Search the Community

In this post I bemoaned the demise of my full-spectrum Sony A6000: https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/4465-aaaaagh-im-full-spectrum-camera-less/page__gopid__44120#entry44120 I decided to buy a replacement from infraredcameraconversions.co.uk (Alan Burch), and took the opportunity to upgrade to a Sony A7R. I was excited at the prospect of having a full-frame full-spectrum camera and the prospect of post-processing being slowed down by having even more megapixels to move around and manipulate. The A7R arrived yesterday. Initial tests showed it worked fine in IR and with a Baader U. But when I used my UV bandpass filters it was clear that the camera could not reach deeply into the UV. At 345nm it semed about half as sensitive as the A6000, and at 320nm about 1/6 as sensitive. This makes it unusable for UV TriColour as the sensitivity of the A6000 at 320nm is already pretty low. Not clear what the reason is. The A7R is unusual in not having an Anti-Aliasing filter, and so the sensor cover plate may have ben modified in some way to compensate. Also Alan says the A7R sensor has an AR coating (which may be another result of having no AR filter). So sadly I am returning the A7R and getting another A6000. It's a bit boring having two A6000s (assuming I get the old one fixed), but at least I know it works down to about 305nm. BTW - I have updated the other post on the problem with the A6000. This may be of interest to you if you are using a Sony A6x00 camera.

Recently I found two new UWA-toys on EBay, which I hoped to give at least some response in UV-A: Asahi Takumar Fish-Eye, 17mm f/11 Soligor 17mm f/3.5 I sort of remember reading something about the Takumar around here, but not about the Soligor. So, I took them to my favourite cemetary to take some shots. I also took along the Soligor 21mm f/3.8 as a comparison, now that Ulf has tested the Bushnell-variant. The cameras was the Canon 6D, internal XNite-330C, bayer-filter removed. The first two are with the Soligor 21, the first with the S8612 and the second without. The reason for this double-photo is that while I'm sure that one can tinker around to put filters on the UWA-lenses, a fish-eye is always tricky, and the Soligor 17 does sport a filter thread, but also a fixed hood, so one would need the filter in the right size and nimble fingers, neither of which I own. So I wanted to see how much of a difference the filter makes with this subject. Soligor 21, at f/3.8, ISO100, 1.6s, with S8612: Soligor 21, at f/3.8, ISO100, 1.3s, without S8612 (of course there is some difference, but not that much): Takumar 17mm, at f/32, ISO100, 30s: Soligor 17mm, at f/8, ISO100, 6s: Both appear to have a response similar to the Soligor 21 The Soligor 17, even though it's not yet quite a fish-eye, does exhibit mighty strong distortions, I've tried a few shots at f/16, and even those are bizarre. I can imagine that when shooting a city skyline from quite some distance the effect might be less dramatic, but as a usable supplement of the Soligor 21 for closer-range shots it's a washout. Of course, if the subject lends itself to it, the results might be "interesting", i.e. "artsy" All the following are with the Soligor 17, the first two at f/3.5 and the last three at f/16:

