Has anyone ever used a pinhole (and maybe film) to take UV pictures?

[Fandyus]

(I have looked up the term "pinhole" on here and didn't find anything unfortuately)

It sounds perfect, shorter wavelengths of UV will help with some of the softness caused by diffraction, and the lack of glass in the system will guarantee perfect transmission. Or am I wrong? Has anyone here tried this? I was thinking if I ever get a UV camera I will get some ortochromatic film and use a UV+IR dual bandpass filter to get some UV images, perhaps even macro, as the depth of field with pinholes is huge.

[Stefano]

Yes, it has been done. Some examples:

https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/4450-arches-natoinal-park

https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/2960-pinhole-photography-in-uv-visible-and-ir-spectral-range

https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/2213-pinhole-lens-test-with-summary-of-test-protocols

 

There are many more examples actually. I think member OlDoinyo did it several times.

[Stefano]

David tried film for UVC: https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/4306-nons-camera-with-fuji-instax-mini-film-tries-uv

 

Birna did film many years ago: I have an image in mind, I will put the link when I will find it. Here it is: https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/3848-uv-the-early-days/

 

I remember other examples on UVP, they can be found searching a bit.

[dabateman]

I like the instax color blue UV over the black and white for some reason. The response is the same funny enough.

The loss of contrast in the UVC was due to my lens. The Pentax UAT has a hot spot with my filter at 254nm.

 

I first shot Kodak portra 400 in UV and UVC. It worked on my Pentacon six camera but was too expensive to develop and I didn't want to mess with chemicals as another variable. But I have all that, just so much cheaper to shoot instax. For that film UVC was detected in all dyes but first in yellow. Each dye was 2 stops apart. I can't remember if it was blue or red next. I will have to look at my roll. Best to shoot BW.

 

Birna's great UV photos where shot on film. Not that her recent shots aren't great. Just that the first ones I saw a long time ago that got me into UV in the first place were on film.

 

Discussion on film:

https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/2922-ultraviolet-film-photography/page__hl__film__fromsearch__1

 

Pinhole works I was using the pinhole pro as my first spectrometer. I should test my pinwide to see what it looks like in monochromish UV. In visible light it was far too rainbowy.

 

There is a whole bunch of UV cemetery shots with a pinhole on here. They work quite well.

[nfoto]

I did a few UV pinhole captures way back in the film age. Using 120 film (6x9cm), images were very soft and low contrast.

 

 

Trying this with say flowers, without massive added UV illumination, seems pretty futile.

 

I did also 4x5" captures that looked slightly better. Still way off what one could do with ordinary photography (at that time, read 'film-based').

 

 

Film costs put me off further explorations along this avenue. The effective cost of acquiring and developing sheet film 4x5" was very high.

 

I used film for my UV photography up to about 2000 when the first serious digital DSLRs became available to me.

[ulf]

Pinholes is the ultimate solution for deep UV reach, but it struggles with long exposure times and diffraction artifacts.

Zone plates is an extended version of pinholes.

[dabateman]

Pinholes is the ultimate solution for deep UV reach, but it struggles with long exposure times and diffraction artifacts.

Zone plates is an extended version of pinholes.

 

I would disagree. A single element fused silica lens can be cheaper, unless you make the pinhole in a body cap yourself. Either way the quality of the UV photo will be significantly better from a single element than from any pinhole.

[ulf]

I would disagree. A single element fused silica lens can be cheaper, unless you make the pinhole in a body cap yourself. Either way the quality of the UV photo will be significantly better from a single element than from any pinhole.

I was only talking about the reach, not the image quality.

I made some DIY pinholes, that are smallish, nice and round but not in a body simple cap.

You do not have to buy a fancy expensive ready made pinhole "lens" like yours.

 

If you compare costs you might make the input quality levels even and not rely on random surplus parts for the PCX-build.

Then you should compare costs from a quality source like ThorLabs for the PCX lens and then add costs for a proper adjustable iris and helicoid.

