Search the Community

X-T2, 16-80mm @ 80mm. (Had inadvertently switched to "Toy Camera" mode.) These are called "daddy long legs", locally. John

Sounds a little too good to be true? Well it might be, I didn't count the 950nm longpass that I used in the price. But if you don't already own one, a piece that corresponds in size to the other filter can probably be had for next to nothing on eBay. What's the other filter? This. https://www.ebay.com/itm/133238203848 It was extremely cheap so I didn't expect much, I was afraid of striations and such, turns out the biggest downfall of this item is the low OD, which isn't even specified. I asked the seller and they said they contacted the supplier, who said that there is no specific OD value. But believe it or not, it seems to be a legitimate 980nm bandpass, sitting very close to the first absorbtion band of water, even though it leaks other wavelengths including visible. I will now describe my setup. I putty mounted the filter on the back of my Industar 50-2, it fits extremely snuggly in there, so it didn't end up protruding more than the adapted lens would have otherwise, not even on infinity. At the front I mounted a few different filters using a series of step up rings. For illumination, I used incandescent lightsources. Reference: 980nm bandpass only: Here's where you can see faint colors on the soap bottle. The filter leaks visible. Looking through it with the naked eye makes it look like an ND filter. 980nm bandpass + 720nm longpass: 980nm bandpass + 950nm longpass: The water truly did end up being quite dark, not ink-dark but more like really-strong-black-tea-dark. I am planning to buy other 15mm NIR bandpasses to see if I can make trichromes like Bernard did. Hopefully it will work. I have ordered a 850nm bandpass and I will test it once it arrives.

There is nothing more fascinating than go among the mysteries of the old Genoa city with its narrow "caruggi", a maze of dark alleys that open in front of a brilliant light A clear sky, very strong contrast, using a filter that increases the contrast and darkens the sky ... like the old Agfa Orto 25 Asa photographic film All photos were taken with Sony A7 full spectrum with Nikkor 24mm f: 2,8 lens used at f: 8 with Vivitar Red 25A filter - I think 580nm

Hello All, My first picture here. A frog in our pond on what we call “duckweed” locally (Lemnaceae). Taken with a Kolarivision-converted X-T2 (850nm) @80mm, Fujinon 16-80mm. John

Wilhelmson, U. 2021. Verbascum speciosum Schrad. (Scrophulariaceae). Hungarian Mullein. Flowers photographed in visible, ultraviolet light and a combination of both. https://www.ultravio...garian-mullein/ Verbascum speciosum Schrad. NO: Praktkongslys SE: Praktkungsljus DK: Kandelaber-Kongelys DE: Pracht-Königskerze EN: Hungarian Mullein References: https://www.luontopo...t/showy-mullein http://alienplantsbe...ascum-speciosum https://commons.wiki...ascum_speciosum Comment: A plant native to eastern Europe and western Asia, Verbascum speciosum is known in many other regions as an introduced species and roadside weed. It is a biennial herb forming a rosette of large leaves and an erect stem well exceeding one meter in maximum height. The leaves are 30 to 40 centimeters long and have smooth edges and pointed tips. The plant blooms in a large panicle with many branches lined with flowers. Each flower has a corolla measuring 2 to 3 centimeters wide with five yellow petals. There are five stamens coated in long white hairs at the center. The fruit is a capsule up to 7 millimeters in length containing many seeds. The Hungarian Mullein is the most common Mullein species in Sweden with branched inflorescence. It is characterized by the fact that all stamens are symmetrically attached and that the two lower stamens also have hair on the stamens. Source: http://linnaeus.nrm....ba/verbspe.html Plants collected and photographed in the southern parts of Malmö, Sweden, October 2019, just before the first night frost destroyed the last flowers. All the pictures below show flowers from the same individual. Flower at the collection site: Images below by the same camera and light source: Camera: Canon EOS 60D, EL-Nikkor 80mm f/5.6 old metal type-lens Light source: two UV-converted Godox AD200 flashes with uncoated Quartz tubes Front of the flower, overviews Visible light Filter: Schott BG38, 2mm BUG3-stack image Filter: Schott S8612, 2mm + Schott BG3, 2mm BUG5-stack image Filter: Schott S8612, 2mm + Schott UG5, 1.5mm Ultraviolet Image Filter: Schott S8612, 2mm + Schott UG1, 1mm Front, close-up BUG3-stack image, Filter: Schott S8612, 2mm + Schott BG3, 2mm BUG5-stack image Filter: Schott S8612, 2mm + Schott UG3, 1.5mm Ultraviolet Image Filter: Schott S8612, 2mm + Schott UG1, 1mm Rear of the flower BUG3-stack image Filter: Schott S8612, 2mm + Schott BG3, 2mm BUG5-stack image Filter: Schott S8612, 2mm + Schott UG3, 1.5mm Ultraviolet Image Filter: Schott S8612, 2mm + Schott UG1, 1mm [Published 3 July 2021].