I've done little at UVP for several years. Mostly this has been due to a health condition which didn't leave me much energy after expending my energy on work. Fortuitously this condition has substantially improved very recently and I'm in the process of resuming a more energetic and productive life. In mid-October, just at the beginning of my improvement, I made my annual autumn trip to the high reaches of the Sierra Nevada mountains and areas to the east in the state of California, U.S.A. I'd hoped to make a serious effort to do UV color photography, but somehow I managed to leave my camera (a broadband Canon 6D) in JPEG-only mode and never caught the problem until I returned home. I was positive I'd set the camera correctly before leaving home. I must remember - check at home - then double-check when I get there. It also would have been good if I'd backed up files at the hotel as I'd intended to, which also would have led to me catching the error after a couple of days (I was camping on alternate nights). So instead of processing RAWs, all I have this time for UV are some jpegs taken in black and white. What's different about this effort, in relation to my past ones, is that I'd read here that the Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake lens (one of my very few EF-mount lenses) is usable in UV. I decided to test this on my trip. One frustration of shooting in UV has been the general impracticality of easy point-and-shoot photography, unlike visible light and (to a lesser degree) IR photography. Methodical tripod work is all good and well, but it's not for every photo on every trip. So the camera was handheld. Focus was done in the OVF rather than enlarged live view like I would normally do with UV. With this lens I had to manually focus on both closer and more distant subjects, due to focus shift, but that it wasn't that hard to get decent results most of the time. Not pin-sharp, but usable when viewed at reduced resolution. I expect it would be easier to get sharp on-the-fly results on a mirrorless camera, if banding can be avoided. ISO was set at 3200, the lens was often but not always wide open, and the shutter speed was often rather slow. I used a Baader Venus filter. The 6D works well as a UV camera. The shorter register distance will allow use of a wider range of adapted lenses. However, a UV-nikkor requires an adapter. Overall, the combination of camera and lens made a workable informal UV kit as long as care was taken regarding focus and shutter speed issues. The photos in this series were taken along or near the Tioga Road, in Yosemite National Park or the adjacent Inyo National Forest, with one exception. First, a pond below Mt. Gibbs: Mt Gibbs and Pond by Bill de Jager, on Flickr A rush (Juncus) nearby: Juncus at pond near Dana Meadows by Bill de Jager, on Flickr A young lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. murrayana) at Tuolumne Meadows, with more in the background. Young Lodgepole Pine by Bill de Jager, on Flickr More coming.

Warning UV-C should never be taken lightly. Wear protective gear and cover up your skin. You will damage your skin and can get seriously hurt yourself. I was able to convince Dan at MaxMax (LDP) to convert a Raspberry Pi HQ camera to Monochrome. Its an exciting camera and he now has them for sale. You can see them here: https://maxmax.com/maincamerapage/monochrome-cameras/raspeberry-pi-cameras/raspberry-pi-hq-12mp Mine arrived today and the first thing I tested was my 254nm light with 25mm single fused silica element with the 254.3bp25 filter on front. This sensor is very sensitive to UV-C!!!!! Direct from camera Jpeg, resized for posting. ISO equivalent 320, F4 (cut a 6mm disc behind the lens), 1/16 second shutter speed! Direct from camera Jpeg, resized for posting. ISO equivalent 320, F4 (cut a 6mm disc behind the lens), 1/16 second shutter speed! Using DCraw for Raspberry Pi HQ camera with -d -6 -T switches and resizing for here ISO 160, 1/16, F2 (cut 1/2 inch hole behind lens): I just missed the focus on where I want for that one. This sensor is fast and can capture movies. So for under $1000, UV-C imaging at 12 Mpixels is in our hands (my hands). This should be fun. Its only Monochrome but still, great.

