Search the Community

I want to make a list of apps which support a click-white balance. Not all cameras are capable of setting an in-camera white balance for UV false colour. And some which can do that, don't do it easily or always well. I am assuming (safe assumption?) that the brand specific app supplied for a particular camera would be capable of white balancing UV false colour. So I'm not going to list brand specific apps like NX2 or NX-D. So far I have: Affinity Iridient Developer Photo Ninja Silky Pix8 Update: All 4 apps are available for standard Mac or Windows congifigurations. Raw Therapee Update: Well, no, I cannot get Raw Therapee to do a proper click WB on my D600 NEF. I should have remembered my own post http://www.ultraviol...em-work-around/ Please let me know of any apps you use which can WB a false colour UV raw photo. Thanks!!

Miscellaneous information, more of theoretical (educational) interest than practical usefulness. The first link below may require free registration, I cannot be sure. All these references are available on the Internet, but may take some digging to find them. These are from my archives, so I did not keep the original links. Google should be a good start to find them. Quite a few are probably available for free through academic libraries, but might require a university login or IP address. 232 nm LEDs http://www.laserfocu...389&bid=1696362 PTFE optical reflectance Barnes & Hsia 1995. 45deg/0deg reflectance factors of pressed polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) powder. NIST Technical Note 1413. PDF: https://www.google.c...149760088,d.amc UV-only imaging sensors Reverchon et al. (unknown year). AlGaN-based focal plane arrays for selective UV imaging at 310nm and 280nm and route toward deep UV imaging. Paper SPIE 6744-94. http://spie.org/Publ....1117/12.754794 Supercontinuum ("white") lasers Alfano 2016. The supercontinuum laser source, 3rd ed. Springer. http://scholar.googl...TBZA4gQgQMIGjAA Spectral sensitivity of a variety of sensor types Princeton Instruments. Novel, performance-enhancing CCD technology, A primer on eXcelon® technology. Technical note. www.princetoninstruments.com PDF: https://www.google.c...FmUeJizH5dYIhrA Spectroscopy Parson 2015. Modern Optical Spectroscopy, 2nd ed. Springer. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjSoYWl8d3SAhXj64MKHXYCDW0QFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.springer.com%2Fus%2Fbook%2F9783662467763&usg=AFQjCNEiNtg4qhILxaIU8rjShWrv-73v3g

Does anyone know why ACR does not "properly" white balance UV files? This photo was made in sunlight with a D600-broadband + Soligor 35/3.5 + BaaderU UV-Pass filter. Converted in ACR. White balance dropper applied. Converted in Photo Ninja. White balance dropper applied.

I am wondering how many here use the in-camera custom WB against the framed area rather than a 99% WB standard. I enjoy using the background itself much of the time, as it gives a more varied coloring. Below are some examples: Photos taken with Lumix GF1 modified to full spectrum, a CZJ Tessar 50/2.8 lens, f8, ISO 400, natural sunlight with no clouds, and a UV bandpass filter. First, visible light @ ISO 100, f8, 1/250s. PP one-click WB and reduce to 1000px width. Background WB. PP one-click WB and reduce to 1000px width. PTFE disc WB. PP one-click WB and reduce to 1000px width. Using a different UV bandpass filter but otherwise the same. Background WB. PP one-click WB and reduce to 1000px width. PTFE disc WB. PP one-click WB and reduce to 1000px width. Do many use the background for setting in-camera WB? Thanks.

I have read the recent post on lens testing by Bjorn Rorslett. Very interesting and really useful! Thank you! I have also been doing some tests with old "scallop shell" Nikon lenses and will post some results soon. I would like to ask why most people on this forum seem to prefer Photo Ninja for the raw conversion and calibration rather than Adobe Camera Raw? Has anyone tried Adobe's DNG Profile editor? I am getting rather muddled about white balancing my UV images, and have read and re-read the various posts on this forum! I am going back to square 1 to start over again! I have an X Rite Passport, PTFE disc, and use a Nikon camera (converted D300) with Photoshop. Adrian Davies

I was just playing with the Raw Therapee app. It has lots of tools (lots of curves!), so I thought I should get to know it a bit. Seems like a good app overall for raw conversion. And it is free. Hard to beat that!! Raw Therapee Links: in case you are interested. Raw Therapee Features: http://rawtherapee.com/blog/features Raw Therapee Wiki: http://50.87.144.65/...title=Main_Page Raw Therapee Forum: https://discuss.pixl...are/rawtherapee Raw Therapee UV White Balance "Problem" & Work-around The Raw Therapee white balance dropper did not work quite as expected on my Labsphere white standard photographed in UV. It left a colour cast on the white area. But Raw Therapee has a Channel Mixer. So I wondered if that could be used to white balance the photo? Short answer: Yes. And the channel mixer setting could be saved as a preset for batch use. Now I am not claiming to have discovered anything new here. But there might be Newbies who could use this pointer when they want to apply a white balance to their UV photos and find their click-white tool does not quite do the job. Original Photograph As is well known, Nikons cannot set an in-camera UV white balance should you happen to want one. I have a reduced-red in-camera WB used for UV work which is shown here. I use it because it makes it easier to see what kind of result I'm getting in the UV photo while I'm shooting. D600-broadband + UV-Nikkor 105/4.5 + BaaderU UV-Pass Filter f/11 for 1/3" @ ISO-200 Raw Digger Raw Composite Here are the actual colours (more-or-less) recorded in this UV photo. Disclaimer: Some changes may happen due to JPG conversion of the file and (ironically) stuffing it into an sRGB box. But it is close enough for all practical purposes. "-) Photo Ninja Conversion + White Balance PN's white balance dropper used on the white standard produces the expected neutral white tone. No other edits. Raw Therapee Conversion + White Balance RT's white balance dropper used on the white standard does not give a neutral white tone. No other edits. Raw Therapee Conversion + Channel Mixer (R=65, G=95, B=120) Now the standard is a neutral white tone. (I had to push the exposure +1 up after applying the Channel Mixer.) I will probably try to refine this Channel Mixer setting because I think I should not have adjusted the G channel? Usually WB can be achieved simply by adjusting Red and Blue around a fixed Green when using WB tools. I'm not sure whether that can be done with the CM tool. But the point is made that the CM tool can be used to find a white balance.