Nikon D800 ,AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR ,UG2a f/8.0 iso160, spherical pano

So, for a while, I was thinking of the cheapest, most practical way to start making NIR trichrome images. I could either go about it by buying three LED light sources at different wavelengths, or by buying three different bandpass filters. I have found options for both of those but I'm not sure how practical either of those are. Obviously the bandpass solution would be perfect but those filters are cheap options on eBay, so I don't know whether they'll be A) optically uniform and B) won't leak other wavelengths. The name of the store implies they're made for lasers, so I suppose optical uniformity is a thing they would want to deliver to keep the beam properly collimated? https://www.ebay.com/itm/133205598912?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649 https://www.ebay.com/itm/133202534997?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649 https://www.ebay.com/itm/133202547786?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649 https://www.ebay.com/itm/133238203848?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649 Has anyone tried those? If you can confirm they are reasonably ok, I'm buying them right away, I would putty mount them on my Industar 50-2 which should be alright for the job with it's tiny front element. Another option would be buying different light sources and waiting for the night to take three pictures with different illumination, I have thought of those options. They're quite expensive though, and I also wonder which option would be better for the blue channel, 660nm or 730nm? There are also 1w versions of those bulbs but I suspect 1w is too weak, though I don't own any 1w lights so I don't know. Anyone own anything like that? Can I expect to illuminate larger portions of the room with such a light given that I use long exposures? And how long should I expect them to be? https://www.ebay.com/itm/254155708741?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&var=553505138524&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649 https://www.ebay.com/itm/253563323272?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&var=553154114221&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649 https://www.ebay.com/itm/253563323272?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&var=553154114249&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649 https://www.ebay.com/itm/253563323272?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&var=553154114227&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649 And there's a kind of bonus question I have, what is the ideal budget dual bandpass filter to emulate aerochrome? Ideally from Tangsinuo as their filters are the best price-wise. I have a QB29 which looks nice but not quite like aerochrome.

How do I get this Yellow in IR, preferably with only basic processing Please ? https://www.thisiscolossal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Pierre-Louis-Ferrer-8.jpg

I recently purchased a 15w blue spotlight from eBay, it was extremely cheap and I gotta say it's priceless, very bright, causes a lot of fluorescence to happen. I filter it with a QB39 at the source and on the lens I use an unbranded ebay 650nm longpass. Shot with a full spectrum Canon 1100D.

I took this pic a few weeks ago (Fujifilm xt3, full spectrum, Fujifilm 60mm f2.4, Kolarivision UV pass filter). I set white balance in post off the sky (which was blue in real life). I know this is far from optimal and have since purchased a piece of virgin PTFE. (I also found that asphalt worked as one member suggested). I just wanted to get a little feedback on a couple of things. I had kind of decided that the Kolarivision filter had serious IR leak, but when I look at this pic the foliage and grass is quite dark, not bright as I would expect with IR. On the other hand, you can see the lack of contrast in the center of the image, which in fact IS what I would expect with IR leak because this lens is known to have a diffuse hot spot in IR, which I have been told does not really materialize in UV photography (hot spots are not a common or typical problem in UV, so I hear). The hot spot gets worse and more defined as I stopped down the aperture as would happen with IR (leak). So, I guess my question is...if this has IR leak, why are the foliage and grass dark? This was a full sun day and shot with the sun at my back. Thanks!

