Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

Please discuss this UVC Warning. Thanks!


Andrea B.

Recommended Posts

Please let me know if this is sufficient. It is taken from a couple of Dabateman's warnings. He is a laboratory scientist and knows how to take sufficient precautions when dealing with UVC lights.


 

UVC light can cause blindness and damage DNA.

NEVER look at a UVC light or let it hit your skin.

 

To be near UVC lights you MUST

  • wear 100% cotton clothing (laboratory grade tight weave, no polyester), and
  • wear a UV protective face shield which also has a head and neck covering.
  • Socks, pants, long-sleeved shirt, UV-blocking face shield with head & neck shrouding and gloves.

UVC lights produce OZONE which builds up very quickly.

Even so-called "ozone-free" germicidal bulbs still produce some ozone.

So UVC light must be used only in a remote controlled, professionally vented room

well away from pets, kids, people and humidity.

Link to comment

Thanks, Andy.

That's the kind of feedback I'm looking for. :grin:

 

I'm going to change "welder's mask" to "UV protective face shield". It actually makes the point more clearly because not everyone would know what is a welder's mask.

 

Gook link, btw. I'm going to order another pair of goggles from there. Mine are getting beat up.

Link to comment
I forgot to say that I'm going to Pin this warning so that we have a permanent UVC warning available.
Link to comment
I am not sure about the first point, “ Do NOT make UVC photographs because it will not get you much”. It is true that there’s nothing “incredible” in the UVC band, but some people (like me) may be interested in it just for the simple fact that they are imaging that deep. “Seeing” UVC is not so easy, it feels a bit special. Just my opinion.
Link to comment
Andy Perrin
Yeah, I actually understood that to be David’s peculiar sense of humor. Since he spends a lot of time making those images!
Link to comment

Let me mention the following -- and please do not take it as my particular opinion -- but I've heard from more than one person that the UVC images on our website are not really UVC images because a special sensor is required and special lighting and tight filtration (no vis or ir leakage).

 

I remain neutral on this. I just do not have the knowledge or experience to be able to say 'yay' or 'nay' on this. YMMV.

 

Given the required safety precautions and the lack of sensor sensitivity in the typical conversion and given what I've seen so far, I would say that I don't think it is worth the trouble and expense and "danger" at this point to give it a try.

Again, YMMV. Go for it if you are so inclined.

And I may change my mind in the future. La!


The following just occured to me. If there were anything particularly special about UVC imaging, it would have been done by now. It would be "out there". UVA and UVB imaging have been done since the late1800s. That kind of imaging is all over the place if you just look.The only thing which has changed is the gear for making UVA/UVB images. (Thankfully, heh!)

Link to comment
Andy Perrin
Let me mention the following -- and please do not take it as my particular opinion -- but I've heard from more than one person that the UVC images on our website are not really UVC images because a special sensor is required and special lighting and tight filtration (no vis or ir leakage).

Given that we all know the filtration has to be tight, and our combined experience of UV here is probably the largest concentration on the web, and in several cases David has used the EXACT gear that Sirchie sells to the police as UVC equipment, I'm going to say your sources don't know what they are talking about!

 

And on top of that, scientists are begging MaxMax to make debayered Rasberry Pi's for soft-X-rays, which goes further than anyone on here has attempted with silicon sensors. And those sensors are in no sense "special" except for having the Bayer and glass removed.

Link to comment
Andy Perrin

The following just occured to me. If there were anything particularly special about UVC imaging, it would have been done by now. It would be "out there". UVA and UVB imaging have been done since the late1800s. That kind of imaging is all over the place if you just look.The only thing which has changed is the gear for making UVA/UVB images. (Thankfully, heh!)

Considering we all do UVA imaging quite happily on here, I don't see what the argument is. Sure nothing dramatic happens in UVC, but you can say the same for UVA and UVB and we are interested in them?

Link to comment

Polycarbonate should block UVA, B & C, or plain window glass will block UVC & B.

UVA, B & C are interesting bands for fluorescence & many natural & man-made items fluoresce differently under UVA, B & C.

Link to comment

I get the need for UV safety, and I understand that UVC is higher energy than UVB, but I'll be honest I use the same precautions for UVC as I do for UVB work.

 

Andrea, I love that comment about what we're seeing is not UVC. Hogwash. For those of us researching it, and doing tests with a range of filters to show whether there is signal from the visible, IR or even other parts of the UV spectrum, 254nm can be seen with a normal camera sensor.

 

As a side note, I've also been doing more research into the use of 222nm light. There is growing evidence that, if properly filtered, 222nm presents minimal risk to the skin and eyes. The 'if properly filtered' part is of course important - the other, longer, wavelengths emitted can present significant risk.

Link to comment

Yes part of my warning is selfish. I don't want everyone to jump into UVC - not only because it is dangerous, but it is a small imaging niche that I like to explore.

