the back flange distance is 71mm for the Nikkor EL 80mm f5.6 lens. So:

71-46.5mm (F-mount) - 1mm (best m42 to F-mount adapter) = 23.5mm

Helicoid must be able to hit that for lens to focus to infinity.

Best is a 17-31mm to give your room in your filter selection.

17-31mm is not much extension range for a 80mm enlarger lens, if you want to get closer to the motif.

Here is how I solved that problem with such a lens:

https://www.ultravio...__fromsearch__1

 

That design was done for a Canon DSLR with a sensor to mount distance of 44mm. Your Nikon has 46.5mm, so to use this idea the internal extension has to be shortened by 2.5mm.

The needed internal extension depends on the internal shape of the helicoid and has to be found experimentally.

This table is useful when looking for suitable lenses:

https://en.wikipedia..._focal_distance

 

I have found that for UV, with some lenses, I personally very seldom or never need to reach infinity.

That can make designing or adaption of lenses much more easy.

In the normal VIS-world almost all "macro"-lenses can reach infinity as the "macro" ability might be a nice to have seldom used addition of a feature.

 

The old lenses we need to use for finding good UV reach are of a simple design without floating elements for improved close-up quality and work most optimally at their typical working distances they were designed for.

An enlarger lens is never optimal at infinity, even if it might be OK-ish with some luck.

Link to comment

Thanks Andrea for the advice.

The photo is actually underexposed but the sun was actually behind me. The vegetation behind the plant was very open and let in a lot of light and that is why there is so much white from behind. The focus was concentrated only on a small area that is the thorn on the right with the berries and the flower in the lower left (however it was an experiment) but with live, manual and freehand focus, it was not simple.

I love it for the result you got, that fake blue is fascinating.

Curiosity, in which area did you balance the white? In what order did you perform the operations with photo ninja?

I downloaded RawDigger, how did you see the UV band data captured in the photo?

Thanks for the advice for the lens, I just bought it together with the accessories, however, taking the helical recommended by "dabateman" because of the distance for focusing at infinity.

Now I try to apply your methodology to other photos and see if I can get the same results.

If you have any other suggestions for other affordable lenses, I'm here to listen to your advice.

For me these are the first experiments to better understand how to manage UV light but, with your support at least I hope, I will try to go into other areas and maybe try to make portraits, landscapes, textures and take all other directions. where creativity and imagination will take me.

Thank you

 

I forgot, another tip. So you suggest overexposing the photo without burning it?

 

Thanks so much again

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...