Hello everyone! When I started reading about UV photography, I quickly bought a Hoya U340 filter with the biggest diameter I found (82mm from UVIR Optics), thinking that it would be possible to capture ultraviolet with all my recent lenses. Such a mistake... Now that I have spent some money on dedicated lenses and filters, I have tried to use this filter for landscape photography whithout other filter to reduce the IR polution. I think the results are interesting to show them here. To understand how I have obtained this effect, let me explain my work : Gear : Canon 6D full-spectrum + Canon 24-105 F/4 IS (UV_1) or Canon 16-35 F/4 IS (UV_2) + Hoya U340 Exif : UV_1 : 28mm, F/10, 5s, 100iso // UV_2 : 16mm, F/14, 0.8s, 100iso White balance made with a gray chart Tripod used because of the long exposure Digital processing : no channel swap, just an important reduction of magenta in the blue using "Color Correction" in Photoshop. As you can see, because of the lenses coat, IR effect is more visible than UV effect : the leaves are bright, the sky is very dark and contrasted... Well there is no UV effect visible. The small part of information given by the left part of light spectrum (around 400nm) allowed the apparition of green colour on the leaves and other parts where the IR effect is applied. So with this filter, you can obtain false color infrared shots with green effect.

Has anyone had success getting good white balance in the UV using a white balance lens cap? I've read a few positive reviews on these for visible imaging, not so much for UV. The prices also range from a few bucks to about $100. Sometimes you get what you pay for but in some cases - speaker wires come to mind here - a $2 generic wire performs just as well as a $2000 brand name wire. Will a cheap WB cap do the job well enough, is it worth spending the full Monty, or are external WB options the way to go?

EDITOR'S NOTE: 2021 Dec 10. Schott BG38 usually works best for IR-blocking when using a converted camera for Visible photography: Five IR-Blockers Tested for Visible Color Use on Full-Spectrum Camera The Schott BG40 filter works well enough for correction of Visible colour in a converted camera using an in-camera white balance made under the filter. I think that adding a colour profile improves the results. Check this out and let me know what you think, OK? Equipment: Nikon D600-broadband + Coastal Optics 60/2.8 + Sunlight + Schott BG40 The Nikon Neutral picture control was used with a bit of sharpening only. f/4 @ ISO-200 for 1/640", 1/400" Experiment 1: Make an in-camera white balance setting under the BG40, then shoot. I measured the white standard in the raw NEF in NX2 - white is white, as expected. An observation: the Nikon Neutral setting is somewhat more neutral than neutral settings in non-Nikon converters. Jpg extraction, as shot. Experiment 2: Set in-camera white balance to Daylight, then shoot with the BG40. As expected, there is a cyan cast to the photo. Jpg extraction, as shot. Experiment 3: Now I wanted to see whether results could be improved with application of a colour profile made in the converter Photo Ninja using the CC Passport. There is indeed a change in the appearance of the photo when the profile is applied. White & greys do not change, but some of the colours are slightly altered. For comparison I added a two conventional conversions. The first was made in PN, the in ACR. This is the photo from Experiment 1, now converted in PN with Light_Source/Mode set to the colour profile. This is the photo from Experiment 1, now converted in PN but with Light_Source/Mode set to use the default Daylight/From Camera settings. This conversion is an improvement over the As-shot Jpg extraction above due to a different application of Gamma curve and W/B points by Photo Ninja. There are subtle differences between this photo and the preceding colour-profiled conversion. This is the photo from Experiment 1, now converted in ACR with the White Balance dropper applied to the white standard and profile set to Camera Standard. Again it is an improvement over the initial Jpg extraction. Again there are differences between this conversion and the preceding colour-profiled conversion. I probably did not need to re-measure WB in ACR, as it seemed to read the Nikon WB setting well because there was only a minor change after in the temperature after the white-click.

I finally got around to adding a nice illustration to the end of the tutorial Photo Ninja: How to Make a Custom Light Profile. I had been meaning to do this for quite some time! I'll ponder at another time why it takes so long to get these things done. :D The point I had wanted to make at the end of that Tutorial seems important for anyone using a converted camera for Visible colour photographs: Any white balance adjustment alone does not fully correct the colours after removal of the internal blocking filters. Now the results of my particular experiment make use of a Visible shot made under a Baader UVIR-Cut Filter. I do not have any external filter purporting to restore the original colours of the converted D600, so it is possible that the results under this missing filter would not be so dramatic as shown here. But whatever. It is easy enough for anyone to repeat this little illustration with whatever filter they use for Visible shooting on their converted cam to see what happens. Here is the excerpt from the end of the Tutorial. ******************************************************************** Example of CC Passport Before and After The original shot of the CC Passport was made in sunlight using an in-camera preset white balance. It can be easily see that white balance alone did not fully correct the colour in my converted D600 even though it gets fairly close. Note: There may be some inaccuracies in both photos due to application of the sRGB setting for browser viewing and due to resizing for posting here. Equipment: D600-broadband + 60/4.5 UV-Planar + Baader UVIR-Cut Filter + Sunlight BEFORE: The original photo with only in-camera white balance does not look too bad, but the yellow & purple are obviously off. The other differences are more subtle. Photo Ninja does a good job (at least in this example) of preserving the in-camera white balance preset. AFTER: The Custom Light profile was applied. Corrected colours look better. Saturation can be further adjusted if desired. The differences are not so easy to see when the two versions are separated. In Photoshop Elements I made a difference layer to show where the differences occur. The difference layer was brightened slightly to make the difference locations more apparent because some of them are subtle. DIFFERENCE LAYER: Between preceding Before & After version of the CC Passport. This is just to show the location of colour differences between the two versions. To make the colour changes even more apparent, I overlaid a grid cut from the After version onto the Before. The grid was made in Photoshop Elements with a flower cookie cutter. Looking at the differences this way makes it quite apparent that white balance adjustment alone is not enough to correct colours in a converted camera. AFTER: Flower grid. LAYERED GRID: The After flowers show the adjusted colour against the Before background. Again, note that this shows that a white balance adjustment alone is not enough to correct colours in a converted camera. There are only the minorest of differences in the top monotone row. This means that the in-camera white balance setting made it through the converter (Photo Ninja) without major changes. Do be aware that this may not always happen depending on what converter is used. As a final observation I must note that the colours from the converted camera are being corrected to the CC Passport colours. It is possible that there is some variation between such corrected colours and the actual colours which would have been produced by the camera in its original, unconverted state.