My Fish Eye looks like it had a poke in the eye....... Seeing that it is Fish Eye week, I dusted of my 4.5mm Fish Eye. Oh dear how things have changed..... Was a nice lens on my ASP-C crop cameras, but something has changed ? Now on a full frame camera it has terribly diminished in more ways then one. I wonder what has / is causing the deterioration in image quality ? Oh dear, on full frame on the un-converted camera, it has diminished. Un-converted camera, IQ still OK. On the converted camera, full spectrum, still OK. Because of the Fish Eye & now using lens adapters, I made a 720nm IR filter to fit internally inside the lens adapter. Uh oh, the Image Quality just went south very quickly, but why ? I was using a full spectrum flash too.

I'm sure you all know about UVIVF, you shine UV on something, filter it out, and the fluorescence it causes shows, creating weird effects. Well, up until recently, little did I know this can be done with longer wavelengths too. I guess a lot of you already knew about this but for me it's an interesting discovery for sure. Canon EF 50mm f/1.8, converted EOS 1100D, 650nm longpass filter, 15w blue LED spotlight of undisclosed wavelength Please do forgive my filthy table, the fluorescence highlights every scratch.

Well, sort of. I have been dabbling in IR photography for over 10 years now. And the truth is, whether going for standard (720nm), Super Color (590nm), deep b&w (830+nm), or Kodak Aerochrome (Kolari's latest offering), I have rarely been happy with my results. I currently use a Sony A7RII converted to full spectrum. I was just wondering if there exists anywhere in here a stickie for recommended best practices? TIA. Ed

Hi All, My new SDQ arrived yesterday. While I was able to get decent "aerochrome" shots via Kolari's IR Chrome filter in the T&O mode (with AWB), the results I get with ANY other filters across the board are just a red nightmare (470nm, 590nm, O-56). No matter which Mode or WB I try, the results are the same. I have a dumb-adapted Pentax Asahi 50mm f/1.4 M42 lens, which works great with the aforementioned filters on my full spectrum converted Sony A7R II. (UNfortunately this is the only lens I have that I can use with this camera for now.) My workflow is 1) Remove the internal IR filter 2) Place external IR filter on lens 3) CW with foliage or grey (Unfortunately, setting CWB mostly fails for me too.) What I see is a muddy red mess-so muddy, I can't even focus properly-which may explain why my CWB attempts fail. What am I missing??? TIA. Ed Thanks to @Gary for the aero tips here from TO, ONT-still my fav city on the planet!

Trying to get some 'Black Water' with my converted Sigma fp. I wonder if it will see 'Black Water' with a 1200nm ? First with a 950nm filter. Second with a 1000nm filter.

So, slowly ticking off a few indoor-things on my to-do list before the summer season fully kicks in, I've turned my attention to a painting which I've wanted to take photos of for some time. I bought the harbour-painting years ago at a discount when a local art shop went bust; must have been at some point during the 1990's. According to this article, it's a fake: https://www.walesonl...ns-most-2080619 (apparently, the artist only signs on the back of the paintings), so I won't be able to sell it and retire on the proceeds The second painting (the one with the ship-wreck), however, is genuine, as I purchased it directly from the artist The equipment used is as follows: VIS: Canon, EOS 5DSR, Canon EF 24-70mm UV1: Canon EOS 6D, b/w-conversion, internal X330C, external S8612, Steinheil München Cassar-S 50mm UV2: Canon EOS 6D, full spectrum, UV-filter by Optik Macario, Steinheil München Cassar-S 50mm IR: Canon EOS 6D, converted to 700 nm, Canon EF 24-70mm Post was minimal, mainly cropping (which made me realise that I hadn't aligned the sensor fully parallel to the paintings). The shots with the LEDs display some uneven lighting, which is due to my wobbly handling of the torches. That's why I took the control shots with the full frontal FS-flash. I. Harbour (whoever painted this) 1. Visible light, room-lights 2. Visible light, UV-LED (Nemo) 3. IR, room-lights, WB grass 4. IR, 850nm-LED, WB same as 3 5. IR, 940nm-LED, WB same as 3 6. IR, UV-LED (Nemo) 7. UV1, UV-LED (Nemo), light-painting, standing slightly to the left of the camera 8. UV1, FS-Flash (Yongnuo YN560-III), flash held over the camera, pointed directly at the canvas 9. UV2, FS-Flash (Yongnuo YN560-III), flash held over the camera, pointed directly at the canvas, WB in-camera from PFTE 10. same as 9, converted to b/w in Lightroom II. Shipwreck (Romana Rachbauer) 1. Visible light, room-lights 2. Visible light, UV-LED (Nemo) 3. IR, room-lights, WB grass 4. IR, 850nm-LED, WB same as 3 5. IR, 940nm-LED, WB same as 3 6. IR, UV-LED (Nemo) 7. UV1, UV-LED (Nemo), light-painting, standing slightly to the left of the camera 8. UV1, FS-Flash (Yongnuo YN560-III), flash held over the camera, pointed directly at the canvas 9. UV2, FS-Flash (Yongnuo YN560-III), flash held over the camera, pointed directly at the canvas, WB in-camera from PFTE 10. same as 9, converted to b/w in Lightroom

