Search the Community

(ok, a LOT of night photography) As previously related on this forum, after many travails, I received my full spectrum conversion of the Sony A7S. At the same time, I bought a Sony ZEISS Sonnar T 55mm f/1.8 ZA FE lens, which was the sharpest fastest lens I could afford, with the intention of doing night photos full spectrum on my walks. The last week I have been wandering around in the wee hours trying it out, with the results below. I have to say, it's amazing to be able to walk around just taking photos hand-held, with no need for a tripod, in full night. It took me quite a bit of experimenting to determine good exposure settings. I found that if I pump the ISO up too high, often I get a blue "amplifier glow" around the bottom left edge of the photo. I'm still trying to figure out the best way of eliminating it. Also, despite the alleged "ISO-less" behavior of the Sony, I found it did make a real difference if I used ISO 52000 versus ISO 10000 even though several reviews allege these to be in the range where it shouldn't matter because the camera is just digitally moving the histogram around instead of actually changing the gain of the amp. Myth busted? The S-Log2 picture profile is handy for framing shots in the dark. It basically just applies an S-shaped gamma curve to the image, which does not affect the RAW. This flattens the contrast in the image, so dark areas are raised up and become easier to see, and highlights are reduced. It's not good for determining exposure in the dark, however! Several times I destroyed a nice photo by forgetting I was in S-log2 mode and underexposing. After a while I got used to the rhythm of switching back and forth. I think this feature might also be handy in UV photos with dark flowers and such. I have to say, having previously seen Andrea and Birna complaining about the Sony user interface, but having the exact opposite experience with my NEX-7 (which has a very efficient button and command layout), I was wondering what the objections were about. Well, sadly I am no longer wondering. Sony managed to utterly ruin what was once a reasonably efficient interface with poorly located, badly labeled buttons and important functions deeply buried in menus inside of menus. After trying to use this disaster for 15 minutes, I got out the manual and started reprogramming buttons. At least you CAN reprogram them! Anyway, on with the photos. Nearly all of them are at F/1.8 for obvious reasons, including why buy such a nice lens if you aren't going to use it opened up? The ISO varies quite a bit in these because I found night in a city is not strictly dark, it's more like you go from very bright areas to very dark ones rapidly. The shutter speed was between 1/20 and 1/30 sec with a couple of exceptions. Saturation was pushed up in all of them (because I enjoy saturated images). Noise removal was with Neat Image plugin in photoshop. White balance was also chosen for artistic merit and a blue night sky, not by any rational procedure. F/7.1 1/30" ISO400 - handheld F/1.8 1/20" ISO10000 - handheld F/1.8 1/30" ISO51200 - handheld F/1.8 1/30" ISO12800 - handheld F/1.8 1/20" ISO51200 - handheld, path mostly invisible to my eyes except in bright area F/1.8 1/20" ISO12800 - handheld F/1.8 1/20" ISO8000 - - handheld. This was the second night of shooting. I became a lot more conservative about upping the ISO unnecessarily. F/4 0.3" ISO3200 - camera was sitting on the stone cemetery wall. F/4 0.8" ISO3200 - camera was sitting on the stone cemetery wall. F/4 0.8" ISO2500 - camera was sitting on the stone cemetery wall. F/4 1/6" ISO10000 - handheld but stabilized using a convenient traffic light. F/1.8 1/20" ISO6400 - handheld F/1.8 1/20" ISO12800 - handheld F/1.8 1/20" ISO12800 - handheld F/1.8 1/20" ISO1600 - handheld F/1.8 1/20" ISO8000 - handheld