My Panasonic DMC-F3 broke some time ago. The lens became stuck for unknown reasons and never worked again. I took about 15,000 photos with that camera, a lot of photos. The camera worked quite well, it delivered nice images, but had some big limitations: - Fixed lens. The lens was not interchangeable, I had to work with the lens I had. It was good to about 360 nm, maybe 355, but not lower than that. It was enough to produce violets (close to a blue) and yellows, but I couldn't see my 340 nm LED; - Limited ISO (1600), and quite nolisy; - I couldn't set the aperture, nor the shutter speed, and I couldn't set an in-camera white balance in "starry sky" mode (long exposure mode) After I announced my camera broke, Ulf offered me one of his Canon EOS M. Long story short, I bought a white one that was still stock, and I had to convert. It was a very nice camera, and I converted it with my dad, being careful not to trap dust between the sensor and the full-spectrum filter (Astronomik MC-Klarglas filter). After assembling it together, and disabling the dust shaker, the camera worked. Then discovered there was a lot of dust trapped inside, took it apart again, removed the filter, closed it again, but it rattled, opened it again, closed it, it didn't work, opened again, tried to adjust a connector, closed again... The camera never worked again. It turns on, but gives an error. I didn't follow Ulf's instructions to work calmly, with "baby steps", and that was a great life lesson. He has been very helpful the whole time, and I want to thank him again. He suggested me to buy an adaptor with helicoid, and a Soligor 35 mm f/3.5 lens (no KA serial number), which performs very well in UV. Before breaking that camera, I took some photos with a pinhole and a magnifying glass (about 300 mm in focal length), stopped down to about f/10 (I didn't have the adaptor yet). I didn't increase the saturation in any image. For all UV images, I used a ZWB2 (2 mm) + Chinese BG39 (2 mm). Pinhole: Magnifying glass I then bought a black Canon EOS M from Alan Burch, it took a while to arrive because of brexit things, but works well. It has some dead pixels, but I assume it is normal? Maybe it was irradiated with gamma rays? Anyway, not a big deal. It is a very nice camera. I adapted my filters to fit the Soligor (will show them in the future), and started taking some pictures: Handheld camera, handheld filter (only first image) Sunscreen: Image brightened in post: Half banana: The Soligor is quite sharp at f/3.5 in UV, but is much sharper at f/22. f/3.5: f/22: (also notice the interesting pattern) ZWB1 (3 mm thick): Under a 340 nm LED... (the black thing in the image is a plastic lens which is completely opaque at 340 nm): One of the old vintage lenses I have, owned by my grandfather and maybe by my great-grandfather. it appears slightly purple, which indicates it is good for UV but not as good as the Soligor: You can also see some residues of sunscreen on my finger. And now some IR (Hoya R72): The lens seems to be hotspot-free in the NIR. At f/22, you can literally see the Airy's disks, so it must be used at wider apertures. Having both cameras, I have two batteries, two chargers, two straps... I have a spare for everything. In particular, the double battery is very useful. Colors My old camera had a slightly different UV palette. The purple/lavenders were closer to a blue, and the yellows were closer to a pure yellow. Here I have true lavenders, and greenish yellows. I guess it is due to the better UV-reach. In IR, instead, the colors are not as strong. The skies were more yellow with the old camera, but I can still play with the saturation after taking the photos. All the images above were taken as .jpg and were white balanced in-camera. I will have to learn how to work with RAW images. I am still learning a lot. I hope to do a lot of things with this camera. It is very promising.

I'm trying to get my mind around something and need some advice on it please. The question is this. How can I compare the sensitivity of high street cameras with ISO ratings, to cameras such as the ARTCAM-2020UV-USB3 camera with the GSENSE2020BSI sensor as discussed here - https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/4143-a-first-test-with-my-gsense2020bsi-camera/page__view__findpost__p__39255 What I'm trying to figure out is whether moving to something like the Artcam will be significantly better for my work at and below 300nm than my monochrome Nikon cameras, especially for the microscopy? So for instance as an example, if I need to turn up the ISO on my Nikon d800 monochrome to 12,800 to get an image with a 10s exposure at 310nm, would the Artcam image be more or less noisy than the Nikon one to capture the same image? I get the resolution will be very different, it's more about the noise. Common sense tells me that that sensors themselves wont be hugely different in sensitivity (apart from the BSI/FSI difference), so it'll then come down to how the information from the sensor is processed. Hopefully I'm explaining this clearly enough, and any advice is welcome.

Hello everyone, They sell off the shelf ROVs that I would like to put my UV camera inside. Any suggestions how to fabricate a dome like this one that will pass UV light? The dome is about 9 inches in diameter. P.S. I have access to an industrial vacuform machine and a laser cutter.

Has anyone heard of this camera conversion company? They have some nifty options for increased heat transfer from the sensor to lower noise, and they also can add dust reduction and plug light leaks(!). They will convert the Sony A7SIII (which normally can’t be converted due to shutter LED). Too good to be true?? https://www.spencerscamera.com/store/store_product_detail.cfm?Product_ID=521&Category_ID=5&Sub_Category_ID=19