Hi, in this topic I will talk about infrared, but not the normal kind of infrared we are used to. I tried pushing the sensor to its limit, at 1150 nm. Not all people know this, but every photodiode (and a solar panel is a photodiode) can also emit light through electroluminescence. And every LED (Light Emitting Diode) can be used as an inefficient photodiode (and even as a solar panel if you have a lot of them). Of course, a solar panel was never meant to be used like I did, and it is very inefficient at giving off light. Silicon has a bandgap of ~1.12 eV. This means that when an electron crosses the PN junction of a solar panel, it has the potential energy of a photon with a wavelength of about 1100 nm. Occasionally (not wery often in this case) when an electron makes his "energy jump" it releases it as a photon. Experimentally the peak wavelength emitted from a silicon solar panel is around 1150 nm. The sensor of a normal camera is made basically with the same material, and this makes it very insensitive at this wavelength. My camera has probably tens of times more sensitivity at 365 nm than at 1150 nm. Having said this, I did some experiments with a solar panel. For all shots I used a Panasonic DMC-F3. I didn't have any IR longpass filter to use, and that would have helped. All shots were made without any filter and keeping the camera in the same position. Almost all of them have the same settings (f-stop: f/2.8, ISO 80, 60 s exposure), but for simplicity I kept them in the descriptions. Luckily my camera has a "starry sky" mode that allows me to take photos with exposures up to 60 seconds, but at ISO 80 and without white balance (I don't know why but this is it). To give an idea of what 60 seconds can do, I took this images of the sky: f-stop: f/2.8, ISO 80, 60 s exposure f-stop: f/2.8, ISO 80, 60 s exposure This is a solar panel, lit up with (I think) 0.5 A of current. f-stop: f/2.8, ISO 80, 60 s exposure You can see that it is damaged, and I can not see anything with the naked eye. This technique is used to inspect solar panels and find defects. The camera didn't focus well, and I can not do it manually. And now the main experiment I did. We know that water has some absorption peaks in the infrared (970 nm, 1200 nm, 1450 nm, 1950 nm, around 2900 nm and around 6100 nm). The longer the wavelength, the stronger they are. The electromagnetic absorption spectrum by water is something worth a topic per se, as it is a very, very big topic that would require pages of discussion and research. Andy did a series about photographing water in the first main absorption peak (970-980 nm), showing that it starts appearing darker than normal even in a thickness of a few centimeters, and Cadmium tried a Schott RG1000 + S8612 stack, which resulted again in dark water. With a solar panel I should see the beginning of the 1200 nm peak, as water becomes quite transparent again in the 1000-1100 nm region. This is my simple setup. I have the solar panel as the illumination source, a paper sheet that acts like a diffuser, the water container and the camera. The thickness of the water in the direction light rays had to travel was about 7.5 cm. The other things in the background are some of my LEDs on their heatsinks. I chose this (dusty, I know) closet because I needed complete stray light shielding, as even the display on the power supply could have spoiled the image. I took 23 photos, 60 s exposure each, and stacked them in one image. I ran the solar panel at 1 A (current-limited), and since it required between 8.3 and 8 V to do so (the voltage drop goes down as it heats up) it dissipated 8+ watts of power, almost completely as heat. Since the camera required 2 exposures to make one photo (the actual one and probably a dark frame), I could turn off the power supply to allow the solar panel (wich reached temperatures above 50 °C and probably even above 60°C) to cool down a bit. I ran it basically with a 50% duty cicle. The final image I got was equivalent to a 23 minutes exposure. f-stop: f/2.8, ISO 80, 1380 s equivalent exposure This is how low the sensitivity is on this region of the spectrum. I have probably the same sensitivity in UVB. The light from the camera LCD (that displayed basically a black image) was enough to contaminate the image. this is a single exposure without the paper sheet. I like the warped look that came out f-stop: f/2.8, ISO 80, 60 s exposure And this one with the solar panel only f-stop: f/2.8, ISO 80, 60 s exposure This is a visible reference, taken with a white LED flashlight f-stop: f/2.8, ISO 1600, 1/250 s exposure And this is an edited version of the final image. I increased the brightness and the contrast by 150% (first by 100% and then by another 50%), and I made it B&W by lowering the saturation to -100. I don't need to say that water here appears noticeably darker than usual. Not as much as in SWIR at 1450 nm, where it is pitch black, but darker than under 940 nm LED light.