The Meyer Trioplan 2.8/100 is expensive because it makes pretty bubble bokeh, but is far too expensive for me. I took the much cheaper Pentacon 2.8/150 medium-format slide projector triplet lens (a rebranding of the Meyer Diaplan 2.8/150) and mounted it to a helicoid mounted to a tilt-shift adapter on my full-spectrum modified 5Dmk2. Due to the large medium-format image circle it tolerates tilt-shift well. Brief tests showed it approx -2/3EV vs the Steinheil Cassar 2.8/50 in ultraviolet. I was getting 1/100th to 1/160th earlier in the day (at ISO3200). Pentacon 2.8/150 + 62.5mm->M65 adapter + M65 chinese heliciod + M65->Pentacon Six adapter + Tilt-shift adapter [Pentacon Six->EF] + Full-spectrum Canon 5D mark II Since the lens has an extremely similar optical design to the Trioplan, it produces the classic meyer bubble bokeh and triplet highlight glow. Of course, because it's 2.8/150 rather than 2.8/100, the bubble-bokeh is much larger. Although the photos appear to be soft, the lens actually retains detail remarkably well on close inspection, even on full-tilt. I've never heard of someone mounting a Pentacon/Meyer 2.8/150 to a tilt-shift adapter before - maybe this a noteworthy discovery. Tests with minimal adjustments: Ultraviolet [77mm BG-39 + UG-11]. Slow shutter speed here - it was evening so I didn't have much UV to work with, especially under the trees. 1/15th at ISO3200. Wild cockatoo that tolerated me after some patience. Full-spectrum. Bubbles and triplet highlight glow. Highlighting the tilt-shift a little more (full-spectrum): These were just super-quick tests. Hopefully once I get some time I'll take some proper photos to post. Yes, there is dust on my sensor. Edit: Bonus bubbles - full spectrum at night (also bonus sensor dust)

All filters are 2mm

Here at 52°47'1" N 4°43'50" E in 1997 they built a wooden bridge as a representation of a dome farmhouse (I call it the Pointed hat bridge :) ) across the Grote Sloot (Big Ditch?). Today (2018.07.23) I went there with my DIY modified Sony A580, ENNA München Lithagon 28mm (@ f/11) and some filters. VIS image Baader UV/IR cut filter, ISO 100, 1/125 s, 1/160 s UV image, Baader U filter, ISO 100, 2.5 s IR image, 850 nm filter, ISO 100, 1/20s, 1/15 s IR colour film simulation as desdribed in Digital Ultraviolet and Infrared Photography by Adrian Davies on pages 107 - 109. Remarkable here is the pattern of the shadows: cyan - black - red (the movement of earth in 3 minutes of time?).

1958 Soviet Mir-1 2.8/37 with reversed front glass element in infrared+visible on a full-spectrum 5D mark II I'm pretty sure the MIR-1 is 1958 since it's a 00-prefixed serial number in cyrillic, but perhaps someone more knowledgeable can correct

Hi All, I am a fungal ecologist in Sweden and have recently been analysing the colour variation in some of the fungi fruit bodies. This got me to wondering about UV reflectance in fungi and whether it would be worth following up as an avenue of research. For instance, do fungi which we think are likely dispersed by insects, but are quite inconspicuous in colour/smell have some sort of UV pattern that insects can see (similar to some flowers)? I know from other photos on this forum that fungi do light up quite spectacularly with UVIVF photography, but I am interested in just the UV reflectance for the purposes of my research. Before I either spend my own money or get research funds to buy the equipment to measure properly though, it would be fantastic if I could get some idea of whether there is likely to be any sort of UV reflectance from fungi. This is especially the case if I am going to make the argument to get research funds to buy equipment. So I was wondering if anyone here might have some UV reflectance photos of fungi that I could just have a look at? I wouldn't need to use these for research itself, just to give me an idea of what is possible. Thanks, Sam

This is the most common flower in Singapore, however I didn't expect such result with fluoresence. Shot on a A7S with Rollei 40/3.5 Triotar lens adapted. VIS: ISO400 30s f11 Regular LED torch, diffused, light painted, Camera with its original hot mirror and AA filter UV: ISO100 10s f11 3W UV LEDs, twelve 365nm and eight 395nm, in circular arrangement, Camera with AndreaU MKII filter UVIVF: ISO1600 2min20s f11 Ultrafire UV torch with AndreaU, light painted Camera with its original hot mirror and AA filter IR: ISO200 20s f16 Another house LED that happen to emit IR, light painted Camera with a 720nm IR filter UVIIF: ISO400 1min51s f16 Using an array of UV LEDs 96W in total, in circular arrangement Camera with a 720nm IR filter

