Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

First Portraits in UV


ahrneely

Recommended Posts

Good evening Ultraviolet Photography forum:

 

As perhaps many of you will know, I joined the group early on in my ultraviolet photography education. I mentioned in my introductory post that I have very little understanding or interest in the scientific applications of ultraviolet photography. I am, however, very interested in the artistic applications of ultraviolet photography. With that in mind, I have begun some test shots in an attempt to get down some of the specifics of UV for Art.

 

post-25-0-56775800-1386817459.jpg

 

This image was shot with:

 

Full Spectrum-converted Canon 20D

Canon EOS 50mm f/1.8 Lens

Baader Venus U-Filter

2x 400ws 5500K Studio Strobes at 45-degree angels to subject

1/125" f/5.6 @ ISO 3200

 

Clearly this image is extremely noisy. This particular subject is a natural redhead. The extreme amount of freckles across his face are not normally visible. It seems as though there is some sort of fog throughout the center of the image that I believe comes from using the Canon 50mm lens that is not specifically meant for UV photography.

 

post-25-0-25872200-1386818408.jpg

 

This image is the same subject shot with the full spectrum-converted Canon 20D unfiltered. This is full spectrum, white balanced manually to match as close to true color as possible, included for comparison of subject from pure UV and not.

 

post-25-0-28286700-1386818601.jpg

 

This UV image is quite different than the first UV image posted above:

 

It was shot with:

Canon 20D Full Spectrum Camera

El-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8 enlarger lens with helicoid focus ring

Baader Venus U-Filter

Lit with a LED Blacklight Flashlight (manufacturer specifications rate Blacklight wavelegth at 395nm - uncertain of those specification)

1/8" f/2.8 @ ISO 200

 

Again, the visible freckles in this image along the bridge of the nose and under the right side of the eye are not visible on the subject in the visible range. Unfortunately, my current camera set-up with the 50mm lens and the 1.6x crop camera puts my focal distance at somewhere close to 15.25 cm, so this eye is the widest I can achieve with my current setup. At least I don't see the fogging that I had with the Canon 50mm lens.

 

I believe I will continue to add to my kit, and hopefully I'll be able to find some gear that will allow me to achieve the wider field of view with the Nikkor lens as I can achieve with the Canon lens.

Link to comment

I am obligated to remind anyone photographing human or animal subjects under any kind of dedicated UV illumination (such as LED flashlights) that UV light is extremely damaging to the eyes. It can cause retinal burns and cataracts. You can see from your photograph the damaging effects of a lifetime of UV light on the human skin. (Babies and young children do not have this kind of UV damage.) The same thing is happening to eyes.

 

Now, I grant that a 395nm flashlight is in high in the UVA region, but still - have your subjects close their eyes when using artifical UV illumination, please. Otherwise photograph them outdoors in the natural sunlight. Or, if under ordinary strobes, boost the ISO as you did in the first photograph or make a longer exposure if they can hold still.

 

OK, that's done. :)

 

*****

 

It is interesting that your subject shows evidence of having worn sunglasses - perhaps regularly? - as there is slightly less damage around the eye area.

 

I don't see any particular 'fogging' in the first photo, but I'll take your word for it that you have seen something. What can happen with some non-UV lenses is that they may exhibit various amounts of flare or internal reflections or central hot spots. It is hard to know exactly what your Canon 50/1.8 is doing without further test photos.

 

The Canon 20D has a 44mm flange focal distance for that EF-S mount. So any native M42 wide-angle lens (ffd = 45.46mm) can probably be adapted to have infinity focus on the 20D. I'm not familiar with available adapters for Canon mount. There is only 1.46mm to play with, so you would need to look for a thin adapter. If M42 can be adapted to the EF-S mount, then that gives you a number of reasonably inexpensive wide-angle lenses to choose from which work well for UV.

 

The Nikon EL 50/2.8 is probably an M39 (?) mount with an ffd = 28.80mm. It could infinity focus on an m4/3 camera with the addition of the correct length focusing helicoid. On your Canon 20D, this EL50 is useable mainly for close work, as you have discovered.