Standardizing the colour in a Visible photograph made with a converted camera requires two steps: 1) Application of a camera colour profile so that the camera's colours are properly described for translation into editing and printing colour spaces. 2) White balance made on a neutral reflectance standard, such as a white card or a grey card, to adjust the Red-Blue axis so that white, black and all greys appear neutral for their given amount of Green. When a raw file is opened in a converter/editor, a stock camera colour profile is either initially selected or automatically applied. This colour profile describes the camera's colour curves and translates from the camera raw data to the converter colour space in use, typically ProPhoto. We need this translation in order to reproduce the colours that the camera actually recorded. Once that is done, white balance adjustments can be applied. We note that the stock camera colour profile is built upon the camera sensor, the Bayer filter and the internal UVIR-blocking filter. There is some variation in stock camera profiles across the various converters and editors, so many photographers choose to create their own camera colour profiles, often taking into account a particular lens or light conditions. A tool such as the Color Checker Passport and its associated software is typically used for creation of non-stock camera colour profiles. The converter Photo Ninja has its own CC tool for creation of new camera colour profiles. Other editing apps, such as lightroom, also have CC tools. Color profiling can be done independently of editing software, if desired. Standardizing colours in a UV photograph requires the same two steps: 1) Application of a converted-camera colour profile so that the converted camera's colours are properly described for translation into editing and printing colour spaces. 2) White balance made on a UV-neutral reflectance standard. For some converted cameras, white balance can be done in-camera. But after application of a camera colour profile and translation to the editing colour space, the white balance may shift and need adjustment. With other converted cameras, a complete UV white balance is only attainable in the converter. Converted cameras require construction of new colour profiles. After removal of the camera's internal UVIR-blocking filter, the stock camera colour profile no longer accurately describes the camera's colours. The fact that non-Visible light might have been used to record those colours is irrelevant. (To be fair, the converted camera's colours do not typically drift too far from the original colours, but it is noticeable in most photos if not adjusted for.) So a new converted-camera colour profile must be must be built. ********** I have only recently begun to seriously work out the use of converted camera profiles after wondering for a year why, in spite of our best efforts to standardize our UV colours, we were getting so much variation. It may not appear so to most viewers because the UV white balance step combined with stock camera colour profiles does produce a similar blue/yellow/grey look across all these UV photos. But I've look at hundreds and hundreds of them and see a lot of variations in those blues and yellows, particularly the blues. Seeing the same flower in both a cyanish-blue and a greyish-blue tells me something is not quite standardized! ********** UV white balance standards in decreasing order of accuracy and expense: 1) calibrated Labsphere Spectralon reflectance standards (or other similar calibrated standards) 2) uncalibrated reflectance standards (from the same makers as make calibrated standards, or look on Ebay?) 3) PTFE disc (look for virgin teflon, not always easy to find, some may be more accurate than others) 4) Color Checker Passport black patch (quick & dirty shortcurt, less accurate of course) 5) White balance on a Magenta area in the converter/editor (quick & dirty shortcut, less accurate of course) ********** ILLUSTRATIONS This D700 Visible photo was opened in Photo Ninja and white balance was made on the reflectance standards, but no camera colour profile was applied. Photo Ninja's Plain Color Enhancement was chosen for its average saturation. The neutrals are neutral. The blues and the yellows are off as compared to the actual CC Passport. The same photo with Photo Ninja's stock D700 "Daylight/Flash" colour profile automatically applied upon opening the file. Plain Color Enhancement was used again. The neutrals remain neutral. The blues and the yellows are better, but the reds are now off. The same photo with a custom camera colour profile created in Photo Ninja with the Profile Light Source tool. Plain Color Enhancement was used again. The neutrals remain neutral. Colours are where they should be. The saturation looks a little strong, but that can be adjusted further in the Color Enhancement tab. ********** This D700 UV photo was opened in Photo Ninja and white balance was made on the reflectance standards, but no camera colour profile was applied. Photo Ninja's Plain Color Enhancement was chosen for its average saturation. The UV neutrals are UV neutral. The false UV blues are a little cyan-ish. The same photo with Photo Ninja's stock D700 "Daylight/Flash" colour profile automatically applied upon opening the file. Plain Color Enhancement was used again. The neutrals remain neutral. The false UV blues are now a little purple-ish. The same photo with the same custom camera colour profile applied that was used in the Visible example above. Plain Color Enhancement was used again. The neutrals remain neutral. The false UV blues are now looking blue. May we please keep in mind here that the important thing is not what shade of false blue we obtain, but that we obtain the same shade of false blue consistently across gear and software platforms.