On a cold day in March we went up to the Wadden Sea at the location of Wierum for some photo fun. I took my Sony A500 broadband with ENNA München Lithagon 28mm and some filters with me. VIS: f/11; 1/500 s; ISO 200; Baader UV/IR cut stacked with HAMA UV390 UV: f/11; 2 s; ISO 200; Baader U IR: f/11; 1/60 s; ISO 200; 760 nm long pass 'Bee vision', [David Prutchi, Exploring Ultraviolet Photography, p.100], 'Tretrachromatic', [David Prutchi, Exploring Ultraviolet Photography, p.102, fig. 75B], used the L-channel from the UV image and multiplied it with the RGB image: 'Multispectral', [David Prutchi, Exploring Ultraviolet Photography, p.88], split the RGB image in R, G and B channels; put the UV-image onto the B-channel and aligned the UV to the B; put the IR-image onto the R-channel and aligned the IR to the R. Then used WavelengthPro to create the image:

My first time trying to make UV florescence pictures, please suggest how I can improve. Camera: Sony A7S Lens:Steinheil Triotar 40/3.5 from Rollei35LED I used f11 throughout, however the aperture does not click into place, so it is a rough f11. VIS: Internal UV-IR cut filter in front of the lens with House LED light ISO100 f11 3.2s UVIVF: Internal UV-IR cut filter in front of the lens I used a UV torch(Ultrafire WF-501B, said to be 375nm) with a 2mm ZWB2 filter(no IR/VIS leak when stacked with BG39). ISO1600 f11 30s UV: AndreaU MKII I used a combination of UV LEDs, eight 365-370 and eight 395-400, together they produce some false color but not as rich as flash or sunlight. ISO100 f11 10s UV+UVIVF: Same UV torch light as in the UVIVF shot, no filter in front the camera, just to show how much the reflected UV overpowers UVIVF IR(720): "Fourth eye" China made 720nm filter with the house LED light ISO500 f11 8s UVIIF: Same IR filter as above, no additional UV cut filter, this filter does everything for me. Using 32 UV LEDs I connected together, 3W each totalling 96W, 5 different types of wavelength, ranging from 365 to 400nm, light is not filtered also ISO1000 f11 30s

In the end of May last summer I found some Pasque flowers, still in bloom. Here in southern Sweden they are blooming quite early and I wasn't I wasn't sure I'd find any. The Swedish name of this flower is Backsippa, Here it is a rather rare, protected plant. My filter collection at the time was rather small, resulting in only four different image versions. I tried and failed using a PTFE-target for white balance. The target in the images was overexposed. White balance to taste, by clicking around in the images until a reasonable balance was found. All images reduced to 22% from the original raw-files. The big images has a lot more details. Camera: Canon EOS 60D, ISO100 . Lens: EL-NIKKOR 1:3.5 80mm Nippon Kogaku Japan, the first version of the old metal-type lens. VIS. Filter: S8612, 2mm. Exposure: 1/50s, f1/22: UV + B. Filter: S8612, 2mm + BG3, 2mm. Exposure: 0.4s, f1/22: UV + BG. Filter: S8612 + UG5, 1.5mm. Exposure: 0.8s, f1/22: UV. Filter: Baader U. Exposure: 4s, f1/22: In the second image the golden hues at twi the petals at the bottom is not due to saturation. The raw files was not saturated in any channel. Could it be conical cells? I have no idea what such cells are. Please explain. I want to learn.

Same model, same dress. I used my full-spectrum 5D mark II, white-balanced with virgin Feflon. Samyang 85mm f/1.2. Visible light - BG-40 Full spectrum - no filter Infrared & Blue - Tiffen 47 Infrared - R72

2014 paper in Conservation Biology: Ultraviolet Vision and Avoidance of Power Lines in Birds and Mammals https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260757022_Ultraviolet_Vision_and_Avoidance_of_Power_Lines_in_Birds_and_Mammals There is a link on this page supposedly to download a reprint, but it links to another paper on UV vision in mammals instead. If someone is interested, it may be useful to tell the author on ResearchGate.