That will likely be more expensive than your Fancy pinhole "lens".

 

I agree that the PCX will give sharper images, but they will have some CA.

 

Pinholes and zone plates are used in some research setups where any material at all would impair transmission.

[OlDoinyo]

I made a lengthy post on the topic five years ago. I am surprised your search did not bring it up.

 

Pinholes do not work well on small-sensor (APS-C and smaller) digital cameras due to diffraction issues. OTOH, with 8x10 film impressive results are possible.

 

You don't need a "UV camera" to shoot ortthochromatic film. Any film camera on which you can mount an appropriate lens and filter will do.

[Andy Perrin]

Fandyus, maybe check which radio button is selected when you do the search. It should be set to “Forums” if you want a broad search. I tried searching for “pinhole” just now and got 100 hits.

--

 

If anyone wants to try something new, I haven't seen ANY actual UV photos with zone plates, despite much discussion of the possibility.

[Stefano]

This may interest someone...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.osapublishing.org/josa/fulltext.cfm%3Furi%3Djosa-64-3-301%26id%3D55199&ved=2ahUKEwjSqo7dqPnwAhUSKuwKHVqhCuMQFjAAegQIBRAC&usg=AOvVaw1YLYsQpm1ljl7vJW412gbM

[Andy Perrin]

Stefano, you don't need to be that fancy to make a simple zone plate. I mean, I guess it's interesting but let's start with the easy stuff.

[Fandyus]

Thank you, fellow members. I'm sorry if I bothered, maybe I should've searched more. Regardless, interesting reads you recommended.

[Stefano]

Stefano, you don't need to be that fancy to make a simple zone plate. I mean, I guess it's interesting but let's start with the easy stuff.

Yes, maybe that was aiming too high.

 

I wonder if there is a way to print zone plates on plastic or glass, to make them at home. I would like to try one one day.

[Andy Perrin]

You can buy them for not very much?

I wonder if there is a way to print zone plates on plastic or glass, to make them at home. I would like to try one one day.

You can buy them for not very much. These people have been mentioned here before:

https://www.pinholeresource.com/index.php/all-products/pinhole-sets-zone-plates-turrets

 

I'm sure you could ask them to make a UV one.

[Stefano]

Interesting, although 9 rings may not be enough for a good quality image (even if zone plates are not as sharp as a lens).

[Andy Perrin]

Stefano, NONE of these options (zone plates or pinholes) are going to be comparable to a lens for image quality. These devices work by diffraction, and that usually has consequences for image quality.

[photoni]

I took a lot of pinhole photos with different film formats.

I came to the conclusion that good quality can only be achieved with large formats; at least 6x6cm.

I prefer the 20x25cm, with this I can print in contact with a good quality.

I asked a Canadian friend of mine (who has been taking pinhole photos for 40 years) if he has ever used dark blue or UV photo filters, he said no! never done. He often uses IR because he is more creative.

Two tips: 1- zone plate is very soft and nuanced, too confusing, it only makes sense on a large format

2- pinhole caps on digital cameras are a toy, on DSRLs they are good for seeing the dust on the sensor.

I tried on my old Leica film a very good quality 0.15 microscope (produced with abrasion - non laser) about 17mm f: 128, the results are better than digital but very confusing. some photos you can see on Flickr [https://www.flickr.c...57633673490670]

[Andy Perrin]

By “confusing” do you mean diffusing? I think confusing is not the right word in English. (Confusing means “puzzling”.)

 

Regarding point 2, pinholes are useful in UV photography for lens tests and other things where you want to eliminate the effects of the lens absorption. Also, the diffraction limitations are smaller in UV so your friend’s points may not apply for much shorter wavelengths.

[dabateman]

Confusing maybe in the way that it looks like you have a snowflake stuck on your film or sensor in the upper left. I can't see how that is attached to either pole. So must be on your film.

 

I like that image looks like you stumbled out of some late night place to see the sun rise up.

[Stefano]

Maybe he meant "confused-looking".