Search the Community

Will AR coating on Schott S8612 reduce UV? Thanks, Doug A

Good morning from Portugal. In fact I wanted to get the Lee scuba blue colored filter to stack with the GRB3 in an attempt to get the aerochrome effect but here in Europe it's hard to buy. Then I saw these Rogue filters. Does anyone know if any of these filters resemble Lee's 729? Many thanks to all the members of this forum for the help and for all the learning. https://www.rogueflash.com/products/rogue-flash-gels-combo-filter-kit

I've used a telescope and front mounted solar filter to photograph the sun in visible light. For UV do I just add the ZWB1/BG39 stack with the solar filter? Thanks, Doug A

Pentax 645Z with Pentax 645 A 120 macro lens and Tiffen UV Haze 2A filter. First attempt using diy modified Pentax AF540FGZ full spectrum flash with 6mm of Tangsinuo ZWB1 UG11340nm glass covering flash tube. F11 ISO400 21 seconds to allow 3 flash pops. I tried this shot earlier without flash on a moonless night. Unfortunately, there are bright lights about 1/4 mile away and they diluted the purity of the yellow. I struggled processing this image. Difficult to decide how it should look . Any tips and comments are welcome. Thanks for looking, Doug A

The filters I tested all blocked UV so well that I really don't think I need to make any more tests! So I want to restate the summary here to wrap this up. The following 4 options are the best for blocking UV and IR. They are listed in order of increasing quality, IMHO. The possible quality issues have nothing to do with blocking UV or IR. I'm referring to potential problems with reflections and maintenance needs which might occur with uncoated, stacked filters. I also added these to Best Basic Gear: Goggles, BG Filters, Torches 1. Stack: Schott BG38 + Schott GG400 (or GG 420), no coating, uncemented. Both filters are reusable in other stack types or separately. Uncemented stack slightly more prone to reflections. No anti-reflective coating. Uncoated BG glass needs routine maintenance. ADDED 20 Dec 2021: Very prone to flare & ghosting when facing sun or when illumination is angled into the lens. But you do know not to shoot facing the sun, don't you? 2.(tie) Stack: Schott BG38 + Schott GG400 (or GG420), at least one filter AR-coated. AR coating adds to the expense, but cutting reflections in a stack is good A cemented version of this stack is better. If not cemented, then the filters are reusable in other stack types or separately. I have not been able to test a stack like this having one (or both) filters coated. 2. (tie) Stack: Schott BG38 + Zeiss T* UV Filter (UV-Cut) Zeiss T* Price: (US)$67.00 for 52 mm. The well-made Zeiss T* is coated. Both filters are reusable in other stacks or separately. ADDED 20 Dec 2021: Although the Zeiss T* is coated, this stack is also very prone to flare & ghosting when facing sun or when illumination is angled into the lens. So don't do that. 3. NEW Singleton: Kolari Vision Hot Mirror Pro2 (UV/IR-Cut) BEST! Price: (US)$119 for 52 mm. CORRECTED 20 Dec 2021: The new Kolari hot mirror is a well-made, blue-green filter having a UV/IR-blocking interference coating. The Kolari hot mirror transmission chart matches many internal filtration transmission charts as shown by Kolari Vision's extensive measurements of internal filters. Make sure you get the NEW version. ADDED 20 Dec 2021: When facing the sun, you can still get flare/ghosts. But the Kolari was better under this kind of extreme stress, than were the preceding stacks. IMPORTANT VIS COLOR OBSERVATION: Any minor deviations in the converted camera's original Visible color when used with one of these UV/IR-blocking options can be remedied by creating a color correction profile for the particular combination of camera & lens being used with the UV/IR-blocker. Not particularly recommended: Baader UV/IR-Cut alone. This dichroic filter cuts UV/IR very well. However, it has that square right-hand shoulder which can cause a bit of red cast in some subjects. A color correction profile cleans up most, but not all, such color deviations. If you already have this filter, then add BG38 to soften the red shoulder. Maybe, maybe not: Schott BG38 + Schott GG395 There is such a narrow 5 nm band of possible UV "leakage", that I would say go ahead and use this stack as UV/IR-blocking in Visible photos if you already have it available and don't want to spend more money. I have not really been able to see differences in the tests I made with this stack. Please let me know of any corrections, additions or other suggestions.