Blum, A.G. 2013. Trifolium arvense L. (Fabaceae). Rabbit-foot Clover. Flowers photographed in ultraviolet, infrared and visible light. Composite multispectral stacks also presented. http://www.ultraviol...ts-foot-clover/ Updated: 10 Jan 2018. Set 2 is in next post. Comment: The soft pink Rabbit's Feet flowers give some roadsides a delightfully furry look when at peak bloom on Mount Desert Island. This species is non-native to the US. Like others in the Trifolium genus, the T. arvense flower is UV-absorbing. Reference: 1. Mittelhauser et al. (2010) Rabbit-foot Clover, page 190. The Plants of Acadia National Park. The U. of Maine Press, Orono, ME. 2. Newcomb, L. (1977) Rabbit-foot Clover, page 60. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Little, Brown & Co., New York City, NY.
 Set 1 Southwest Harbor, Maine, USA 20 July 2012 Wildflower Equipment [Nikon D300-broadband + Carl Zeiss 60mm f/4.0 UV-Planar] Visible Light [f/11 for 1/6" @ ISO 200 with onboard Flash and Baader UVIR-Block Filter] Ultraviolet Light [f/11 for 8" @ ISO 200 in Sunlight with Baader UV-Pass Filter] Infrared Light [f/11 for 1/4" @ ISO 200 with onboard Flash and B+W 092 IR-Pass Filter]

It's been a while since I made an attempt at taking photos for aesthetic rather than purely experimental purposes. I'll try to post more from this shoot at some point if possible! I used a QV-1 LCD viewfinder to manually focus at 1.2 The dress is black + white flowers in visible light, and the leaves were green, as would be expected for an Australian summer. I didn't get as much purple in her hair as I expected, but it was still there subtly in some shots. I imagine the UV contribution to the photo is absolutely minimal due to the 85/1.2's optics/coatings. Unfiltered/full-spectrum portrait (Infrared+Visible) - Darling Harbour, Sydney, Australia F/1.2, ISO100, 85mm, 1/5000 Samyang 85mm f/1.2 Shot with a Full-Spectrum-Converted Canon 5Dmk2

A Korean charcoal BBQ in Visible + Infrared (no UV in the scene). The coals are throwing off a ton of infrared, which is rendered as magenta in the visible light-calibrated white balance. Due to the "near infrared window" of biological tissue, the infrared light is able to pass right through the steaks, allowing the grill to cast a shadow through the meat. 50mm, f/1.4, 1/800th, ISO6400 (oops) Full spectrum-converted Canon 5Dmk2 + Canon 50mm f/1.4, no additional filters I usually wouldn't use a 50/1.4 for IR work due to it's poor performance, but it seems to work fine in visible light-dominated scenes.

Hello everyone, Thank you for welcoming me as a member of the ultraviolet photography forums. I enjoy and use many types of photography, from film to digital, in my personal and academic pursuits; although I am far from mastering the craft of picture making, and I am content to remain an eternal student of this world. I have recently returned to college to continue my degree in anthropology, and I plan to incorporate multispectral imaging into my graduate work in archaeological studies. Lately, my son and I have also taken up an interest in UV imaging of various insects, arachnids, and other local wildlife. My greatest joy in life comes from being a father, which lead me to start teaching after school science programs at his elementary school. I have been honored by this opportunity to help out our younger generations for over five years now. Last year, my 4th through 6th grade students spent afternoons throughout the school year building and testing a high altitude research balloon that included instrumentation for collecting atmospheric data and that used three separate cameras. I taught my students how to modify one of the cameras to image the Earth’s surface in infrared, and they handled the task wonderfully. Our research balloon collected some very valuable data and video on its journey to over 18.8 miles above the surface of the Earth. It was an amazing accomplishment by our students, and it will always be one of the most rewarding experiences of my life as well. Here is a link to some of the footage captured by our school's research balloon. The last few minutes of the video shows the infrared video captured by the camera that our students modified, and it is certainly one of my favorite parts of the project. I look forward to learning a lot from the members on this forum, and I hope to also be of some assistance to other members as well. I currently experiment with and modify my own cameras and lenses, but I love reading about the exploits of others most of all. Warmest regards, D. Lafon