Link to comment
Bill De Jager

I am obligated to remind anyone photographing human or animal subjects under any kind of dedicated UV illumination (such as LED flashlights) that UV light is extremely damaging to the eyes. It can cause retinal burns and cataracts. You can see from your photograph the damaging effects of a lifetime of UV light on the human skin. (Babies and young children do not have this kind of UV damage.) The same thing is happening to eyes.

 

Now, I grant that a 395nm flashlight is in high in the UVA region, but still - have your subjects close their eyes when using artifical UV illumination, please. Otherwise photograph them outdoors in the natural sunlight. Or, if under ordinary strobes, boost the ISO as you did in the first photograph or make a longer exposure if they can hold still.

 

I'd add that it's not just the nominal UV flux, it's the fact that your irises open up a lot more under darker conditions such as indoors. If you need to use a flash on the subject then it's already dark enough that the iris will let into the lens and retina easily several more stops of light. So just because sunlight *may* have more UV than your artificial source does not mean that the latter is OK to view.

Link to comment

I didn't mean to throw out a flag. Andrea is right, that protective equipment must be worn.

 

The subject in my first photo was not exposed to any additional UV light. Simple studio strobes that would have been used for any studio portrait were used.

 

My second subject was actually myself. I knew, and understood the risks of using the UV flashlight. Even then I photographed myself in full daylight and only held the flashlight to my skin and eyes for as long as the exposure took. The exposure was 1/8", the flashlight was on me for approximately 1".

 

As for the sunglasses of the first subject. Yes. To start, he is a natural redhead, so his skin is already fair and probably more susceptible to skin damage. He was Marine for several years - four tours in Afghanistan. I'm certain he wore sunglasses every day.

Link to comment

Well, in my eagerness to make sure I was not forgetting my duties as Provider-of-UV-Warnings (having already had one double cataract removal in my left eye), I failed to mention that I do like & enjoy seeing fine UV portraits such as the one you have shown here, Ahr.

 

Do carry on and let us see more !! It will be very cool & interesting. :D :( ;) B) B)

Hey look !! The little smiley is wearing UV eye protection !!

Link to comment
  • 8 months later...

Andrea, my question is if you ask your model to close his eyes and open it just when the photo is taken would be still a danger with UV-A light? Also we get lot of UV-A light from the Sun itself, so is the problem with Black Light is that since (if) there is no other light then our eyes will tune up to the dark settings, like opening the pupils more (and increasing ISO :D) and by that letting much more UV light enter than compared to a normal sunlit environment with the same amount of UV light but much higher amount of visible light? And what about strobes that emit UV light as well or only UV?

 

Usually what I do is ask the model to close his eyes and then open it when I count to 3... so then I focus, count to 3 and when I say 3 I press the shutter button. I use this in bright sunlight as well to avoid the model twinkling.

Link to comment

I don't know the answers to these kind of specific questions, Timber. I only know that UV is damaging to the eyes.

 

We all go out in the sunlight during our lifetimes, and eventually we all get cataracts. What more is there to say? Would exposure to artificial UV illumination hasten that process? Probably. But by how much? I don't know. Maybe a few UV flashes are negligible in a lifetime's worth of UV exposure -- or maybe not.

 

I would never, ever shine a UV torch or flash a UV flash in a person's eyes. I've experienced mild eye irritation after a studio session with my UV flash during which I failed to use my UV goggles.

 

There is no reason we can't make nice UV portraits outdoors in good sunlight. Put the camera on a tripod. Use a fairly wide aperture and dial up the ISO a bit. Set up some reflectors. Tell your subject to be very still. :D You should be able to shoot at a good speed well under 1 second.

Link to comment
I agree that if possible we should use sunlight, but the weather in UK tends to disagree :D Which means sometimes we have to use artificial lights. The problem is if you do any damage then it's permanent... it's not an "ooops, sorry" situation, so I do agree with you, it's better to be extra safe than sorry. That's why I am trying to gather all information and knowledge before using a modified flash or other light with someone, to ensure their safety.
Link to comment

You MUST ensure peoples safety & don't expose them to any UV lighting.

Even cheap sunglasses are not permitted to be sold if they don't block UVA, B & C, simple.

Col

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...