• Ultraviolet Photography
  •  

hello

18 replies to this topic

#1 Fandyus

    Member

  • Members
  • 47 posts
  • Location: Czech republic, Northern Bohemia

Posted 07 April 2021 - 18:40

I'm Fandy or František G. I am from the Czech republic and I am a full spectrum/IR/UV photography enthusiast. Really anything exotic in photography I find fun but my financial situation is limiting me in this hobby of mine as I unfortunately can't afford any super expensive gadgets such as strong UV illuminators, cameras with exotic sensors, high quality filters, uncoated quartz lenses etc (because I'm a student). I make do though, I'll post some of my images here. My other hobbies include music production and I play computer games here and there. Lately I have also been nerding out a bit around lighting technologies, UV light I think is by far the most fun. My music can be found on soundcloud if anyone is interested in some electronic music. https://soundcloud.com/fandyus
Here's some samples:

Attached Image: post-350-0-47771200-1617820100.jpg

Attached Image: post-350-0-83973400-1617820246.jpg

Attached Image: post-350-0-52263900-1617820554.jpg

Attached Image: post-350-0-27970800-1617820572.jpg

Hope to see you all here later when we practice seeing the world in perspectives rarely witnessed.

(edit: Birna replaced the überlarge originally posted images. No need to use many MB of wasted space on a web site....)

#2 Andy Perrin

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 4,084 posts
  • Location: United States

Posted 07 April 2021 - 19:05

Hi! Love the cucumber especially.

#3 Stefano

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 1,796 posts
  • Location: Italy

Posted 07 April 2021 - 19:12

Hi! You are younger than me! You now hold the record for the youngest UVP member, I think. I was 18 too when I joined UVP, but you are still a couple of months younger than I was, so you are the youngest ever. It's so nice to see young people interested in this activity too, it seems we are so few.

I like your images. What are your light sources? I am guessing UV torches as your images have little chromaticity, which is typical with such monochromatic sources.

I am interested in all kinds of photography that go beyond the visible spectrum. We have some X-rays, and from UVC to LWIR, with SWIR and recently MWIR. I too have to upgrade something (my filters for example), but I have already improved my gear a lot in the past years.

Looking forward to more.

#4 nfoto

    Former Fierce Bear of the North

  • Owner-Administrator
  • 3,179 posts
  • Location: Sørumsand, Norway

Posted 07 April 2021 - 20:11

Young people find us, and UV/IR activities worth their while -- the world is indeed marching on !! sincerely welcome to our growing UVP community.

#5 Fandyus

    Member

  • Members
  • 47 posts
  • Location: Czech republic, Northern Bohemia

Posted 07 April 2021 - 20:25

View PostAndy Perrin, on 07 April 2021 - 19:05, said:

Hi! Love the cucumber especially.
Thanks a lot!

#6 Fandyus

    Member

  • Members
  • 47 posts
  • Location: Czech republic, Northern Bohemia

Posted 07 April 2021 - 20:43

View PostStefano, on 07 April 2021 - 19:12, said:

Hi! You are younger than me! You now hold the record for the youngest UVP member, I think. I was 18 too when I joined UVP, but you are still a couple of months younger than I was, so you are the youngest ever. It's so nice to see young people interested in this activity too, it seems we are so few.

I like your images. What are your light sources? I am guessing UV torches as your images have little chromaticity, which is typical with such monochromatic sources.

I am interested in all kinds of photography that go beyond the visible spectrum. We have some X-rays, and from UVC to LWIR, with SWIR and recently MWIR. I too have to upgrade something (my filters for example), but I have already improved my gear a lot in the past years.

Looking forward to more.
That is quite surprising that I am the youngest here. Thank you for liking my images, these particular few were made using a 365nm UV torch and a full spectrum converted camera. I had a filter mounted which lets through UV, IR and a little bit of blue, hence the few fibers you can see glowing. I have ordered a few better light sources recently. I would actually appreciate if someone advised me how useful those are likely to be.
- BeamZ UV Lamp 25W E27
- Omnilux 230V JDR E27 18 LED UV
- 395nm ebay UV flashlight (already own the 365nm)
- Omnilux UV A19 75W E27 (this one is more of a gimmick, I realize it's basically useless for UV and only emits low amounts of blue light, I'll be using it as a cool looking IR illuminlator)
Any other light sources I should consider?
Thanks if anyone replies :)

#7 Fandyus

    Member

  • Members
  • 47 posts
  • Location: Czech republic, Northern Bohemia

Posted 07 April 2021 - 20:43

View Postnfoto, on 07 April 2021 - 20:11, said:

Young people find us, and UV/IR activities worth their while -- the world is indeed marching on !! sincerely welcome to our growing UVP community.
Thank you for the warm welcome!