I'm working on beginning efforts towards capturing UV level wavelength videos that are in the higher energy area of output (e.g., filming everything from high energy electrical equipment to environmental events, etc.). Does anyone have any suggestions on equipment on the lower end of the cost spectrum (if it exists)? I found the following equipment on Amazon and found it quite intriguing as it is a step up from a previous modded model that they were offering: http://a.co/e8D3FSL I'm not terribly interested in the IR functionality, although that could be nice. In my email exchanges with Cliff, who I suppose is the proprietor making these modifications, he notes the following to my inquiry regarding UV capture on the PREVIOUS model of their camera that I can no longer find (and seemed to be lower end): Our digital sensors pickup light down to 250nm (NOTE: I would like something even more sensitive if possible). This should give you the type of results you are looking for - but you’ll need to get some sort of filter to only allow light below 400nm to pass through to the camera. You’ll want to look for a UV Pass filter that is 37mm. I then sent him some information about a lens filter I found: MaxMax.com sells a lens filter called the XNite. Their XNite330 ($96) handles the UV spectrum area nicely from about 250 to 400, but their XNiteUVR ($89) is even more interesting as it allows both UV and IR in, subsequently blocking the visible light range quite well: I also noted to him (from http://www.maxmax.co...r_solutions.htm): LDP is the only company in the world capable of removing the Color Filter Array (CFA) from the surface of a color camera sensor. The CFA blocks most of the UV light, so unless, you can remove the CFA, the camera will see very little UV. Every other company that sells a UV capable camera that has been converted from a normal color version will have very poor UV sensitivity because they do not know how to remove the CFA. When Fuji sold the Fuji S3 Pro UV/IR and IS Pro cameras, they originally marketed them as seeing to 280nnm because they were using Schott WG280 glass to replace the stock ICF/AA. In fact, Fuji contacted us about performing these modifications for them before deciding to do the modification in house. Their cameras were direct copies of our UV-VIS-IR conversions for the S3 Pro and the Fuji S9000 / S9100. Eventually, someone pointed out that just because they were using 280nm glass in front of their sensor that it didn't mean the sensor could actually see to 280nm. Unfortunately, Fuji Japan wouldn't provide Fuji USA with the spectral transmission curves, so Fuji USA couldn't really say what the UV response of the camera was. They changed their marketing to reflect that the cameras were UV capable without ever specifying exactly what the cameras could see in the UV.. Fuji has since withdrawn these cameras from the market. Because their cameras still had the CFA on the sensor, the cameras actually had very poor UV sensitivity. In addition to LDP being able to remove the CFA from camera sensors, we also have the ability to measure the spectral response of cameras. None of the big camera manufacturers such as Canon, Nikon and Sony release the spectral response curves for the consumer cameras. If you are in the market for a UV sensitive camera, it is important to know just what sort of sensitivity the camera has! Another solution to produce a UV camera is the method used by Oculus Photonic's UVCorder and UVScanner. They team a UV sensitive video camera to a camcorder or viewing device. The UV video part of the setup is a Sony XC-EU50 UV video camera which is a real UV capable camera, but, the XC-EU50 is a 0.38 megapixel camera (less than 1 megapixel) that can only take standard definition video (not HD). In contrast, our UV capable monochrome cameras can take an 18 megapixel image and shoot HD 1080P video. The LDP monochrome UV camera has over 47x the resolution on the Sony XC-EU50 for a still image. In addition, our 18 megapixel T2i UV monochrome camera that can shoot both video and stills retails for less than half the cost of the UVCorder solution. But, to the Oculus Photonics credit, at least their product can take a real UV picture without very long exposure times unlike almost everyone else marketing a UV capable camera that has been converted from a stock color camera. [*]He then came back with the following (on the older model): I am confident that our sensors can see to 280. However - after watching the videos you provided (I provided him some examples of UV videography such as the 1996 NASA tether incident) - I just don’t think our cameras will work for you. I would hate for you to but a $100 filter - and the camera not do what you wanted. We would gladly take the camera back - but I just don’t think the filter company would allow you to return the filter if it wasn’t what you were looking for. After this he didn't really seem to have anything else to share or didn't respond to further inquiries. I obviously have reservations since I want to acquire a camera with sensors (and glass / lenses) that are capable of going as far as possible into the unseen spectrum. I guess ultimately I would like to understand my options better. I would prefer to have a little more outset in investment initially if I can be certain of the results I'll get. My goal is to composite the output from the invisible spectrum into a digital composition that includes the visible spectrum via some custom software (I am a software engineer).