Five Different Yellow Filters Stacked With A DB850 Filter, on a full spectrum Sigma fp camera. I had the Canon 40mm pancake lens on the camera. Did I say they go together like a hand in a glove. I also measured the transmittance of the five yellow long pass filters, & I have posted the photos in order of shortest to longest cut on, which was between 475nm to 570nm. The DB850 remained on the lens & each yellow filter was CWB on the camera with a grey card, before each photo was taken as a DNG Raw file. Each DNG raw file was opened in IrfanView which automatically converted the photo to a .jpg file. The photo was only channel swapped from an RGB to GBR. No further processing was done except to reduce the file size to 1000pixels wide. Here are the five examples, in the order of the yellow filters cut-on wave length at 1/2 width. PS, I have ordered a Tiffen #12 filter. 1/ Generic yellow @ 475nm, with a DB850 filters. 2/ Hoya K2 @ 475nm, with a DB850 filters. 3/ Unknown XO @ 490nm, with a DB850 filters. 4/ Schott OG 550 @ 525nm, with a DB850 filters. 5/ B&W 099 @ 570nm, with a DB850 filters.

A local Bottle tree with the full spectrum converted Sigma fp with filters DB850 + Schott OG550. I tested 5 the 'yellow' filters that I have today, & I will post them later. All the individual setups were individually WB with a grey card & only processed to JPG in IrfanView then Channel Swapped to GBR & cropped.

A couple shots with the DB850/Y#12 stack, on my a7R w/ Nikkor 50mm/f1.8 Ai lens. The vignetting is intentional in the first; The second used to be a major railway route, now just a muddy field.

Hello from Moscow! I am a photographer with a long history of museum work. I'm also interested in scientific photography, especially macro photography. In recent years, I have also been restoring historical photographs including the earliest ones such as daguerreotypes and talbotypes. Now we are dealing with the problem of visualizations of photographic images on damaged photos. Interesting results were obtained when using transmitted IR for photographic negatives with different spots and now we want to continue these experiments in the UV spectrum. I hope that my experience in such work and the knowledge of the members of this forum will be mutually useful. Good luck to everyone!