This filter is new with UVROptics.com and not on the website yet. Chart is from Reed at UVROptics.

21 Dec 20221 Kolari Vision says that they did have one Bad Batch in the past. Everything has been OK for a while now. KV think they got all the bad ones back. But there is a Lifetime Guarantee on the filter, so if you are holding a bad one (IR leak), then you can get it replaced. Check with Kolari Vision on the details about replacements. I will now remove the warning on the Kolari Vision UV-Pass filter in the Filter Sticky.

I carry Pentax K-1 full spectrum with Ioriginal 35, Nikon El-Nikkor 80 & 135 for UV. This also includes Igoriginal ZWB1/BG39 52mm filter stack, two helicoids, and Vivitar UV converted 283 flash. Unfortunately, I haven't fixed the major hotspot the 35-90 helicoid causes with the EL-Nikkor 135. The Pentax bellows is immune to hotspots and accompanies the 135. For IR the Pentax 18-55 ( the 16-45 hotspots), 55-300 cover most everything. I have a Kolari IRChrome filter for the 16-45 ( it doesn't cause major hotspots, but only covers down to ~24). There is room for some consolidation. I have a Pentax 24-35 that does well with IR and would replace 16-45. I need to modify one of the flashes to convert from UV to IR and UV fluorescence. Fixing the 35-90 helicoid would allow leaving the bellows home. How much stuff do you carry. Thanks, Doug A

16 Dec 2021: Part #1 is here: LINKIE Part #3 SUMMARY is here: LINKIE Okie dokes, The Zeiss T* UV-blocker has arrived. And the new Kolari Hot Mirror Pro 2, which is a UV/IR-blocker, has arrived. Testing will begin soon. The Kolari HM Pro 2 is beautifully packaged in a large, square, plastic filter box with a magnetic closure. The filter is seated into a protective black foam so it will not shift around inside the storage box. The foam has fingertip cutouts so you can lift out the filter easily. Included is a separately packaged black microfiber filter cleaning cloth marked with "Kolari Vision" and their K logo. All in all this was a very cool & spiffy presentation. ADDED 20 Dec 2021: The Kolari Hot Mirror Pro 2 has a blue-green absorption substrate which is interference-coated with a UV/IR-blocking coating. The Kolari HM Pro 2 appears to be very well made. I like the knurled filter ring which makes it easier to handle when attaching to the lens. The ring is not too tall, about 3 mm, thus less to cause vignetting. The ring seems thick enough not to be easily ding-able. There is a blue-green cast to the glass. The coated surface is very smooth. The Zeiss T* was mentioned briefly in the first test. To review, the Zeiss T* is also very nicely made. It is packaged in a clear, round, metal-hinged, plastic filter box having a press-click opener. There is a layer of white foam under the filter. The filter is clear. It is difficult to detect a color cast unless held "just so" to see some blue-green. The coated surface has a slight "drag" to it, whatever that may mean. Side Note: I paid for both filters. First Test: LINKIE In the first test I don't think my subject was well chosen to give meaningful results. So I'll try again. And this time I have two new filters. Test Goal When used on a UV/IR-capable lens on a full-spectrum camera, do the listed filters produce differences in the photos? If there are differences, can we attribute them to UV-blocking? Filters, in 𝛂𝛃-ical order Note: I'm going to block IR because I don't want IR interfering with results. Baader UV/IR-Cut This Baader represents the square-shouldered type of UV/IR-Cut filter. These are known to pass too much red, which is difficult to repair even with color correction profiles. Kolari Hot Mirror Pro 2 (UV/IR-Cut) This is the newest UV/IR-Cut filter which looks *very* promising because its transmission curve matches the typical transmission curve in unconverted DSLR or mirrorless cameras. Any minor color variations from the original color can be easily tweaked using a color correction profile. Schott BG38 x 2.0 mm (IR-Cut) The BG38 passes a lot of UV between 310-400 nm (and also Visible between 400 - 705 nm). Used alone, this filter acts as a control for the other UV-blocking filters. Schott GG395 (Longpass) + Schott BG38 x 2.0 mm (IR-Cut) This filter combo, which passes some UV near 400 nm, is also added as a control. Schott GG400 (Longpass) + Schott BG38 x 2.0 mm (IR-Cut) This filter combo includes the all the visible violet. Schott GG420 (Longpass) + Schott BG38 x 2.0 mm (IR-Cut) This filter combo cuts some of the visible violet and matches the cut-in of most internal filters in unconverted cameras. Zeiss T* (UV-Cut) + Schott BG38 x 2.0 mm (IR-Cut) This filter combo is similar to the GG400 + BG38 stack. The Zeiss T* has a very steep left shoulder. SUBJECT OK, I could use some help here. What should I photograph? I was thinking of perhaps a Color Checker Card and the Labsphere 99% with a UV-torch shining on them because I want to ensure a supply of UV to determine whether the UV-blockers really do block UV. On the other hand, that is not a particularly "natural" scene. So maybe I should just photograph some outdoor, sunlit, medium or short distance scene? CAMERA: Nikon D610 Full-spectrum Conversion I'm using the D610 in this test so that I can create color correction profiles in Photo Ninja. PN does not yet support my Panasonic S1R. LENS: Probably the Coastal 60/4.0 for maximum UV capability. If there is some UV getting through a filter, then it really needs to also get through the lens for proper testing of these filters.