Warning. Do not try UVC (254nm) photography unless you take the proper precautions. Wear 100% cotton cloths to cover your body, EYE PROTECTION is MANDATORY!!! Ok still excited. With Jonathan's success with Sony sensor I thought I would test out my newly converted Olympus EM5mk2 by Kolari, which has fused silica on the sensor inplace of the UV/IR cut filter. These images are with my custom 39mm single fused silica lens element and 254pb25 filter. I might test the UAT to see how it performs. First to scare you a visible reference of some of the mold I need to image: Then same jar with same 39mm lens, at the same closed down aperture, lens moved forward on rail as I roughly know where the focus shifts to, ISO 6400, 10 seconds, the aperture might be close to F22: These are my UV beads with 39mm lens open, ISO 1600, 1/2 second exposure, F1: These are the same UV beads with 39mm lens slightly closed down ISO 1600 1 second: This lens is a best case as single element and has massive focus shift to select out specific wavelengths. Its good in that its really close for 254nm, and further back for each additional wavelength. But bad in that it would be very hard to use it for UVC, UVB, UVA tri color image. But for IR I need to move it more than a foot back. These results are much better than my full spectrum EM1 with UAT as I couldn't focus that in live view, even at maximum ISO. The EM5mk2 allows for focusing in live view with this lens at least. So the Sony sensor in the EM5mk2 is more sensitive to UV than the Panasonic sensor in my EM1. I wouldn't have guessed that, actually didn't guess that and thus the test. I didn't white balance these, just used the standard WB I have for UVA. The base in the beads shot should be white.

Ok, disclaimer first - UVC is extremely dangerous, please do not attempt to use it without fully understanding the risks involved. Background to this work. I've been seeing everyone playing around with UVC, and had assumed that there was little point even trying it with the cameras I've got. A few weeks ago I bought a couple of 254nm 8w tubes to fit my UVP lamp, and today thought I'd just give it a go with my monochrome Nikon d850 (which has a quartz coverglass instead of the usual WG280) and Rayfact 105mm UV lens. Setup. 2x8W 254nm tubes in a UVP lamp, no filter on the lamp. Subject a vase with a couple of feathers in it, and a 20% diffuse reflectance standard. Filters, a 254nm bandpass filter from the Sirchie forensics camera, WG305 2mm and WG295 3mm. Camera, monochrome converted Nikon d850 with fused silica window from MaxMax. Lens, Rayfact 105mm UV lens. Settings, ISO400, f8, 30s exposure for the UV images. Whitebalanced in Darktable and reduced in size in XnConvert. Images shown with reduced resolution, but full frame. Firstly, image with visible light. Now with 254nm lamp and the 254nm bandpass filter only. So, with the 254nm lamp and bandpass filter I get an image (which I wasn't expecting to be honest), and because the glass of the vase is opaque at least some of this is UVB or even UVC. Next I tried putting a couple of different longpass filters in front of the 254nm filter. The aim here to try and block what the 254nm filter should be letting through, while letting through the out of band areas of the 254nm filter. I did this to check for leaks. With the WG305 2mm in front of the 254nm filter. And with the WG295nm 3mm filter in front of the 254nm filter. Both the WG305 and WG295 filters resulted in a reduction in the image brightness, but they did not eliminate the image, which suggests to me that there are some leaks in the 254nm filter in the longer wavelength regions. But it also tells me that most of the image is coming from the UVC region, which I did not expect. I must admit, I hadn't realised when I chose these two long pass filters that the 254nm one had such a long tail on it. Perhaps in hindsight a longer long pass filter would have been a better option. EDIT - Although looking as closely as I can at those WG images, the vase looks dark which would suggest leakage in the UVB/C region, so perhaps it is coming from the overlap region? More work needed there I think. Something to consider is the filter transmission spectra and the light irradiance spectra, which are given below (full range and then zoomed in on the UV region). Yes, there is some overlap between the 254nm filters and the WG ones in that 280nm to 300nm region, but it occurs at a region where the light is not really emitting anything, which makes me think that the 254nm images are really driven by that big 254nm line in the lamp. It also tells me that even good filters for UVC run the risk of letting enough light through in the out of band regions to contaminate the image - OD4 is no longer good enough, even with a light source like this with a really strong 254nm peak. I learned something new today - don't make assumptions about cameras capabilities before testing them. Sorry for any typo's, I'll go back and proof read when I have a minute.

I hope this is in the right section. I was looking at the bayer filter and wondered - if consumer cameras have red/blue/green filters affixed on them and are irremovable, how does IR and UV light get through these filters? The red, blue and green must have a tight bandpass of 610nm≤λ< 760nm, 500nm≤λ< 570nm and 450nm≤λ< 750nm respectively, if they were not and let light leak then the bayer filter would be useless. I can see there being a leak on the red side of the filter into IR since they are adjacent in wavelength, but I can't on the UV side because the blue filter would need to be inclusive of purple to leak over to UV, which it does not - otherwise it would not be a blue filter.