 

But truthfully, UVC imaging is accessible to anyone. The most expensive part is the filter. You need a well-blocked UVC-pass filter. I was lucky to obtain a high quality one with the used Sirchie imager. It's outstanding in its visible and IR blocking. But if you get a poorer cheap one, you can balance that with your light source. You need dangerous germicidal UVC bulbs. As the name says these are designed to kill, and will cause burns and blindness if you look at them. But 254nm mercury line bulbs are very cheap and easily available. Andy has shown that his local CVS has them on the self.

 

You will need to wear UVC protective clothing. The best I have found is 100% cotton. Don't wear polyester because if you do, you're basically naked. (That alone might be fun to image one day.) Also my orange Uvex glasses block better than my yellow Uvex glasses even though they leak at 380nm. So cover head to toe in cotton, easy to do. Wear socks, jeans, long-sleeved shirt, hat, ski mask, goggles and gloves.

 

Next you need a UVC-capable lens. Cheapest is to just make your own fused silica element lens. Not hard. Or buy a super expensive quartz lens. There's another UAT on Ebay now for $5000, but mine has a hot spot at 254nm. The advantage of building your own with fused silica is that you can go below 230nm. The commercial quartz lenses cut off at 230nm. But fused silica goes lower to even 185nm.

 

Then you need a UVC camera. Cheapest is a Nons film camera with Fuji Instax mini-film. It easily sees UVC with 10 minutes exposure time. Or buy a MaxMax monochrome converted Raspberry Pi HQ computer and build a Pi camera around it. It will see very low. Researchers have mentioned to Dan that soft x-rays are possible to see with that sensor. Amazingly my Kolari converted Olympus Em5mk2 can also see at 254nm. Jonathan has other cameras that can see that deep as well.

 

But as warnings go, germicidal UVC bulbs should not be purchased for general UV imaging! You also should not buy a UVB bulb for general UV imaging. UVB bulbs have dangerous 303nm and 313nm mercury lines and some 254nm as well. For general UV imaging buy a BLB fluorescent bulb with the Wood's coating. This will give you 335nm and up to 405nm for all your accessible UVA fun. BL bulbs are not coated with Wood's glass and will have some dangerous 313nm light.

 

If you want to do UV imaging, it's most likely going to be UVA imaging and that needs to be clear. UVC imaging or UVB imaging is harder and you need special filters, cameras and lenses and you must know what you are doing and take special protective precautions.

Link to comment

David, thank you so much for your response. I will incorporate more of your comments into the UVC Pin which will be pinned near the UV SAFETY pin in this section. I'm also going to embolden a couple of points in your actual response. I'll check back with you later on this.

 

To remind everyone, I have a certain responsibility as the Editor of a public forum to warn of dangers when using UV light.

Link to comment

P.S. I want a NONS camera !!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

The very last thing I need is another camera. :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink:

 

The rule is supposed to be that if I buy a new camera, then I must sell an old one.

That rule seems to have fallen by the wayside some time ago. Sigh.

Link to comment

Considering we all do UVA imaging quite happily on here, I don't see what the argument is. Sure nothing dramatic happens in UVC, but you can say the same for UVA and UVB and we are interested in them?

 

The context of the comment was that I was looking for research papers with UVC images. Didn't seem to find anything - so far. "Ordinary" UVA imaging, either reflected or fluorescent, like we do here, is in a lot of research papers. I suppose I am curious as to why UVC imagery is not easily found.

 

Of course, I probably have not looked in just the right place. :cool:

Link to comment
Should we also write a UVC sticky? With information such as lenses, light sources, filters, cameras, etc. with a link to the safety post.
Link to comment

Maybe. I'm still not sure we should be promoting UVC.


Stefano, you need to get a Raspberry Pi and build a camera !!!


Link to comment

A monochrome Raspberry Pi camera would be really cool to have. Very UV sensitive. Also building quartz lenses is an interesting activity, they can allow you to take reasonably sharp UVC images.

 

A LiF lens would be the ultimate UV lens for deep reach. It transmits down to ~110 nm. Below about 100 nm, nothing is transparent.

Link to comment
Yep. Knowing your coding experience and other electronic experience, I can definitely see you with a Raspberry Pi. I have wanted to play with that for years, but I simply have no time. Maybe when I'm 80 I won't be so busy. La!
Link to comment

P.S. I want a NONS camera !!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

The very last thing I need is another camera. :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink:

 

The rule is supposed to be that if I buy a new camera, then I must sell an old one.

That rule seems to have fallen by the wayside some time ago. Sigh.

 

Well the cost has gone up. There was a better sale earlier:

https://nonscamera.com/collections/all

 

But remember, no live view.

Link to comment
Andy Perrin

Maybe. I'm still not sure we should be promoting UVC.

 

I know, I know, but it does seem weird that we're calling this place "ultraviolet photography [*]" but with a giant hidden asterisk that says "[*] except for that OTHER ultraviolet we're scared of, not that one!!" :grin:

 

I think everything in life has some danger, even UVA with cataracts and stuff, so we should do what we're doing and warn people to be careful.

Link to comment
I mostly agree. I just have that extra "liability" thing to worry about.
Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...