The excavator changes the landscape. :-/ A couple typical multispectral composites. D7000-UV/IR, Kuribayashi 35mm, BG38 (visual), Moon U (UV), RG780 (IR). Late afternoon sun. Original Visual, UV, and IR shots (notice the missing "Hertz" emblem left of "DEERE" in the UV shot): Green + Red + IR (in B/G/R channels) UV + Green + IR (in B/G/R channels)

Full spectrum Sony A500 + Tessar 2.8/50mm @ f/5.6; WB 2550K; ISO 200. Lightroom processing: X-rite color checker passport calibration for the Tessar; IR camera profile; WB correction; other corrections. PSE 14: NIK processing: Dfine, RAW presharpener VIS: 2 daylight bulbs, no filters, 1/100 s. UV: 2 black lights, 3mm U340, 60 s. IR: 2 daylight bulbs, 760nm filter, 2 s, RGB channel swap VIS: UV: IR: Herman

Found this gecko on a staircase, looks like it died there and became dried, maybe multispectral images can shed some light on the cause of its death. The equipment I used is Nikon J5 with Pentax C-mount quartz 25mm f2.8, however I used a rubber ring to fix U360 and S8612 filters into the front of the lens which makes it difficult to take out. Therefore I had to adapt dslr lens onto my J5 to get the VIS and IR shots, which resulted in shallow depth of focus. VIS: UV: IR@930nm: Back side: VIS: UV: IR@930nm:

I've been randomly grabbing things here and there to test out my new camera, and these acorns from my driveway were just begging to have their photo(s) taken. This was my first test with a Nikon D750 - which I've had problems with so far, after trying to get it converted to full spectrum (I won't get into that here). I will say however, I very much appreciate the live view function; which enables precise focusing without having to take multiple test shots first. What a time (and shutter mechanism) saver! And the sharpness and detail I can capture now is very satisfying. Now that I have a pretty good working equipment setup, its time to find some interesting subjects.

Arriving home from work the other day I found this [insert species here] trying to grow up and over the stairs at my front door. Of course, I couldn't just cut it back without also taking the opportunity to have a look at it - in VIS, UV, and IR. This also served as another mini learning experience for working with the longpass filter I've chosen to use for UVIVF imaging. Unfortunately, while I should have known better, I did not anticipate the slight focus shift generated by the longpass filter (I didn't notice until post-process because it looked fine on the camera's little viewfinder at the time of the shot). Notice how the focal plane shifted back slightly. This shouldn't be an issue moving forward, as I intend to shoot from the start with the LP filter in place. I'll chalk this one up to a 'learning experience'. One thing I may try next is to repeat this kind of UVIVF, but extend it to nIR by using a broadband camera instead. This would help to show even more of the induced fluorescence (notice in the longpass filtered image above how some of the red cholorphyll fluorescence is just barely showing up in the leaves...). I'll have to work out some way of generating a comparable UV source free from IR. I'll also need to think of what to call it... UVIVandIRF?, UVIVIRF?, ?.