STICKY LIST Sticky :: SWIR Photography: Cams, Mods, Lenses, Lights, Links Sticky :: UV-Capable Lenses Sticky :: UV/IR Books Sticky :: UV/Vis/IR Filters Sticky :: UV Induced Visible Fluorescence Sticky :: UV Photography: Cams, Mods, Lights, Links Sticky :: White Balance in UV/IR Photography (You are here.) Sticky :: White Balance and Color Correction in UV/IR Photography by Andrea G. Blum for UltravioletPhotography.com [Last Update: 2 Jan 2019 Minor format edits.] Note from Editor: This is a joint effort by the members of various forums who enjoy UV/IR and UV-induced fluorescence photography. Thanks to everyone for their input. Please PM Andrea B. on UltravioletPhotography.com with any corrections, additions or suggestions. Three UV White Balance Tutorials How to make UV colours reproducible by Bjørn Rørslett White Balance in UV Photography by Enrico Savazzi (scroll down) Photo Ninja: How to Make a Custom Light Profile by Andrea Blum . False Colour is False Colour Do we absolutely have to white balance a UV or IR photograph? No, of course not. It is your choice as the photographer. Any colour seen in a UV or IR photograph is false color regardless of what processing is applied. That is to say, the UV or IR colour we see is an artifact of the particular combination of Bayer dyes used in the camera's internal filtration pack as well as an artifact of the particular filter, sensor, lens and lighting in use when the photograph is made. Then the demosaicing algorithm of either the camera or the raw converter further affects the colour outcome. There is no "correct" false colour for UV/IR work. However, most UV/IR photographers do like to set white balance either in-camera or in the raw converter because it usually gives a photograph with more clarity and detail when the oversaturation of a channel is reduced. And, with the current Bayer sensors, a certain standardized false colour set appears after the white balance step. Standardizing the appearance of false colours in documentary photographs can be quite useful for comparisons. White Balance Materials for UV/IR: Why? With some converted digital cameras an in-camera white balance can be achieved under the dark external filters used for UV or IR by performing the white balance measurement against a white target with stable reflectivity under UV or IR light. For example, Sony or Panasonic Lumix bodies are often good at UV/IR in-camera white balance against such targets. However, converted Nikon bodies, for example, cannot achieve an in-camera white balance through UV filters. So for those cameras, the proper UV or IR white balance must be set in the raw converter by measuring a photograph of an UV/IR stable white target made under the desired filtration. Also note that, even cameras which can set in-camera white balance under UV/IR filters are not always perfectly accurate under all lighting conditions or filter types. So always making a photograph of a white balance target at the beginning of each shooting session with a particular filter is a good practice whieh enables later colour corrections or white balance setting in a raw converter or photo editor. Ordinary White Cards for UV/IR White Balance: NO! The typical white balance card used for setting white balance in an unconverted digital camera almost never remains fully reflective in Ultraviolet or Infrared light so should not be used to set a white balance in non-Visible wavelengths. Use instead the materials suggested below. White Balance Materials for UV/IR: What The materials listed next reflect light uniformly (are spectrally flat) over a large range in Ultraviolet, Visible and Infrared wavelengths. Unbranded PTFE is the least expensive of these materials. PTFE or Teflon can be more prone to blowout from specular reflection. Adjusting the shooting angle slightly should help with that. The following lists and examples are not exhaustive. They are only meant to introduce you to the materials. There are many sources for purchase of PTFE or Spectralon. PTFE = polytetrafluoroethylene, a fluoropolymer. Choose Virgin grade PTFE which is pure with no recycled material added. The mechanical grade PTFE contains some recycled PTFE which may slightly degrade the white colour. Teflon PTFE Virgin and Mechanical Grades. Teflon® = brand name PTFE made by DuPont®. Note that the Teflon name is sometimes also applied to PFA and FEP. Fluon®, Dyneon® = other brand names for PTFE. Spectralon® = fluoropolymer with the highest diffuse reflectance of any material over UV/Vis/IR. Made by Labsphere®. Spectralon® Space Grade (PDF) Spectralon® Optical Grade (PDF) . Examples: [ultravioletPhotography.com does not endorse any specific products as a website. We simply offer reports, reviews and lists for your further investigation. Any opinions in such reports/reviews/lists belong solely to the poster writing them. UltravioletPhotography.com as a website receives no compensation or income from any source.] PTFE Sheet from ePlastics Just one example for a vendor of natural virgin PTFE sheets in various thickness and dimensions. There are many vendors to choose from. Don't buy a sheet which is thin enough to transmit any stray light unless you are using it over the lens. (See next.) PTFE UV White Balance Filter Target from Ebay Uviroptics This is sintered, fibrous PTFE (molded fibers of PTFE) used over the lens to set white balance by aiming at the illumination. 55mm, 52mm and other sizes offered. Prices (US)$16.95 + shipping. White Balance Reflective Target from Edmund Optics Material not named. Certainly looks like uncalibrated Spectralon? Square sizes are 2", 5", 10", 12". Prices range from (US)$675 - $1795. Set of 4 Diffuse Reflectance Standards from Edmund Optics Material not named. Standard mounted in small jar with screw-on lid. Reflectances are 2%, 50%, 75% and 99%. Price: (US)$1219. Spectralon® Reflectance Targets from Labsphere® Square sizes are 2", 5", 10", 12", 18", 24". Uncalibrated Prices range from (US)$499 - $1844. Calibrated Prices range from (US)$665 - $4875. Spectralon® Reflectance Standards from Labsphere® Standard mounted in small jar with screw-on lid. Diameters are 1" or 2". Uncalibrated Reflectances are 2%, 20%, 40%, 50%, 99%. Prices (US)$315 or $465. Calibrated Reflectances are 2%, 5%, 10% 20%, 40%, 50%, 99% and 2%, 50%, 75%, 99% (set of 4). Prices (US)$1470 - $3100. . White Balance Tools in Raw Converters Most raw converters (or editors) feature a white balance tool in the form of a dropper or rectangle which may be clicked or dragged over the photographed white standard to set the white balance in a false-colour photograph. This is the only white-balancing method available for those cameras which cannot record an in-camera white balance preset through dark external UV or IR filters. But not all converters are able to fully white balance a raw ultraviolet file. We think this is because some converters cannot push the temperature setting to the needed low between 1700-2000°K. As one example, the most widely used raw converter, Adobe Camera Raw, was not very good at white balancing Nikon D700 files made under a broadband UV-pass filter. (Editor's Note: I am no longer using Adobe products, so cannot speak to current ACR capabilities.) So such files had to be first converted in a Nikon converter (NX-D, View NX) or in a converter like Photo Ninja (or others) before being taken into CS6 for further editing. Two step conversion and editing makes for a slightly longer workflow, but typical UV photography does not produce large batches requiring overnight editing. Creating preset conversion profiles for quick application of white balance and colour correction is the way to speed up this step and keep workflow manageable for any camera used for UV photography. Visible Color Correction: White Balance and a Color Profile The white balance step alone is not always enough to produce proper visible colours in a converted camera when the converted camera is used to record a Visible scene under a corrective BG filter or UV/IR-cut filter unless you have a corrective filter identical to the internal blocking filter which was removed during conversion. Given that not all the camera manufacturers use the same internal blocking filters, it should be no surprise that color profiling is a necessary step for using a converted camera for Visible work. Typically software color profiles can be built from photographs of color patch cards like the CC Passport (as just one example) using its software. Some converters provide their own tools for creating color profiles. As just one example, Photo Ninja can create a color profile from a photograph of a CC Passport.

EDITOR'S NOTE: The formal UV-signature post for Brassica juncea has been split so that the technical discussion below does not interfere with the botany. Start with Post #4 below for a discussion of PTFE as a background in a photograph. There is also some other tech talk. (WIth reference to a photo in the above link...) The first photo needs to be brightened up a bit. Various ways to do that. First, do they have the sRGB profile? *** And thank you for providing the Chinese name. :)

