Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

Is it worth it to get a high-UVB reptile bulb when I already have strong fluorescent blacklights?


Fandyus

Recommended Posts

I was browsing the forum and I ran into a link for this.

http://www.exo-terra...tile_uvb200.php

It seems pretty interesting and for the price I almost ordered the 25w version right away, yet I'm wondering if this will actually be any different from what I have right now.

I use a QB39+ZWB1 filter stack and I'm getting a ZWB2 soon to see if there's any positive difference.

I have lenses that can pass some UVB (Soligor 35mm f/3.5 and Industar 50-2).

Link to comment

I looked around the forum and found this post.

https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/2188-spectra-of-two-exo-terra-reptile-fluorescent-lamps/page__fromsearch__1

Seems like the bulb is indeed weighed more into the UVB, as opposed to my flash and fluorescent blacklights which are more into the longer wavelengths? Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know.

Link to comment

Over time (10 years, maybe longer?) the UV images I've seen which are made with strong UV illumination like strong sunlight, UV-flash, UV-LED or a UV-lamp like a Blak-Ray are better than those made with UV light bulbs or UV fluorescent tubes. I think this partly due to the strength of the illumination from Flash or Led and partly due to the fact that those lights can be more easily "directed" toward the subject.

 

Remember that I offer these opinions from the photography side not the gear side. :grin: I know how appealing gear is because I'm also a bit of a gearhead. But good photography comes first.

 

And don't forget this: to make a UVB photo you need both UVB illumination and a tight UVB filter.

 

Those bulbs (in the Savazzi links) emit a big spike at 365nm so you need to filter that out in order to make good use of them for UVB. That spike might wash out some of the UVB (260-320 nm).

Do you have a sensor which can record below 300 nm, the supposed limit for most converted cameras.

Link to comment
I see, well I do not have a sensor which can see below 300nm. I have a normal converted camera. Not debayered.
Link to comment

Fandyus, mostly you will see a big difference in the white balanced color. I have that same reptile bulb, and results are much different from any other UV illumination.

The results can be quite interesting. However, I rarely use it, because I prefer natural sunlight the most. I would not say that the reptile bulbs deliver natural UV light.

Link to comment

Fandyus, mostly you will see a big difference in the white balanced color. I have that same reptile bulb, and results are much different from any other UV illumination.

The results can be quite interesting. However, I rarely use it, because I prefer natural sunlight the most. I would not say that the reptile bulbs deliver natural UV light.

Thanks, I might get it then.

Link to comment

Yes it will weigh in more 313nm Mercury line and tail off to the upper UVA bands. Generally don't use it as its a dangerous light. But if you have a Zwb1 filter, than it will give you more yellowish look than a fluorescent BLB black bulb, which spikes at 365nm.

 

But you need to protect yourself if you use it as the wavelengths are dangerous. It will also emit some 254nm line, especially in the first 15 minutes of warm up when the internal pressure is low.

Link to comment

Yes it will weigh in more 313nm Mercury line and tail off to the upper UVA bands. Generally don't use it as its a dangerous light. But if you have a Zwb1 filter, than it will give you more yellowish look than a fluorescent BLB black bulb, which spikes at 365nm.

 

But you need to protect yourself if you use it as the wavelengths are dangerous. It will also emit some 254nm line, especially in the first 15 minutes of warm up when the internal pressure is low.

Is it really that dangerous? Seems like if it's that bad you really wouldn't want this for your reptile..

And concerning the 254nm line, how can it do that? Is the bulb made of quartz? Wouldn't it be blocked?

Link to comment

I had an assignment involving invisible light and it's dangers some years ago.

Then I had to read a lot of safety standards.

 

Lately I found the same standard floating around freely on the net.

Normally you have to pay for it.

The standard IEC 6247 is used for certifying safety for all light emitting sources except lasers and is very well scientifically founded.

 

Here is an important page for UV-light extracted from the standard, with an interesting table:

post-150-0-55846200-1609843054.png

The values in the table is used in an equation further on in the document.

 

It can also be used to get an idea of the different levels of danger posed by light from different wavelengths emitting the same optical power.

 

It is not complicated at all.

Just look at the column with the UV hazard function.

The numbers there are an indication of the danger level for an exposure for a fixed time.

Big number big danger. Small number smaller danger.

 

Light by 270nm seems to be the most dangerous.

 

We are wisely careful with the typical UV-A LED light at 365nm.

Compare that with a light-source emitting 270nm.

 

It is 1 / 0.00011 times more dangerous.

That is almost ten thousand times worse!

 

Dangers from any UV-B and UV-C light source MUST NOT be underestimated!!!

Link to comment
Andy Perrin
Ulf, how does that function make sense given the recent findings that Jonathan mentioned about the 222nm light being safe if the rest is filtered?
Link to comment

There is some research* showing certain shortwave UVC wavelengths between 207-222 nm are not as harmful to skin/DNA as others UVC wavelengths and that such UVC can be used to kill flu viruses and corona viruses.