I just received 2 of theses camera I am about to test awaiting adopters to mount a a F mount lens and able to mount to telescope too. I have costal 105mm uv lenses a uka UV 25mm cmount lens and a keyoei and clones and also microscope objectives and so on.... they are going to be fun to play with full monochrome full frame cameras..... Apogee Alta U9000X link to camera specs: http://www.telescope.../pdf/U9000X.pdf c&p The Alta U9000X uses a very large format 9-megapixel full frame sensor with anti-blooming gates, ideal for applications requiring large field of view, such as astrophotography, sky surveys, and radiology. The X version has a 16-bit digitization rate of 1.8 megapixels/second, compared to the 1 MHz for the U9000. • 3056 x 3056 array, 12 x12 micron pixels • 5 MHz 12-bit and 1.8 MHz 16-bit digitization • 32Mbyte camera memory • USB 2.0 interface: no plug in cards or external controllers • Programmable, intelligent cooling to 40°C below ambient • Binning up to 8 Horizontal x 3056 Vertical • Subarray readout and fast sequencing modes • Precision time delayed integration (TDI) and kinetics mode readout • Programmable fan speed for low / zero vibration • Two serial port outputs for control of peripheral devices • General purpose programmable I/O port • External triggering and strobe controls • ActiveX drivers included with every system • Field upgradeable firmware • Fused silica windows • Runs from single 12V supply with input voltage monitor • Compact enclosure • Programmable status indicators CCDSPECIFICATIONS • Astronomy • Radiology • Optical testing • Non-destructive testing HighPerformanceCooledCCDCameraSystem ALTA U9000Xblob:https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/be38c4f3-bb0f-4723-ab1a-9b4477bf188d Imaging Area of CCDblob:https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/55730472-6855-43c1-b57d-0ea464509927 blob:https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/4677f478-a692-4a96-8e6f-41aba68d54f1 blob:https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/30a1ea90-ade4-4225-a1b8-48c4c4ebff81 blob:https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/f6ac8431-f1f9-4c1c-9c69-f24ea3ad8dea CCD Array Size (pixels) Pixel Size Imaging Area Imaging Diagonal Video Imager Size Linear Full Well (typical) Dynamic Range QE at 400 nm Peak QE (550 nm) Anti-blooming Kodak KAF-09000 3056 x 3056 12 x 12 microns 36.7 x 36.7 mm (1345 mm2) 51.9 mm 3.24” 110K electrons 84 dB 37% 64% For complete CCD specifications, including cosmetic grading, see data sheet from manufacturer. PC Interface Max. Cable Length Digital Resolution System Noise (typical) Pixel Binning Exposure Time Image Sequencing Frame Sizes Cooling (typical) Dark Current (typical) Temperature Stability Camera Head Size Mounting Back Focal Distance Operating Environment Cable Length Power Shutter Remote Triggering USB 2.0 5 meters between hubs; 5 hubs maximum (max. total of 30m) 16 bits at 1.8 MHz and 12 bits at 5 MHz 10 e- RMS at 1.8 MHz and 2 counts at 5 MHz 1x1 to 8x3058 on-chip 30 milliseconds to 183 minutes (2.56 microsecond increments) 1 to 65535 image sequences under software control Full frame, subframe, focus mode Thermoelectric cooler with forced air. Maximum cooling 40°C below ambient temperature 0.3 e-/pixel/sec (-20°C) ± 0.1°C D7. Aluminum, hard blue anodized. 7” x 7” x 2.55” (17.8 x 17.8 x 6.48 cm) Weight: 4.2 lb. (1.9 kg) 5,125” bolt circle. Optional Nikon F-mount or Canon FD mount. 1.008” (25.60 mm) [optical] -22° to 27°C. Relative humidity: 10 to 90% non-condensing. Standard: 15 ft (4.5m) 40W maximum power with shutter open and cooling maximum. AC/DC “brick” supply with int’l AC input plug (100-240V, 50-60 Hz). Alternate 12V input from user’s source. Melles Griot 63mm. LVTTL input allows exposure to start within 25 microseconds of rising edge of trigger