Publication Date [08 December 2013] Last Update [21 January 2016] Note: This article describes the proper procedure for creating a Photo Ninja Custom Light profile for any camera although we made specific mention of full spectrum converted cameras. Introduction We have all seen the difficulties of attaining good color rendition in the Visible range when using a full spectrum converted digital camera with a Baader UVIR-Cut Filter to block the UV and IR light. Various solutions have been proposed involving preset white balance and the use of additional filters such as the B+W BG38, BG39 or BG40. I have tried all these suggestions and still have been displeased with the Visible colors from my broadband converted cameras. However, Visible color correction in such fotos has recently become much easier and better with the arrival of the new converter, Photo Ninja, which incorporates a color profiling tool making use of the X-Rite ColorChecker Passport. For the record, there are other converter/editors also offering camera colour profiling (with or without the CC Passport), and of course the CC Passport comes with its own profiling software. Of the options available, I have found Photo Ninja's Custom Light profiling to be useful for my Visible work with the broadband camera because it corrects both color and white balance simultaneously when saved and used as a preset for single use or batch application. Such a Custom Light profile would typically be made for for each kind of lighting and lens/camera/filter combination used, but it is not time-consuming to do this. Photo Ninja also offers Session Light profiling and Camera Sensor profiling. Both these options work similarly to the Custom Light profiling which I will illustrate here. Build a Custom Light Profile in Photo Ninja For the profiling example here, I will build a profile for my D600-broadband for use in the Visible wavelengths in bright open sunlight with an external Baader UVIR-Cut filter mounted on the 105/4.5 UV-Nikkor. 1) Preset an In-camera White Balance and Photograph the ColorChecker Passport Shooting in bright, open sunlight, first make an in-camera white balance preset from the neutral page of the CC Passport and then photograph the color patch page. Make sure the CC Passport is evenly lit. The Photo Ninja procedure asks for a slightly out-of-focus photograph so that the correction algorithm is not influenced by minor color differences within the patches or by stray dust motes which might have settled onto the patches. Strictly speaking, the in-camera white balance preset is not needed, but why not get as close as possible to the correct white balance initially? The CC Passport color patch photo. 2) Photo Ninja: Adjustments > Color Correction After opening the CC Passport photo in Photo Ninja, select the Color Correction adjustment to bring up a white balance dropper over the displayed photo. Select Color Correction adjustment. 3) Photo Ninja: Sample the CC Passport White Patch and Make Note of: White Balance > Temperature Drag the white balance dropper over the white patch on the upper left of the CC Passport. In this example the D600's in-camera white balance was accurate, so there is no change to either the Temperature or Tint settings, although such changes are possible. The Mode setting always changes to Manual after the dropper drag. Make note of the Temperature setting for use in the next step. Click "Cancel" on the lower right to close the Color Correction adjustment and return to the main menu. Before dropper sampling the white patch, the camera settings are shown. After dropper sampling, the Mode changes to Manual and Temperature/Tint settings may change. 4) Photo Ninja: Image > Profile Light Source From the top menu bar select Image, then select Profile Light Source to bring up the Profile Light Source pop-up window. The Image drop-down menu. 4.1 Light Source > New Custom Light > Custom Name > {profileName} In the Profile Light Source pop-up window, first name the Custom Light profile: D600_VisSun, for this example. 4.2 White point > Measured > Temperature > {temperature} Next enter the Temperature value noted in Step 3 above: 3500, for this example. 4.3 Chart > {ccType} Select the ColorChecker version from {ColorChecker, ColorChecker Passport, Digital ColorChecker SG, Mini ColorChecker}: ColorChecker Passport, for this example. The Profile Light Source pop-up window. 6) Photo Ninja: Adjust Profiling Grid After finishing the selections on the Profile Light Source window, a grid appears over the CC Passport photo. Each corner of the grid can be grabbed and dragged with the cursor to center the grid patches over the matching color patches in the photo. Note that precise perspective is not necessary for the color patch photo because the grid can be adjusted to a skewed perspective. If the color patches are upside down in the photo, then click Rotate 90 two times on the Profile Light Source pop-up window to flip the grid for patch matching. The Profiling Grid before adjustment. The Profiling Grid after adjustment. 7) Photo Ninja: Profile Light Source > Build Profile > Save/Exit Click the Build profile button to build and save the new Custom Light profile for later use in the Color Correction adjustment or in presets. When the profiling is finished, click Save/Exit on the lower right to return to the main menu. In the next section, Custom Light profile usage is explained. Build Profile and Save/Exit. Apply a Custom Light Profile in Photo Ninja Here is an application of a Photo Ninja Custom Light Profile as selected from the Light Source drop-down menu on the Color Correction page. 1) Photo Ninja: Adjustments > Color Correction After opening a photo in Photo Ninja, select the Color Correction adjustment. Select Color Correction adjustment. 2.1) Photo Ninja: Color Correction > Light Source > {profileName} On the Color Correction page, select the desired Custom Light profile from the Light Source drop-down menu. The profile is applied in the next step. Select Custom Light Profile. 2.2) Photo Ninja: Color Correction > White balance > Mode > From Profile On the Color Correction page, set the white balance Mode to From Profile in order to apply the Custom Light Profile. The colors in the photo are corrected and the Temperature/Tint settings may change to align with the the profiled white balance. The new Temperature may not exactly match the profiled Temperature but it will not be too far from it. Set Mode to From Profile. Temperature/Tint settings change in this example. 2.3) Photo Ninja: Color Correction > Color Recovery > Strength > {50-70} On the Color Correction page, the Strength setting affects any highlights repaired under Photo Ninja's automatic highlight recovery algorithm. A default setting of between 50-70 has worked very well so far, and I have rarely needed to go outside that range. If oddly coloured highlight recoveries are seen, then try adjusting this setting. Click the "?" to read more about this setting. Note that highlight recovery is easier in the latest digital cameras with broad exposure ranges and less successful in older digicams. Further Color Adjustments after Custom Light Profile Some users may want to refine the color relationships between the newly profiled colors. 1) Photo Ninja: Adjustments > Color Enhancement After opening a photo in Photo Ninja and applying a Custom Light profile, select the Color Enhancement adjustment. Select Color Enhancement adjustment. 2.1) Photo Ninja: Color Enhancement > Base Style > {Plain, Portrait, Scenic} Three global adjustments are offered. Plain: The Plain base style slightly desaturates profiled colors and is a good neutral style to choose if later adjustment of individual colors or color contrasts is planned either in Photo Ninja or in another editor. Plain best corresponds to "Neutral" colour settings in those cameras which have that. Portrait: The Portrait style seems to correspond to a "Standard" colour setting, so do not be mislead by its name. Scenic: The Scenic style corresponds perhaps to a "Landscape" colour setting. 2.2) Photo Ninja: Color Enhancement > Intensity > {50} All Photo Ninja base styles are set to 50 as a default, so push that slider up to get the desired global saturation. A Standard base style, for example, may need the Intensity slider set to 65-75. 3) Photo Ninja: Color Enhancement > Color Patches Individual colors can be dramatically or subtly altered using the Color Patches and their sliders. This is outside the scope of this article, but do experiment with this portion of the Color Enhancement page. Color Enhancement page. Here the base style has been set to Neutral and the Intensity slider left on 50. Then the blue patch has been selected and its Saturation slider increased to +20 to enhance a blue sky. Example of Custom Light Profile Application The first Scilla photo was made in the sunlight using a preset white balance. The second Scilla photo is the result of applying the Custom Light Profile built above. Equipment: D600-broadband + 105/4.5 UV-Nikkor + Baader UVIR-Cut Filter Exposure: f/11 for 1/60" @ ISO-100 BEFORE: The Scillas should be blue, white and yellow-green with no pink tones. AFTER: This is what the scillas really look like !! I took the Macbook Air outdoors to verify this. Example of CC Passport Before and After The original shot of the CC Passport was made in sunlight using a in-camera preset white balance. It can be easily see that white balance alone did not fully correct the colour in my converted D600 even though it gets fairly close. Note: There may be some inaccuracies in both photos due to application of the sRGB setting for browser viewing and due to resizing for posting here. Equipment: D600-broadband + 60/4.5 UV-Planar + Baader UVIR-Cut Filter BEFORE: The original photo with only in-camera white balance does not look too bad, but the yellow & purple are obviously off. The other differences are more subtle. Photo Ninja does a good job (at least in this example) of preserving the in-camera white balance preset. AFTER: The Custom Light profile was applied. Corrected colours look better. Saturation can be further adjusted if desired. The differences are not so easy to see when the two versions are separated. In Photoshop Elements I made a difference layer to show where the differences occur. The difference layer was brightened slightly to make the difference locations more apparent because some of them are subtle. DIFFERENCE LAYER: Between preceding Before & After version of the CC Passport. This is just to show the location of colour differences between the two versions. To make the colour changes even more apparent, I overlaid a grid cut from the After version onto the Before. The grid was made in Photoshop Elements with a flower cookie cutter. Looking at the differences this way makes it quite apparent that white balance adjustment alone is not enough to correct colours in a converted camera. AFTER: Flower grid. LAYERED GRID: The After flowers show the adjusted colour against the Before background. Again, note that this shows that a white balance adjustment alone is not enough to correct colours in a converted camera. There are only the minorest of differences in the top monotone row. This means that the in-camera white balance setting made it through the converter (Photo Ninja) without major changes. Do be aware that this may not always happen depending on what converter is used As a final observation I must note that the colours from the converted camera are being corrected to the CC Passport colours. It is possible that there is some variation between such corrected colours and the actual colours which would have been produced by the camera in its original, unconverted state.