Hello All, I hope this is the correct area to post this. I am a complete newbie when it comes to UV photography. Below I post some items I am looking to purchase. My main question is can I with a reasonable expectation of success achieve photos such as in the images below with the equipment I list? Advice would be greatly appreciated. My goal is to capture images in the UV range from flowers in the greenhouse and field. On the images below I circled examples of what I am aiming for. This is the setup I am thinking about: UV-VIS-IR camera Pancake Lens 52 mm to 58 mm Step up ring 330 nm Filter Band Pass Filter 320 - 670 nm UV Flash Given the above equipment can I reasonably expect to achieve images such as above? Should I be looking at specific software? We run on windows systems, ideally required software will work on PC. Looking at my goals above, what is your number one recommended thread to read from this forum?

I haven't seen this camera mentioned here so I thought I would do a quick review. Hope this is the right place. Disclaimer First time ever playing with IR so if I say something wrong or I miss anything important please let me know! The camera I am using was very loved but suffered two crashes during fun adventures and now the autofocus malfunctions and it has dust inside the lens element. Camera This is a great little premium point and shoot from 2012. They don't sell it anymore but you can find it second hand for around £150 ($200?) The camera does everything. Great zoom range, good aperture range, shoots raw (nwr), pop up flash, external flash, filters (40.5mm), flip LCD, you name it. It fits in your pocket. The main cons are that the manual zoom is fiddly (its a small dial next to the display), its quite slow in recording onto the SD card, and the LCD is linearly polarised so annoying if you wear shades. Its not supported by nikon because of no more spares. Conversion Quite simple to access the sensor. I didnt bother changing the hot mirror. Cant comment on any autofocus shift since my autofocus was already broken. Test IR pass filter is a 40.5mm 760nm from dHD (ordered on amazon) WB was set to 3850K Those are dust specs from the crash, they were already there before the conversion. It was not sunny today, low light and partially cloudy (and a bit foggy). These are jpegs compressed to 50%, not edited. I tested the whole zoom range and focus range and seemed to do fine? Without the filter: Hope you find this useful. Now I need to learn to properly edit photos!

I just got my Nikon D750 back from being converted to full spectrum (by Lifepixel). I haven't contacted them yet, because I don't think they would be open this early, but I will be calling them today. Here's the issue: The camera I had converted now has some kind of hot spot - and its not just a little thing! I took a series of images, from short to long exposure, because it seems to be pronounced at longer exposure times (which I'd be shooting all the time!). All the images were taken with the lens capped, so these are essentially blacked out images. Has anyone else seen this, pointedly in a Nikon D750? Does anyone know if there is anything that can be done to fix this? I'm not even sure at the moment if this is due in some way to a fault of the conversion service, or if this is an IR shutter monitor thing (though I thought the D750 does not use an IR shutter monitor...)? Any advice or suggestions would be very much appreciated.

Ok, this one is for Mark Jones. Selfie with half-sunscreen. Camera: converted Sony A7S Settings: F8, ISO8000, 1/50" Lens: Novoflex Noflexar 35/3.5 Filters: UG11 2mm + S8612 1.5mm This is the picture converted from RAW but with no processing at all besides resizing: This is the picture with denoising with Neat Image plugin, curves, highlight reduction, and a final autocontrast in Photoshop: Here are 1:1 crops. First the no processing image: After processing:

My Panasonic DMC-F3 broke. For reasons still unknown to me, suddently the lens couldn't come out and the camera gave an error every time. I tried to open it, but couldn't find the reason. The camera is damaged beyond repair. It had a lot of defects: no manual focusing, no control over the exposure time, fixed lens, no filter threads, the screen had two black dead blobs, changing ISO changed the WB and the sensitivity was OK, but not excellent. This camera, however, served me very well. In about 14-15 months, I took, if I didn't make mistakes, 13599 photos with it, stored in 14 different folders. And that is without counting the series of photos taken for stacking. If I count those, we are at 18870 photos. I also want to thank the person who gave me the camera. Very little of what I posted could have been possible without it. I tried converting another old point-and-shoot camera similar to it, but... I broke it. It was constructed in such a contorted way the only way to access the sensor was by breaking something. So, now I am without a camera. Unless I use the VERY crappy 640 x 480 pixel chinese USB camera I have, which has a plastic lens with manual focusing (it can be a plus), I can't take any more UV/IR photos. Any suggestion for a portable camera with in-camera white balance capability that can be converted to full-spectrum reasonably easily, and maybe under $200 or so?

https://www.dpreview.com/news/9281887406/fujifilm-introduces-fujifilm-gfx100-ir-for-100mp-infra-red-imaging will be pricey and what about IR capable lenses to support that large sensor image circle?