Why do so many filter makers fail to provide detailed transmittance charts? Transmission is always a thing we UVP-ers want to know. By detailed, I mean this: a logarithmic chart which clearly indicates the blocking OD down to about OD 6.

I'm out the door to begin an experiment discussed below. Also the SigOth has a minor concert thingie (for friends) coming up, so I have to do the dreaded housework. (noooooooooo...... not housework again!!!!) I hope I'm back in a couple of days. If not, then please send rescue. Preferably one of those nice Rescue Dogs with the brandy cask around its neck. Altho, out here in the Wild West a brandy-laden Rescue Llama might be the way to go. Sadly, the Rescue Bobcat idea didn't work out. Turns out that Bobcats have a weakness for nips of the brandy and tend to lose their way. ADDED 12 Dec 2021: In retrospect, I think this was not a particularly good test. I'm going to try again here: LINKIE 16 Dec 2021: Part #2 is here: LINKIE Part #3 SUMMARY is here: LINKIE [FILTER TEST] Blockiing UV for Visible Photos Made with Full-Spectrum Camera: Part #1 Background Explore UV-contamination and UV-blocking on a full-spectrum converted camera used for Visible photos. Is UV-contamination a problem? If so, what is the effect? If so, which UV-blockers are best for preventing it? In the olden film days, UV-haze was a problem in distant landscape photos. The short-ray scattering caused a kind of veiling or fog which obscured details. UV-cut filters were very popular and were routinely left on a lens as a protective filter. (Lens hoods are better for that, but I digress.) These days we know that our stock digital cameras have sufficient UV-blocking from internal filtration. But a full-spectrum converted camera needs both UV-blocking and IR-blocking when used for a Visible photograph. We have discussed IR-blocking and all agree that S8612 glass works best in UV-pass filter stacks and that BG38 is good for IR-blocking in Visible work with a full-spectrum body. But we have not had a lot of discussion about the effects of UV contamination, if any, on a Visible photo from a full-spectrum camera. Let's look more into this to answer the questions above. Filters I will start with the only filters I currently have that are useable for UV-blocking. I will also try to get some more UV-blockers or UV/IR-blockers in to continue the experiment after this initial work. Singleton IR-Blocker: BG38 x 2.0 mm IR-block, passes UV and Visible light. Are there any effects from the UV light on the Visible photo? Here is an experiment using various blue-green IR blockers, including the BG38, for Visible work: LINKIE Singleton UV-Blocker: Baader UV/IR-Cut Blocks both UV and IR light. This filter has sharp left & right shoulders. On a converted body it passes more violet/blue and orange/red than a stock camera. Does the Visible photo show that? How does this filter compare to the singleton BG38? Do we see a difference which could be attributed to UV-suppression? Stacked UV-Blocker: BG38 x 2.0 + LP 400 Blocks both UV and IR light. This is an obvious combo which, surprisingly perhaps, I have not yet tried. In theory, it should provide a sloped-shoulder Visible curve on both sides. How does the resulting Visible photo look in practice? Stacked UV-Blocker: Baader UV/IR-Cut + BG38 x 2.00 Blocks both UV and IR light. This last summer I experimented with adding a BG38 to a Baader UV/IR-Cut to improve Visible color by giving some slope to the sharp right-hand shoulder of the Baader UV/IR-Cut. So this combo is an obvious choice