I took advantage of the long winter nights to do some fluorescence photography. Here are some results of UV- and Visible-Induced IR fluorescence, done in tri-colour. I’ve also included standard visible and a few UVIVF images for comparison. (There are some more tri-colour IR Fluorescence images, using rock samples at https://www.ultravio...__fromsearch__1 ) The Tricolour channel assignments are: Red Channel: 1000nm Green Channel: 850nm Blue Channel: 750nm Light Sources: UV: Nemo Torch Visible: Lumitact LED torch. Narrower-band Excitation My available UV light sources and filters did not allow for excitation using a narrower band of the UV spectrum, but this was possible using visible light. This set of images includes Visible-Induced IR Fluorescence excited by white, blue (470nm), green (520nm), and red (635nm). Apart from colour cast, there is not a lot of difference, and so all later Visible-induced IR Flourescence images use just white excitation. The blue and red colour casts on the blue- and red-excited images cannot be due to any form of blue or red visible light leak: blue and red in the image is caused by transmission through 750nm and 1000nm bandpass filters and there is no reason why blue light would leak only through the 750nm filter and red light would leak only through the 1000nm filter. Orchid: Visible..........................................................................UV-Induced Visible Fluorescence UV-Induced IR Fluorescence Visible (White)-induced IR Fluorecence......................Visible (Blue)-induced IR Fluorescence Visible (Green)-induced IR Fluorecence.....................Visible (Red)-induced IR Fluorescence White Balancing How do you white balance images like this? I started off with using WB based on a white section of a rock, but this often just gave visually uninteresting so I started WBing against elements of the image. This example shows the differences this can produce. Lily Visible....................................................................................................................UV-Induced Visible Fluorescence Visible-Induced IR Fluorescence: Rock WB method:..................................................................................................WB against dark area at top-left: WB against leaf: UV-Induced IR Fluorescence: WB against leaf: Forsythia: Visible: UV-Induced IR Fluorescence:................................................................................Visible-Induced IR Fluorescence: Flaming Katy: Visible:..................................................................................................................UV-Induced Visible Fluorescence: UV-Induced IR Fluorescence:...............................................................................Visible-Induced IR Fluorescence: For both of these images, saturation has been increased and WB was against the leaf. Winter Aconite: Visible: UV-Induced IR Fluorescence:...............................................................................Visible-Induced IR Fluorescence: Chrysanthemum: Visible: UV-Induced IR Fluorescence:.................................................................................Visible-Induced IR Fluorescence: Visible:...................................................................................................................UV-Induced IR Fluorescence: Jasmine: Visible: UV-Induced IR Fluorescence:................................................................................Visible-Induced IR Fluorescence: WB was against the stamen tip. Snowdrop: UV-induced Visual Fluorescence:.........................................................................Visible-Induced IR Fluorescence: These imges were WBed on the light part of the petals. Daffodil: Visible:..................................................................................................................UV-Induced Visible Fluorescence: UV-Induced IR Fluorescence:...............................................................................Visible-Induced IR Fluorescence: WB was against the stigma tip Tulip: Visible :...............................................................................................................UV-Induced Visible Fluorescence: UV-Induced IR Fluorescence:.............................................................................Visible-Induced IR Fluorescence: These last two images were WBed on the stigma. And now something completely different – Sugar Cubes: Visible:..............................................................................................................UV-Induced Visible Fluorescence: UV-Induced IR Fluorescence:...........................................................................Visible-Induced IR Fluorescence:

Some shots from the Michigan Central RR bridge, now converted into an Elevated Park. Not much color this time of year, but I thought I'd try some CIR shots with the sdQH+KG3. Some rusty relics along the trail.

With the increase of more sensitive sensors, the question of taking photos of living insects has slowly wormed its way into my mind, and triggered by Stefano's thread (https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/4435-some-bees-on-dandelions/ ), I'd like to ask the question of how to take UV-photos of bungs, flies, bees, etc., and not hurt them. This, of course, under the assumption of using some sort of light source in addition to the sun. In my case, I'm thinking of the Yongnuo YN560-III flashgun with the protective cover removed, turning it into a full-spectrum light-source. I don't know exactly how full its spectrum is, but there's plenty of UV in it. In order to keep ISO not too high, I had to usually use it at half-power or higher when taking photos of plants. I remember reading about this in an older topic somewhere here (can't find it now), with the suggestion of using flash once on an insect ought to be ok. On other sites I've read that using a flash directly on the eyes of a butterfly might easily blind it (that was about VIS-flash, but full spectrum will be even worse, I guess). I wouldn't want to blind an insect just to get a photo of it. So, how are the other members here handling this? Is there some reliable data of how much light (in candela or any other unit) is acceptable?