Yes, we aim to use a standardized UV false colour palette here for the botanical postings. No, the process for producing a standardized UV false colour palete is not perfectly defined. And I'm just now reminded how arbitrary all this is after completing an experiment with my GH1. So I thought I would show you these two versions of a white balance outcome and see what you think. White-balanced UV False Colours Using the Panasonic Lumix GH1-broadband and the BaaderU on a lens, I set an UV in-camera white balance on the 99% reflective standard and then made the following photo. I extracted the JPG from the raw RW2 using Photo Mechanic - that included a downsize to max 800pix. An sRGB colour space was used in the camera and was also embedded by Photo Mechanic. I then labeled some standards and colour patches in Photoshop Elements 11 and did a Save As. There have been no other edits to this photo. Some of the blue patches in this photo are grayed-blues of the form {r,g,b} = {n,n,b}.That is, the red and green values are approximately equal in each patch. Other patches show some variation with the r value larger than the green value, r > g. I think to my eyes these patches do show a slight red influence. These grayed-blues are perfectly acceptable for UV false colours. ********** Profiled and White-balanced UV False Colours Using the GH1-broadband and the Baader UV/IR-Cut on the same lens, I set a Visible in-camera white balance on the 99% reflective standard and then made a shot of the CC Passport for use in Photo Ninja to make a new visible colour profile. (Vis results shown in this Post #30.) I applied this color profile to the preceding raw RW2 in Photo Ninja and also white balanced on the 99% white standard. No other edits were made except to resize and Save As a jpg. Labels were added in PSE 11. Again, sRGB colour space was used. The blue colours have shifted, but they are still greyed blues. Measuring around on the patches, it seems like there are fewer cases for red/green that r > g. The values of the standards are also slightly different with the white and midtone being a bit brighter. As before, these greyed-blues are perfectly acceptable for UV false colours. ********** Why Profile the Broadband Visible Colour? The rationale for making a new visible GH1-broadband colour profile in Photo Ninja is that the removal of the internal filters and use of an external UV/IR block filter (on a given lens) alters the camera's original colour profile. With some lens/filter combos, the alteration is noticeable. With others, not so much. But I don't think there is any argument that re-profiling the visible colour it is a good thing to do for documentary work. Making such a profile will also take into account any ambient visible light which can change so much at sunrise/sunset, in shade, with clouds and so forth. [Of course, if anyone is so lucky as to know exactly what the internal filtration was for their particular camera and can obtain the same filtration in an external filter, then they do not have to profile their visible colour for their broadband cams.] Should We "Profile" UV False Colour? But should we apply this visible profile to our UV photos made with the same lens but using a UV-pass filter? Well, just because we are shooting in UV doesn't mean that the camera's original colour profile has miraculously reappeared. On the other hand, the colours are false in UV so why bother to correct them? Six of one, half a dozen of the other. There's no right answer I think. After all, UV colours are false, aren't they? I would enjoy hearing what you all think about this.