#8 Stefano

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 1,796 posts
  • Location: Italy

Posted 07 April 2021 - 21:00

I searched the lamps you named, this are my opinions:
-the BeamZ lamp should be powerful enough for most purposes, it should peak around 365 nm (depending on the phosphor coating inside), and also you should get other mercury lines like the 404.7 nm H-line, which is violet;
-the Omnilux lamp has surely less power, and I didn't find the wavelength in the specs, but having other wavelengths other than 365 nm can be interesting;
-for the same reason, the 395 nm flashlight can add color to your UV images, since you will have a wider spectrum.

#9 Andy Perrin

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 4,084 posts
  • Location: United States

Posted 07 April 2021 - 21:05

Quote

- BeamZ UV Lamp 25W E27
- Omnilux 230V JDR E27 18 LED UV
- 395nm ebay UV flashlight (already own the 365nm)
- Omnilux UV A19 75W E27 (this one is more of a gimmick, I realize it's basically useless for UV and only emits low amounts of blue light, I'll be using it as a cool looking IR illuminlator)

Any other light sources I should consider?

How about a BlakRay?
http://www.ultraviol...__fromsearch__1

What camera do you have? Who converted it?

#10 Fandyus

    Member

  • Members
  • 47 posts
  • Location: Czech republic, Northern Bohemia

Posted 07 April 2021 - 22:10

View PostStefano, on 07 April 2021 - 21:00, said:

I searched the lamps you named, this are my opinions:
-the BeamZ lamp should be powerful enough for most purposes, it should peak around 365 nm (depending on the phosphor coating inside), and also you should get other mercury lines like the 404.7 nm H-line, which is violet;
-the Omnilux lamp has surely less power, and I didn't find the wavelength in the specs, but having other wavelengths other than 365 nm can be interesting;
-for the same reason, the 395 nm flashlight can add color to your UV images, since you will have a wider spectrum.
The Omnilux LED lamp is 392nm as listed here https://www.zarovky-...27-18-LED-UV-1W, thanks!

#11 Fandyus

    Member

  • Members
  • 47 posts
  • Location: Czech republic, Northern Bohemia

Posted 07 April 2021 - 22:15

View PostAndy Perrin, on 07 April 2021 - 21:05, said:

How about a BlakRay?
http://www.ultraviol...__fromsearch__1

What camera do you have? Who converted it?
My full spectrum camera is a second hand Canon EOS 1100D from ebay so I have no idea who converted it. The letters that are displayed inside the viewfinder are busted as some of the lines of the digital numbers don't work, otherwise the camera has around 27k clicks and works well, shoots both UV and IR so I think the new filter is high quality enough. Thanks for the recommendation, I'll look into it.

#12 dabateman

    Da Bateman

  • Members+G
  • 2,769 posts
  • Location: Maryland

Posted 08 April 2021 - 05:10

You can always build your own mercury based bulbs if you want to go on the cheap. Just don't buy germacidal bulbs or ones marked with a G. That will hurt you.
But BL and BLB tubes are usually really cheap. Just add to a standard fixture with the correct ballast.
Your in Czech, so I don't know the common lengths or wattage. But the bulbs usually tell you. In USA T8 are common pin type.

Otherwise the black coated (BLB) compact fluorescent mercury bulbs are good. You will get a range of light from them and even some of the 335nm line. My favorite for imaging with a 340bp10 filter.

Leds are cheaper now but are monochromatic. So depends what type of image your looking for.

Based on your camera and lights the best lens for you wouldn't be a quartz, but a used Canon 40mm STM f2.8 lens. It sees all of UVA, autofocuses and can be bought cheap used. I paid $80 for mine with useless hood and a nice bag.

Edited by dabateman, 08 April 2021 - 05:14.


#13 Fandyus

    Member

  • Members
  • 47 posts
  • Location: Czech republic, Northern Bohemia

Posted 08 April 2021 - 14:42

View Postdabateman, on 08 April 2021 - 05:10, said:

You can always build your own mercury based bulbs if you want to go on the cheap. Just don't buy germacidal bulbs or ones marked with a G. That will hurt you.
But BL and BLB tubes are usually really cheap. Just add to a standard fixture with the correct ballast.
Your in Czech, so I don't know the common lengths or wattage. But the bulbs usually tell you. In USA T8 are common pin type.

Otherwise the black coated (BLB) compact fluorescent mercury bulbs are good. You will get a range of light from them and even some of the 335nm line. My favorite for imaging with a 340bp10 filter.

Leds are cheaper now but are monochromatic. So depends what type of image your looking for.