 

The problem for us would to be sure that a particular UVC light source used with a particular filter is indeed filtering out such "bad" wavelengths.

 

*Currently many "scientists" -- and I use that term advisedly, in quotes -- are trying to make careers by publishing papers in "open access" journals which, many other scientists feel, do not have proper peer review. There is also a whole huge bag of bad research due to bad use of statistical methods. More and more research results are "published" even in prestigious scientific journals which cannot be replicated. I really really do not want to get into "open access" and "bad research statistics" here on UVP. There are some reputable scientific organizations which are trying to establish ground rules for open access journals. "Open access" is one of those ideas which is good in theory but not working out well in practice.

Link to comment

Thank you.

What does this mean for me though? What protection would you guys recommend if I were to buy this? I currently use simple yellow work goggles. They're not UV certified but appear black when I take a picture of them in UV so I suspect them to be safe (I also wear them alongside with my normal glasses which are also black in UV so there's two layers). UVB should be even more absorbed by things, so does this make it safe?

Also again, can it REALLY be that dangerous when it's supposed to be illumination for reptiles? I can't imagine it's that deadly if living things are supposed to derive benefits from this. Or is it overkill?

Link to comment

Fandyus,

I am assuming you are a human with epidermis layer of skin. The thinish layer of cells that will burn in direct sunlight and needs a minimum of sunscreen to keep from burning.

Reptiles have a thick scale layer and need to bask in sunlight to get vitamin D. We humans don't need so much light.

 

So yes a reptile light is good for reptiles to get the needed vitamins. But we are different. That 313nm peak will cause burns and blisters.

 

Wear Uvex safety glasses, wear 100% cotton. The money you savee on the light can be used to buy the proper safety equipment that you only need to buy once.

Link to comment
Andy Perrin
David are we REALLY certain Fandyus isn’t a lizard person? You might be depriving him of needed vitamins.
Link to comment

Fandyus is is not wise to question Safety.

Safety advice should be taken seriously.

When in doubt, DON'T.

UV eye protection is important, you only get two chances.

Not only do you need eye protection from direct vision, but more importantly from the peripheral vision, which is more dangerous, as the peripheral areas are much more sensitive.

Peripheral vision is the UV light you don't see, but damages the most.

I could write for hours & from personal experience. I have posted on UVP before of the dangers.

COVER UP EVERYTHING !

Link to comment
Andy Perrin
Fandyus, seriously, David once posted that one of his lights caused a sunburn on his thumb in like ten seconds or so. I don't have the link handy, but humans are definitely not lizards when it comes to UVB and UVC.
Link to comment
Alright, I'm sorry. I did not realize that a scaly skin is a feature I do in fact lack (not a reptilian I promise), I will probably postpone operating such lights until I get properly rated goggles, how much should one expect to pay for those? I'm not sure of a dealer here wo can supply Uvex glasses.
Link to comment

Yeah, I started up looking UV certified goggles just now and there's a lot of them and I'm really not sure what to get. I read the sticky and it just said wear goggles. Do I need the ones with a rubber rim around them? So far the ones I used where just designed so that they have a lot of coverage on and around the eyes. Again, they're not UV certified but very much yellow and appear black in UV so I hope I didn't make a mistake. So far I haven't used any super aggressive sources though, just blacklights, LEDs down to 365nm and the flash a few times.

Should I get a checkup to make sure I didn't do anything to myself?

Link to comment

Clear Poly-carbonate

face-shield.png

 

That's enough? I thought the glasses had to be yellowed? Not to doubt you of course.

Could you possibly point me to the product name perhaps?

Thanks.

Link to comment

You will know when you have damaged your eye, It will happen hours later, probably when you are asleep, you will wake up with what feels like sand in your eyes & PAIN.

As I said the sides of your eyes need to be covered too.

There are many brands of these face shields, any industrial supply company will sell them, usually under $40 Australian.

What is your eye sight worth.... ?

Link to comment

You will know when you have damaged your eye, It will happen hours later, probably when you are asleep, you will wake up with what feels like sand in your eyes & PAIN.

As I said the sides of your eyes need to be covered too.

There are many brands of these face shields, any industrial supply company will sell them, usually under $40 Australian.

What is your eye sight worth.... ?

Obviously that much and more, I just really wish I could find a store here where someone knowledgeable will advise me.

Should I cease doing UV until I get something or will the yellow work glasses do for now?

Link to comment

The eye protection is not so you can look at the light, never do that even with glasses on.

This eye protection is for in case you accidentally look or point the light at your face.

The worse case is if the light shines, or is reflected from something shiny, at the eyes peripheral, because you won't see it or feel it till hours later.

I hate having to argue about this stuff, just friggen do it, cover up your skin & eyes.

365nm is a problem, when you are using intense light, you can't see it.

Your flash puts out intense UVC, that is another reason to use some polyester / mylar film, it cuts the really bad UVC

 

Spectral-transmissions-of-the-two-spectral-filters-used-in-this-study-Mylar-film.png

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...