This morning I was playing with some old Lumix GH1 UV photos of standards and bullseye flowers. I wanted to look into colour profiling the GH1 because I hadn't really done a good job the first time through. My broadband Lumix GH1 is wonderful at setting an in-camera white balance through most UV or IR filters - as are its cousins in the Lumix G line. In-camera white balance through dark filters cannot be done as easily, if at all, with Nikon broadband conversions. In these fotos I was using an early test version of the Andrea-U on some lens which I unfortunately don't remember. All photos were brightened somewhat to overcome the narrow dynamic range of the GH1. Baseline: GH1, Andrea-U, In-camera Preset White Balance Nothing at all wrong with this as a UV photograph. The flowers' UV-dark bullseyes are looking good! ***** In Photo Ninja I made a visible Custom Light profile named GH1-Vis from the Mini Colour Checker card as photographed in a visible foto (not shown). I then used GH1-Vis as a Light Source choice in the Correction Tool and applied it to the UV photo. White balance was measured in the UV photo and saved along with the Light Source setting as a UV Preset for future use. Profiled Colour: GH1, Andrea-U, Light Source = GH1-Vis, WB = Manual from white standard This does shift the colours, of course, because the missing internal filtration has altered the GH1 colour profile. ***** Photo Ninja has a built-in, standardized colour profile named Daylight/Flash. It also has the Match Color Temp choice. It turned out that Daylight/Flash and Match Color Temp gave almost an identical histogram for this particular photograph, although I couldn't tell you why. Note that these two photos are really not too far off the Profiled Colour version. How much this might hold true for other photographs, who knows? PN Built-In #1: GH1, Andrea-U, Light Source = Daylight/Flash, WB = Manual as saved from white standard The colour patches on the Mini CC are not as violet as the Baseline version and not as blue as the Profiled version. PN Built-In #2: GH1, Andrea-U, Light Source = Match Color Temp, WB = Manual as saved from white standard ***** PN No Profile: Gh1, Andrea-U, Light Source = No Profile, WB = Manual as saved from white standard I have no idea where the colours are really coming from with this Light Source choice, but I don't like them!!

Visible Profile Example for the Pentax K5 + W.Acall Kyoei 35mm f/3.5 lens + Baader UVIR-Cut Filter A Color Checker Passport was photographed with for use in Photo Ninja. The white balance was read on the center left Labsphere reflective standard using the PN Color Correction dropper. The profile was then created with Photo Ninja's profiling grid and stored as K5_Kyoei. Photo Ninja requests a slightly blurred photo of the CC Passport. UV Profile Example for the Pentax K5 + W.Acall Kyoei 35mm f/3.5 lens + Baader UV-Pass Filter The Labsphere white reflective standard was photographed. The white balance was read on the center left standard using the PN Color Correction dropper. There are 4 possible choices for Light Source in the drop down menu in the Color Correction Tool. Match Color Temp No Profile Daylight/Flash K5_Kyoei Here is what the UV shot looks like for each choice. Match Color Temp The false colours are purple/blue. No Profile The false colours are cyan/blue. Daylight/Flash The false colours are purple/blue. K5_Kyoei The false colours are blue.

Here's a shot from my K-5 for comparison. I set up a "Custom Light" in Photo Ninja as you previously described using the mini Color Checker and saved it for use with all my sunlight shots. I used my B+W UV/IR cut filter as usual. Do these colours look too saturated to your eyes?

EDITOR'S NOTE: I changed the title of this post to make it more accurate. FORMER TITLE: Lumix GH1 Standards Shoot & Photo Ninja Edit [Midtone Curve Discussion] NEW TITLE: Lumix GH1Broadband: Visible Colour Correction in Photo Ninja [& Midtone Curve Discussion] ********** I was diligent enough in 2011 to actually put together a nice little box of Standards, Flowers and Mini CC Passport and shoot it with my Panasonic Lumix GH1 using a few different filters in order to make some presets for that camera. I thought it might be useful(?) for you to see such a test setup as well as to note the interesting differences between the 3 UV-pass filters after being white-balanced in Photo Ninja. Those UV-pass filters were: Baader-U, the test version of the Andrea-U and an Omegabob 340AF15 from Ebay. I also included an unfiltered shot, a visible shot and an IR shot made with the B+W 092 IR-pass filter. BTW, yes, of course, I do know my GH1 can actually obtain a reasonably good in-camera white balance. But colours must still be adjusted for accuracy, so presets are still needed. (Imho, however Ymmv, as always.) There may be other adjustment issues, as you will see in the 2nd post. The box includes: Top: Labsphere Spectralon® standards, Bidens ferulifolia and Rudbeckia hirta. Bottom Left: Teflon® disk and B+W 093 IR-pass filter. Bottom Right: XRite Color Checker Mini (since discontinued). The two flowers were chosen as 'classic' UV-bullseye flowers. The B+W 093 IR-pass filter was included in the box to look for IR leakage. This particular filter at 830nm has no visible red leakage. Edits: In Photo Ninja I first white-balanced by dragging the Color Correction dropper one or more of the white standards. Then I made minor adjustments in exposure/highlights as needed. The Detail slider was applied at +10. I opened up the dark areas just a tiny bit with the Shadows slider because the GH1 has limited dynamic range. The Neutral (or 'Plain') colour setting was chosen. Equipment [Panasonic Lumix GH1-broadband + some UV-Pass Lens] My apology for not remembering which lens I was using. Unfiltered [f/4 for 1/1600" @ ISO 100 in Sunlight with no filtration] Look at the 092 filter to see that IR light is hitting the sensor in an unfiltered, broadband camera. No surprise, of course. Then compare this shot to the next Visible shot to see the damage that IR light does to the colours. Visible Light [f/4 for 1/1000" @ ISO 100 in Sunlight with Baader UVIR-Block Filter] Infrared Light [f/4 for 1/640" @ ISO 100 in Sunlight with B+W 092 IR-Pass Filter] The GH1 produces such a pretty blue for the 092 after white balancing. On back of the 093 filter you can see the scotch tape which unrolled in the heat. I was using it on the 093 filter rim to try to keep the it from falling out of the box. Ultraviolet Light [f/4 for 1/8" @ ISO 100 in Sunlight with Baader UV-Pass Filter] Ultraviolet Light [f/4 for 1/10" @ ISO 100 in Sunlight with Andrea-U UV-Pass Filter] Please remember that this was a test version of the Andrea-U. I think there might have been some changes to the filter since I first tested it. The Andrea-U gives bluer blues after white balancing. Ultraviolet Light [f/4 for 1.6" @ ISO 100 in Sunlight with 340AF15 UV-Pass Filter] This is a very small diameter filter. Try to disregard the peripheral discolorations due to that. I really don't know if the greenish colour is supposed to be there or not. Added -- Ultraviolet Light [preceding photo as originally shot, before white balancing] The 340AF15 UV-pass filter is very narrowband, so it produces an almost monochrome frame which gives an almost B&W appearance after white-balancing in the editor. I used the 'Halogen' in-camera white balancing setting when shooting this original.