to use again. Test Scenes As in film days, I would think that distant scenes would likely show the UV-haze problem in a Visible photo from a full-spectrum conversion. But to confirm that we probably need to also check medium range and close-up distances. Long distance photo, distant mountain range for which UV-scattering is obviously evident to the naked eye. Medium range photo, generic landscape, some shrubs, some sky. Close-up photo, not macro, just a few feet Gear Panasonic S1R, full-spectrum conversion, or D610 full-spectrum conversion Coastal Optics 60mm f/4.0, to maximize capture of UV light Filters, as above Sunlight Tripod, hat, sunscreen, lip chap stuff, sturdy shoes, notebook, pack llama to carry gear, rescue llama on standby, lots of patience Other Potential Filters for Future Tests I would like to try to get at least another one or two more UV-blocking filters to work with in later additions to this experiment. Here are some which have been suggested. Zeiss T* Tiffen 2A Tiffen 2E B+W 486 First Results I photographed an afternoon scene facing north-northwest. The shrubby hills are about 3-4 miles away. Behind the hills are some mountains. Look to find snow-topped Old Baldy just peeking up behind the hills. In the foreground are some juniper shrubs and dried grasses. The roofs of local homes are visible just above the shrubs. Side Note: I should have made a photo of the scene with a stock camera. I'll do that for the next set. For each filter and stack I photographed the Spectralon rectangle to use for white balance. I also photographed a Color Checker card for eventual color correction profiling. All exposures are: f/16 ISO-100 Conversion I could have easily used one converter, but I have been enjoying playing around with various converters recently. DxO Photo Lab for initial conversion and white balancing. Produce master TIF. Photo Ninja for Details +15 on the TIF. Minor other tweaks not worth mentioning. Luminar for cloning out YADDB (yet another dumb dust bunny) on the TIF. Photo Mechanic for cropping, resizing and creating JPG for upload. VERY IMPORTANT: THERE IS NO Additional COLOR PROFILING beyond the default Panasonic Lumix S1R profile supplied by DxO Photo Lab. One of the follow-up experiments might be to determine whether a color correction profile made from the Color Checker card would make the following 4 results identical or nearly so. But for now I'm just trying to nail down the basic UV/IR-cutting properties. Enough Talking, Let's Look Here are the 4 results. For the best view, close all sidebars and expand your browser as wide as possible to undo the responsive resizing. Try clicking up the photo to its maximum 1200 pixels. Stand back a couple of feet from the monitor and look at the colors. This is not about "likes". This is about color reproduction. This is about possible UV-contamination and its effects. Look for differences and try to explain them. Photo 1 Photo 2 Photo 3 Photo 4 Supporting Data from Raw Histograms The non-white-balanced raw composites are full of green and very boring. So let's just look at the raw histogram. Here's the lograthmic version. Please ignore small differences in exposure. I was trying to pick the best photo to illustrate results. Sometimes one picks the file needing a minor half-stop tweak on the exposure slider over the slightly better exposure which had a bit of blur. One histogram, the first, is quite obviously different from the other three. Histograms 3 and 4 are very similar. Raw Histogram 1 Raw Histogram 2 Raw Histogram 3 Raw Histogram 4