Since a few days I have the ARTCAM-2020UV-USB3 camera with the GSENSE2020BSI sensor. http://www.artray.us/usb2_uv.html It was cheaper than the price that was mentioned here in the forum, but please don't ask for the price. Now I want to show a first noise and leak test. Recently I learned that gas light emits UV-C, see page 4. https://www.dguv.de/..._gasbrenner.pdf Therefore I used a simple lighter as UV-C source. The flame was recorded in front of a cloudy sky, so that the leak of the filter can be estimated. The lens is the UV2528B, the aperture was 2.8, the shutter time was 1 s, the Global Gain was about 50% . I used this filter: https://www.ahf.de/p...-uv-et-bandpass The vignette is because the size of the sensor is 1.2” x 1.2”, whereas the lens is made for 1” sensors. However it is not visible with lower gains, see for example the image with my 313 nm filter. Shutter time was about 10-100 ms. I did not memorize it. https://www.ahf.de/p...-bandpass?c=138 Best regards, Wilhelm

Andrea, Did you ever get your Panasonic S1R full spectrum converted? I am curious about how it turned out m

The Italian company Primaluce just announced delivery of a full-spectrum modified Nikon Z5. The price is just slightly above what the standard model sells for in Europe. These are brand new cameras with a 4 year Nikon Italy warranty, which implies it will have the normal Nikon warranty in my country at least. The web site is here https://www.primalucelab.com/world/. I have ordered a camera contingent upon they clarify whether the dreaded UV-induced striping issue of the Z6 is absent from the Z5.

Interesting find. 2Mp cameras with EF-mount, up to 4M ISO ML-105 EF https://www.canon-eu...specifications/ No IR Cut Filters ME20F-SH https://www.canon-eu...cification.html Infrared shooting mode Yes: IR Cut-out filter, electrically operated. ME20F-SHN https://www.canon-eu...specifications/ Infrared shooting mode Yes: IR Cut-out filter, electrically operated, manual only

These were all taken with the Sigma sdQH + 70mm Art lens + KG3 filter. Quite different results than the IR Chrome filter, that I had been using. Surprised that I was able to add some yellow to the mix, with the KG3. Poppy Cornflowers Viburnum Leaves Iris and ferns

Hi, this is my first post after a while. I bought Sigma fp with the kit lens 45/2.8 a couple of month ago. I liked the combo very much so far, and the well known caveats are not much of problems for my shooting style. Of course, I had never intended to shoot UV or IR with the combo, taking it granted that the current digital cameras have very efficient UV/IR cut filters and would never allow photography outside of the VIS range. That said though, it came to my mind that this Sigma fp without either an AA filter or a dust shaker could shoot IR. Here are the result of the impromptu trials. I simply attached Cokin Z007 resin filter (equivalent of Kodak 089B or Hoya IR72) in front of the kit lens. There is a noticeable hot spot in the center of the image. Shot at ISO3200, f4.0, 1/10sec, #1: This is how the RAW (DNG) file looks (simple conversion from DNG to JPEG). #2: A B&W conversion. #3: A color version by my crude, inexperienced processing.

sd Quattro H (Auto WB, Monochrome mode), Sigma 24mm f/1.4, Hoya R72, NIK Silver Efex

I haven't used my Kolari Vision IR Chrome filter in a while, and decided to try it out on my newly acquired Sigma sd Quattro H. Instead of the usual orange tones, the sdQh seems to produce a vivid range of magenta/reds SOOC. Not much greenery this time of year, but here are a few test shots. Snowdrops "Cine" color mode Snowdrops "Standard" color mode Steet scene "Standard" color mode