OK, I now got the license code for 2 weeks to test the software before buying it. I am trying to see if I can do a preset for UV-wb (and perhaps another one for IR-wb) -- this wont be necessary in the future with my camera now white-balanced ok with a piece of virgin PTFE (thank you, Iggy!). but I still have some old shots done with a regular piece of PTFE and colors are off. Furthermore, Panasonic G5 only has 2 custom WB memory, but if I want to do full-spectrum and IR, then I wont have enough, currently with 1 for UV, and 1 for VIS. I tried to follow the web tutorial for "preset", I can select "color correction" and "save" it, but I am not sure how do I correct one file and save that info to the "UVwb" preset. there does not seem to be an option to save what I did to that preset. Also, I took a pic of the virgin PTFE, and tried to WB it, but the before (left) and after (right), neither look like neutral grey (18%) to my eyes (way too dark?)...This results seem to be the same with Light room last time (unable to WB uv shots). help!

After studying the thread How to make UV colours reproducible http://www.ultraviol...s-reproducible/ I am please to post what to me is welcome results. Like any gadget a digital camera can quickly turn from frustrating to delightful once things "click"! Both of these images are camera jpg and my live view focus target was the window panes in the cupola of the building across the parkway ~125 meters away. First photo, LifePixel modified full spectrum DMC-G3, Badder UV/IR-Cut/L, "KA" Soligor 35mm f/3.5 set to f8 camera auto select ISO 160 and 1/2500 shutter. The colors look over saturated using default camera sunlight WB. Second photo was shot with Baader-U and was white balanced in-camera to a 1.25" Labsphere Spectralon 99% diffuse reflectance standard plus a black anodized Al disk (filter stack cover) both placed on a grey foam core sheet lying flat in full sun. The camera auto selected ISO 800 and shutter speed of 1/60 but I extended that to 1/10 to lighten the image. The UV image seems to have a slight green hue compared to the pale blue cast I observe in other postings.

Guess which patch on a CC card might be useable for white-balancing a UV photograph? The black one !!! Somewhere in the dusty corners of my mind, I think I knew this but had forgotten all about it. So I decided to put up a post for future reference. :D Set-Up Here's my CC Passport together with some Labsphere Reflective Standards which have 99, 75 and 50% reflectivity across IR, Visible and UV. The rightmost 6 CC patches in the photo are the Visible neutral squares which vary from white at the bottom, through grey to black at the top. (There are some neutral squares on the other page too, but I've covered part of them with the Standards.) Procedure I made a UV foto of this setup using the D600-broadband + UV-Nikkor + Baader-U UV-Pass filter. Then I brought the foto into Capture NX2 and used the white balance tool on each of the six neutral patches in succession. Develop > Camera Settings > White Balance > Set Gray Point > Marqee Sample > Start White Balance on the CC Passport White & Grey Patches: Not Good The first 5 patches do not give a well-balanced result - a yellow cast is produced. White Balance on CCPassport Black Square: Not Bad This WB result might be the tiniest bit more blue than the next foto, but it is probably close enough for all practical purposes. "-) You can investigate whether it works with your UV kit and your editors. (Remember, under- and over-exposure can affect the outcome of the white balance step.) WB on Labsphere 99% White Standard

Since I have been made aware in this forum that the colours in my UV-photos are not “balanced”, I have experimented around this and have found a solution that seems acceptable to me and does not change my workflow to much. Most of the previous discussion has taken place in this post: http://www.ultraviol...aw-development/ I use to shoot in RAW-format and was hit by the fact that Photoshop Lightroom (ACR) does not allow the values for the white balance to fall out of a certain range. Therefore, my final images looked always different from the previews on the rear screen of my camera. Using the DNG-profile-editor (http://wwwimages.ado...cumentation.pdf) can change that behaviour by creating a custom profile, as I learned in an Adobe forum. After creating a suitable profile I was able to reproduce colours similar to those described here: http://www.ultraviol...s-reproducible/ The colours are now also pretty consistent with the (white balanced) in-camera JPGs that I also record as a reference. I’m planning to show my UV-photos using this profile in the future, once for aesthetic reasons but also to comply with the standard established here. For me it looks quite consistent, but I’m happy to discuss and re-evaluate this. Here are some examples that I have developed in Lightroom recently, some more can be found on my blog (http://bee-colours.blogspot.de/) Ranunculus ficaria: The visible image shows a yellow flower with a different shade of yellow in the middle: The centre of the flower is UV-dark. The outer parts of the petals appear yellow. Taraxacum officinale: The visible image appears in a quite even, saturated yellow. We find a similar yellow as above in the UV-image while the stamina appear dark. Hepatica nobilis: Blue to violet flowers in visible light. Light blue petals and very dark stamina in the UV-image: Geranium sanguineum (pink) and Hippocrepis comosa (yellow) in visible light photography: While the petals of G. sanguineum reflect UV light extremely well and appear almost pure white (whit a dark flower centre and dark veins), H. comosa is (almost) entirely UV dark. Alliaria petiolata: A white flower with a bit darker centre in visible light. In the UV-image the petals appear in a very dark blue. All images were taken with the EL-Nikkor 80mm/f5,6 enlarger lens (mostly at f8.0). As most people on this forum are probably aware, the colours of the UV-photos are not (completely) predictable, since some yellow flowers can appear entirely black and blue flowers can have different intensities of UV reflections. The latter is also true for white blossoms. However, until now I haven’t found a flower that we see as blue which would turn yellow in the UV-image or vice versa (it still might exist).

My two last posts have triggered some discussion about the white-balance that I do, because the colours appear very different from those that are show in this article, for example: http://www.ultraviol...s-reproducible/ I was puzzled, because even if I set the white balance in my camera (Panasonic Lumix G1, broadband modified) against a PTFE target, my UV-colours looked very different. However, I noticed that the JPGs embedded in the raw files came much closer to the colours that others get. So, today I set my camera to record RAW and JPG in parallel, and compared them afterwards. The RAW files were converted with Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4. All images were taken with an EL-Nikkor 80 mm /f5.6 with sunlight and the Baader-U 2” filter. Here’s the JPG created in the camera, with only slight manual corrections: And this is the “white balance” I get in Lightroom 4, with the WB-setting “as shot”. I have tried to change the settings like camera calibration and others but I didn’t manage to create an image that compares to the in camera JPG, so far. By the way, using Camera Raw in PS5 produced essentially the same result as Lightroom. Finally, I decided to try a second RAW-converter and used UFRAW, which is a plugin for the GIMP, public-domain image manipulation software. The result is shown below: As long, as I leave the WB at “camera setting”, it looks pretty much like my in-camera JPG, which is precisely what I would expect a RAW converter to do. I cannot tell for sure that the whole issue is not caused by some strange setting of my program installation, but it seems pretty clear the RAW-conversion I’ve been using so far does have a significant impact on the UV-colours that I’m getting.