This D610 just splattered oil all over the sensor. Where did that come from?? I've used this camera for years. I'm going forward with the test presentation even though it includes this mess. Sorry 'bout that!! As I get time I will try to clone out the stuff. (Cleaned Up on 01 Dec) GEAR: D610-conversion + Soligor 35mm f/3.5 + Sunlight Added Later This Soligor 35/3.5 has M42 threads but is a T2 version which requires a 55.0 mm flange focal distance. Thus the Soligor is easily usable on a Nikon DSLR with an 8.5 mm adapter/extender. FILTER: Look and see what UV photos you like best. I'll tell you later what filter was used. We don't want any bias confirmation here, ha-ha !! The order in the title is not the order of presentation. Some of you will easily guess which UV-pass filter was used. But the purpose of the test is to evaluate what appeals to you - or not. FOCUS NOTE: Focus was on the ceramic number 53. Stucco/adobe walls are not straight. The gate is not hanging exactly straight. I did try to use the tripod bubble to level the camera. "-) There was a little tripod shift at some point while shooting. I always refocus with each filter change, so no matter. Vignetting: I'm a little bit lazy? I know, I know......I really truly must fix this. Added Later: I "repaired" the vignetting in Visible 1B and in UV 4A. Crops: I took off the bottom 3rd. All those boring rocks. SUNLIGHT NOTE: Added Later My UVA/UVB meter read 3.5 today while shooting. Interesting - because that is a typical measurement I used to get mid-Summer during UV photo sessions in New Jersey at sea level. Here I am at approximately 6800 feet in early winter. Altitude has its benefits it seems. VIEWING Click once to bring up the slideshow, then use the arrows to slide through the photos. After that, you can see the largest version of a photo by clicking it twice to bring it up in its own browser tab. Click a 3rd time to get the 1200 pixel width - assuming your browser is wide enough. Added Later: The slideshow and 3-click enlargement might not work the same way on mobile. VISIBLE 1 VISIBLE 2 See this post below for some info about the Visible photos. Conversion: For each UV-pass filter I created a white balance preset in Photo Ninja from a photo of white Spectralon. Then I made the usual small tweaks to the file using PN's exposure, illumination, highlights, black and shadow sliders. A Plain setting with saturation of 50 was used on the Color Enhancement page. ULTRAVIOLET 2A ULTRAVIOLET 3A A more saturated version of 3A is found in this post below. ULTRAVIOLET 4A ULTRAVIOLET 5A And what would an Andrea B. filter test topic be without some raw composites, eh?? I extracted each raw comp in Raw Digger and then ran it through some tweaks in Photo Ninja so it wouldn't look quite so raw. No edits to the color however. RAW UV 2B RAW UV 3B RAW UV 4B RAW UV 5B See this post below to reveal the names of the UV-pass filters. And just for fun, here is a IR version of the scene. INFRARED 6A I will work on the clean ups, but first I have to go to the grocery store. We are out of ice cream.

Recently went and did some shooting with zwb1 2mm/S8612 2mm stack on the EL Nikkor 80mm, nothing great to share because the sharpness wasn't there. Decided to do a test on a metal thermometer. For this test, I was about 7ft away, 365 torch mounted on top of 77D on tripod. I re- re focused each filter change on EL Nikkor 80. Raw Pics are cropped in to a 5-10% portion of original in Faststone, and resized to approx. 1000px in photoscape with no further editing. White balance was for the Baader, didn't feel it was too important, and/or forgot. Baader U ZWB1/S8612 both 2/49mm threaded, tried changing around filters with same outcome. As you can see, for my particular setup, I will not be using that cheap zwb1 for anything but torch filtration. Is this common with un cemented stacks? Or do you think it's mostly poor glass. It also might be that I sit 1 foot away from a 32in 2560x1440 gaming monitor too Thanks

Some time ago there were a discussion about how to best maintain a healthy surface on some types of sensitive filter glass. One of the suggested potential cures was to coat the filter-surface with some kind of rain repellant product. On the market there are several such products. I bought a bottle of Rain-X for my car. https://www.rainx.co...t/#.XxmmwPj7QxM These products change the surfaces contact properties making it more difficult for water to stick to glass like windshields, making them more hydrophobic. Today I decided to test if such a treatment changed the transmission and set up an experiment. When harvesting filter rings from cheap "UV-filters" I got some rather thin glasdisk leftovers. They transmit UV reasonably well to below 300nm and are suitable for this test. I cleaned one of them and divided the surface, in half, with a visual tape, on both sides. Then I treated one half of the disk on both front- and back-sides according to the application instructions for the product. Both sides of that half got two applications of the product. When measuring I used the untreated surface as a 100% reference to detect any change. I alternated between treated and untreated surface as documented in the top left spectra table. As can be seen there is a slight improvement of the transmission at the 300nm -end. The improvement is measurable, but very small and totally insignificant for normal photography. The change to more hydrophobic behaviour is very obvious. only working for big water droplets. When fogging the surface with my breath I could not see much difference. My conclusion is that it is likely safe to treat filters with this product, but it will might not protect them at all from humid air. The treatment will not harm the UV-transmission. The treatment might make it easier to avoid or remove droplets and dirt when the filter is exposed to rain or harsh environments.