Hi! One more post for today. I developed the DOLPi-UI filter-wheel-based all-mode camera capable of working in the infrared-visible-ultraviolet range both for imaging and polarimetric analysis. I added a FLIR Lepton® module to extend the camera’s imaging capability (though not polarimetry) to the longwave IR (“thermal” IR). DOLPi-UI is based on the Raspberry Pi NoIR camera, two servos, two filter wheels, a servo hat, and a Raspberry Pi 2. The bandpass filter wheel is populated with the following filters: 1. Blank for full-spectrum imaging 2. IR bandstop (e.g. Schott BG-39 glass) for visible-range imaging 3. IR longpass at 680nm 4. IR longpass at 780nm 5. Infrared-supressed near-UV (stack of Schott UG-1 + BG-39 glass filters) The polarization analyzer filter wheel is rotated by a 90⁰ servo. It is populated with the following filters: 1. Blank for non-polarized imaging 2. Wire-grid polarizer film at 0⁰ 3. Wire-grid polarizer film at 90⁰ 4. Wire-grid polarizer film at 45⁰ 5. Wire-grid polarizer film at -45⁰ 6. RH circular polarizer 7. LH circular polarizer Very detailed construction and use instructions for the DOLPi-UI camera are available in the following whitepaper: DOLPi_Polarimetric_Camera_D_Prutchi_2015_v5. More details on the construction process are also available in my blog diyPhysics.com (including an iPhone based implementation of the DOLPi-EO polarimetric imager by one of the blog's readers). This project was 5th-prize winner in the prestigious 2015 Hack-a-Day Prize! Cheers, David www.UVIRimaging.com www.diyPhysics.com

My name is Jonathan Smith and I am employed by the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art at the University of Oregon in Eugene. We are a small academic art museum with a focus on teaching museum studies. As such we have a large mission with a small budget. I have been interested in multispectral imaging of artwork since being hired, and have been slowly bringing these techniques into the workflow at the museum. It is my desire to achieve the best results possible on a limited budget and then bring these techniques to the students we work with. Our IR photography workflow is well underway, and I am now been tackling UV workflow. I'm excited to find this resource and hope I can provide similarly!

Blum, A.G. (2016) Yellow Lichen on Red Sandstone. Lichens photographed in ultraviolet, visible and infrared light. Multispectral composities are included. http://www.ultraviol...-red-sandstone/ Valley of Fire State Park, Overton, Nevada, USA 25 February 2016 Lichens on Rock Comment: Lichens consist of a symbiotic pairing of either fungus & algae or fungus & cyanobacteria. The nutrient and moisture gathering fungus filaments protect the photosynthesizing algae. This crustose yellow lichen is so striking against the eroded red sandstone rocks in Visible light. But you never know what you're going to get when shooting lichens in UV light. Anything can happen. The yellow lichen all but disappeared in UV, but does show some IR-reflectivity. Reference: 1. Wikipedia (June 2016) Lichen. Wikimedia Foundation, San Francisco, CA. The Wikipedia entry is extensive and well written with a large number of references and links.. 2. Brodo, Sharnoff & Sharnoff (2001) Lichens of North America. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. This is the best reference on the subject. 3. Brodo (2016) Keys to Lichens of North America. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. This is the companion to the larger book. Visible Light [f/11 for 1/50" @ ISO-200 with Nikon D600-BB + Coastal Optics 60/4 in Sunlight with Baader UVIR-Block Filter] Ultraviolet Light [f/11 for 5" @ ISO-200 with Nikon D600-BB + Coastal Optics 60/4 in Sunlight with BaaderU UV-Pass Filter] It is difficult to spot that yellow lichen in this photo. Infrared Light [f/11 for 1/15" @ ISO-200 with Nikon D600-BB + Coastal Optics 60/4 in Sunlight with B+W093 IR-Pass Filter] Here are some channel stacked composities. There are 6 possibilities using the 3 preceding photos. The UV, Visible and Infrared photos were assigned each to different R, G or B channel and then difference layered (PSE 11). I made these because the UV and IR photos above were rather uneventful compared to the vibrant Visible shot. "-) Composite [Channel Stack. R=Infrared, G=Ultraviolet, B=Visible] Composite [Channel Stack. R=Infrared, G=Visible, B=Ultraviolet] This multispectral stack somewhat matches the Visible colours above. Composite [Channel Stack. R=Ultaviolet, G=Infrared, B=Visible] Composite [Channel Stack. R=Ultaviolet, G=Visible, B=Infrared] Composite [Channel Stack: R=Visible, G=Infrared, B=Ultraviolet] The 2nd stack and this stack show the most tonal differentiation. Composite [Channel Stack: R=Visible, G=Ultraviolet, B=Infrared]