Based on your camera and lights the best lens for you wouldn't be a quartz, but a used Canon 40mm STM f2.8 lens. It sees all of UVA, autofocuses and can be bought cheap used. I paid $80 for mine with useless hood and a nice bag.
Thanks a lot for the recommendations! I will definitely be on the lookout for a Canon 40mm STM f/2.8. That being said, why wouldn't quartz work well for me? I thought quartz had way less chromatic aberrations and focus shift as wavelengths change, as well as supreme transmission of UV, what's up with my camera that it wouldn't be the best?
That being said, as you suggested, building my own stuff is probably out of question, I am unfortunately not that technologically proficient so I really don't know if I'd be able to pull off building my own lamp, I'd definitely be afraid that I unintentionally shock myself of set something ablaze. But I've already actually purchased a BeamZ UV Lamp 25W E27 that will arrive in a week or so. It's emission spectrum is listed as 320~400nM.
Thanks again!

#14 Andy Perrin

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 4,084 posts
  • Location: United States

Posted 08 April 2021 - 15:06

Quartz is always best from the standpoint of transmission of UV, but what he means here is that it’s OUTRAGEOUSLY expensive so you should instead get a good-performing glass lens that we have already tested for UV. The Canon 40mm fits that description.

Also it’s not true that quartz lenses always have less chromatic aberration since that depends on the design of the lens also. I mean, you can make a prism out of quartz and then it’s ALL chromatic aberration!

Edited by Andy Perrin, 08 April 2021 - 15:08.


#15 Fandyus

    Member

  • Members
  • 47 posts
  • Location: Czech republic, Northern Bohemia

Posted 08 April 2021 - 21:59

View PostAndy Perrin, on 08 April 2021 - 15:06, said:

Quartz is always best from the standpoint of transmission of UV, but what he means here is that it’s OUTRAGEOUSLY expensive so you should instead get a good-performing glass lens that we have already tested for UV. The Canon 40mm fits that description.

Also it’s not true that quartz lenses always have less chromatic aberration since that depends on the design of the lens also. I mean, you can make a prism out of quartz and then it’s ALL chromatic aberration!
Ah, I see, thanks. I do know quartz lenses are outrageously expensive. I thought they have less focus shift and such due to having researched this lens prior > https://www.pentaxfo...-85mm-F4.5.html

#16 dabateman

    Da Bateman

  • Members+G
  • 2,769 posts
  • Location: Maryland

Posted 08 April 2021 - 23:47

Here is a spectral comparison between a $6000 quartz lens and the Canon 40mm STM lens.
https://jmcscientifi...-from-uv-to-ir/

From 385nm to 400nm the Canon wins with more UV light getting to the sensor. If your buying a 395nm led light for imaging, you would see that different with your camera.

Also I don't know how deep you camera can see. So until you get some crazy expensive filters, a quartz lens isn't worth it to you.

#17 Fandyus

    Member

  • Members
  • 47 posts
  • Location: Czech republic, Northern Bohemia

Posted 08 April 2021 - 23:53

I see, well I already own a 365nm UV flashlight from eBay and from everything I've seen it appears to be legitimately that wavelength. My camera can see that light, images posted above are taken with that. But I see what you mean, thanks for the explanation!

#18 dabateman

    Da Bateman

  • Members+G
  • 2,769 posts
  • Location: Maryland

Posted 09 April 2021 - 00:00

View PostFandyus, on 08 April 2021 - 23:53, said:

I see, well I already own a 365nm UV flashlight from eBay and from everything I've seen it appears to be legitimately that wavelength. My camera can see that light, images posted above are taken with that. But I see what you mean, thanks for the explanation!

Oh no sorry for the confusion. I completely believe you can see 350nm and above. We just have recent discussions that UVB is much harder for most cameras. That being 313nm or 303nm mercury lines. Then a quartz lens is useful as very few lenses see that deep. But UVB is hard not just for the lens, camera and light source, but also the filters. You would need a very expensive filter with excellent IR blocking to even image there.
Best to stay in UVA from 350nm to 400nm.
Then the sun is your cheapest light source and there are good autofocus lenses even.
Also filters are cheaper too.

Andrea doesn't even think UVB is worth it as there aren't many differences among flowers.


#19 Fandyus

    Member

  • Members
  • 47 posts
  • Location: Czech republic, Northern Bohemia

Posted 09 April 2021 - 15:49

View Postdabateman, on 09 April 2021 - 00:00, said:

Oh no sorry for the confusion. I completely believe you can see 350nm and above. We just have recent discussions that UVB is much harder for most cameras. That being 313nm or 303nm mercury lines. Then a quartz lens is useful as very few lenses see that deep. But UVB is hard not just for the lens, camera and light source, but also the filters. You would need a very expensive filter with excellent IR blocking to even image there.
Best to stay in UVA from 350nm to 400nm.
Then the sun is your cheapest light source and there are good autofocus lenses even.
Also filters are cheaper too.

Andrea doesn't even think UVB is worth it as there aren't many differences among flowers.
Ah I see, thank you. And no worries. Appreciate the info.