Regarding Hoya 360 stack - I know standard here is S8612 + U-360 (both 2mm thick) - but I wonder what is the minimal thickness for this stack? Like maybe S8612 1.5mm + U-360 1.5mm is enough? Or maybe 1.75mm both? maybe one needs 2mm and another can be 1.5mm? Can somebody let me know what is the recommended minimal? Like say I want IR rejection OD4 - then I need Xmm S8612 and Ymm U-360... how about OD4.5 or maybe OD3.5? Any thoughts? Or 2mm + 2mm is generally agreed minimal stack thickness?

Read that U 360 is good to 350nm. My camera, Igoriginal 35 and El-Nikkors go to 330nm. Should I be considering U 340 instead (with S8612)? Thanks, Doug A

Thought I wanted a Hoya 360U + Schott S8612 stack. Ran across an @Andrea B post from 2016 showing that combo lost a whole stop of light vs the Andrea U mkII. That is as much as the camera conversion gained. The example pictures looked pretty close to the Baader U examples. The mkII would also work with wide angle lenses. But, I don't see many people using this filter. Am I making a mistake. Thanks, Doug A

Howdy all and Happy Thanksgiving to those in US… I am a rookie here and my Olympus Em1mk2 full spectrum conversion is on its way back to me from Kolarvision. The advice here seems to be to use a stack of Hoya U360 2mm + Schott S8612 2mm for UV. Need to verify with you if that’s right - this is for botanicals. Also what do you recommend for cutting out the UV and IR so I can do work in just the visible? I plan to start with the Olympus lenses I have now, but will probably need to go lens searching down the road. Thanks for everyone’s help to a noob.

I pulled out my ZWB3 today for some experiments and noticed that one side was extremely cloudy, the other side was cloudy as well as full of stripes/scratches which looked like someone put the filter in a box with a bunch of nails and other sharp metal objects and shook it violently. Tried cleaning it with water and wiping with toilet paper, no success. I have some 3% hydrogen peroxide. Should I just take a spare lid from a jar and submerge the filter in it for the night? Also when I'm pouring it out, should I use rubber gloves to prevent my skin from coming in contact with the hydrogen peroxide? Edit: After letting it soak and scrubbing it, no visible improvements were achieved. Considering that my hydrogen peroxide was expired, I will get a fresh bottle and try again, if that doesn't work, I will be forced to write the filter off I suppose.

it's a real still life I re-photographed the sunflower two months ago Out of curiosity I looked for the limits of the lens and if there were still signs on the petals. I found some strange signs on the dry leaf and pollen All photos were taken with Sony A7 fs and Nikkor-H f: 2 all closed (f16) ISO from 50> 1600. Elichrome light 125> 1500w PinHole Ø 0.15mm mounted on the same NEX> Nikon Ai adapter + 12mm extension tube. Sony set to ISO 12800 - maximum flash output 2000W Capture One software 12, white balance on opal glass, and matt aluminum wire (which I use for my 70 bonsai) The filter names refer to Chinese filters and some cheap Jena glass ... don't give much thought to standard Schott charts . the Jena BG18 2mm filter reinforces the IR cut of the weak BG39 1mm where do these greens come from ??? similar to the visible a bizarre combination of a UV and a near-IR filter why are only the leaves blue ???

Today I had to break new ground (for me) to get a bit closer to my goal - to reproduce Kodak Aerochrome film authentically. My experiments with Sigma, especially with regard to details like the color change from red to yellow, were disappointing recently. So I grabbed my Nikon and went out. The vegetation is anything but super at the moment. But I was pleasantly surprised. Here is the equipment for the experiment: Nikon D7100 Full spectrum Hoya X1 Green Tiffen 16 Orange (or yellow) Hot Mirror Kolari B+W 830nm filter Polarizer (Neewer) First I tried the two-photo method with one image with visible light only, and one image with IR only. For this I used the Hot Mirror and the B+W filter. This was OK for me. Here is the result. Yes, yellow taillights, red vegetation, but the red car in the background was caramel colored (maybe it's the perspective though). These images were just processed with the color channel method, no additional reworking... Then with only orange filter and polarizer - very disappointing. Again, no reworking, just the channels: Finally I tried what was my greatest hope: the combination of green filter and orange filter (plus polarizer). I am quite happy with it. The red car is bright yellow, the vegetation is already good (for the season). The following are also straight out of the channel mixing, no reworking: Those were reworked minimally via raw converter (red and orange hues both more red/magenta (-40) and vintage preset filter): Probably a good method, because the X1 is known for differentiating vegetation very well, and it does a cutoff in the infrared spectrum...

Hi, I just wonder if it is possible to achive auto white balance in-camera (Nikons are known to cowardly refuse to set white balance from IR/UV/FS photos). I want to be able to do multispectral photo with just one filter - ideally that would include visible & IR + as a bonus, possibly, just a bit of UV. Images without filters are "too red" for Nikons to auto WB, so my idea was to add a filter that will block most red around 650-750 nm to make it able o do auto WB. Hoya blue & green filters seems to be good candidates: - Hoya C4, C8, and especially C12 hav a very suitable transmissions IMHO: https://hoyafilter.com/product/c8_blue_cooling/ (C12 seems to be cutting visible quite a lot but it passes UV which is good, C8 looks best at the first glance, but it may just start cutting red on too long wavelengths, C4 seems least interesting and also cuts UV). - Hoya X0, X1: https://hoyafilter.com/product/x1_green/ (both cut UV :-( but X0 passes a lot of IR and may be just enought to auto WB). The question here is: does anybody used any of those (or Nikon X0, X1 filters) on a Nikon full spectrum body and was able to auto white balance? I always prefer to shoot many photos in JPEG than doing RAWs and then converting them - auto white balance in-camera woudl help a lot with spot-checking if my settings are OK, also could have some fun artictic colors - I always prefer to shoot handheld and close as much as possible to a normal mode. If such X0 or C8 would make it possible, I would order them and use for my full spectrum shots (ideally I just want to keep as much as possible IR and UV and surpss just enough red channel to be able to AWB).

Hi everyone. I´m trying some diferent filter combinations....this one is with hoya x1(green) + B12 3x (blue) + orange. Panasonic Gf3 camera full spectrum First sooc and the second with channels swaped like @Christoph told me. Comments are wellcome

I tried to change the name of the first post "sunset" ... it's not possible Andrea 48 hours seem short to me :) I wanted to add these photos taken with greater accuracy ISO 800 with tripod lateral sun. I used the Sony A7 fs, with my normal Nikkor-H 50 f: 2 lens (aperture 8 or 11) UP (from 1964 without anti-reflective coating) and others with pinhole ø 0.15 mm DOWN it is not a pinhole - laser, but made with abrasion, used for microscopes ( blurred leaves moved by the wind) unfortunately there are reflections, the filters are in front - with BG39 . - BG39 + BG25 (Wet collodion emulation) . - BG39 and torch filter similar to ZWB2 two notes, the leaves are green ... strange WOW ... the UV transmission of the PinHole appears to be similar to the Nikkor-H . - red 25A (~ 580nm) . - red 25A (false color) . - IR Kodak Wratten 87 in jelly 750nm . - pinhole with unknown IR filter . - pinhole without any filter . - Nikkor-H with 2 unknown green filters, together

I would like to share a little test, at sunset, Sony A7 with Pinhole - fullspectrum and my usual Lens Nikkor-H 50 f2 end filters, the last with the ZWB2 taken off the 365nm flashlight. . the white balance was done with Photoshop's Camera Raw by correcting the individual RGB curves by eye . the oak leaves are white with powdery mildew . Thanks Toni . . .