Damon Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Mini Daffodils UV Fluorescence Lately I have felt like some winter variant of Puskatawny Phil. I keep opening the back door and looking out at my frozen UV shack, grumbling something about a heater and then go back into the house. So lame. Anyway, I crunched through the snow to try out these Mini Daffodils from the local supermarket. Only one was blooming and it had an errant petal--oh well. No further ID found on the container (Narciccus tete-a-tete?). Got myself a Baader UV/IR-Cut Filter as well and promptly forgot to put it on to see if it makes any difference in my unmodified setup. Sigh. Got UVWJB again. (Ultraviolet Widgety Junk Brain) A tip of my hat to you Andrea for figuring out what is wrong with me. :) Visible: Canon 30D Unmodified, Canon EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, Canon Macro Twin Lite MT-24EX , 1/60 s @ f/7.1 ISO 400, No Filters, Auto WB UVIVFL: Canon 30D Unmodified, Canon EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, 6 Blak-Rays B-100AP, 3.2 s @ f/7.1 ISO 400, No Filters, In Complete Darkness, Auto WBFor some reason this flower needed a lot of UV light to show good "color". I guess it wasn't emitting much, so I just blasted it with 3 more additional Blak-Rays. :) Although I wasn't aware that more UV would necessarily mean more visible emissions. Makes sense I guess. Theoretically I suppose I could "max out" the flower regarding visible emissions. Cool to think about. Diptych -D Link to comment
colinbm Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Good find DamonA Daffodil just doesn't look like a Daffodil unless it is yellow, does it ?Col Link to comment
Damon Posted February 1, 2015 Author Share Posted February 1, 2015 Thanks.Yeah it is a tad strange looking. Weird how the lip goes from orange to yellow. Might make a night flying moth hone in on it I suppose (if it could see it). Moths do well at night. Some can distinguish color by starlight. Neat article explaining some creatures, including mammals that can see in darkness and NUV.http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141128-these-animals-see-colour-at-night Interesting eyes:http://www.vision-systems.com/articles/2012/10/coating-copies-the-eye-of-a-moth.html -D Link to comment
colinbm Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Thanks DamonI'll get into those articles tomorrow when I get up after I get some sleep.Col Link to comment
Andrea B. Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Some flowers do not have much fluorescence at all.Interesting that the tips of the petals show a twinkle. IIRC, 'Tete-a-Tete' is all yellow? Now Damon !! When you make the effort to get all set up like that,please do also make a UV photograph. :) :) Somewhere I have a Narcissus/Jonquil/Daffodill cut-away. Maybe it is on my very small Flickr page. (I never followed through with Flickr.) Link to comment
Damon Posted February 1, 2015 Author Share Posted February 1, 2015 Yeah I think you are right--it's not Tete-a-Tete. Clearly I spent minimal time on that look up. If only my Canon was full spectrum. I know, I should have a Nikon for this. And I do, but my D70, as good as it is with UV--I find myself limited by the single enlarger lens. I realize there are many other Nikon lenses that would work ok but I don't want 25 different lenses, each with its own special step rings, adapters, etc. My setup boxes will begin to look like Andrea's. :)I see no practical, affordable and anti pain in the rump way to do UVIVFL at say, 5X with the D70. Like the Poinsettia closeup. Maybe a 2 foot bellows. :) "Just don't shoot stuff that close". "Hey Doc, my arm hurts when I move it that way" "Well then don't move it that way".But why would I attempt to shoot UVIVFL with the D70 anyway when I already have a camera that does that beautifully?It doesn't appear that "lots" of people have tried really old Canon lenses to let in more UV. My D70 of course would work for the UV shot but would require "2 different cameras and setups" if I was to use both. But it is something I have been desiring to do. I would ultimately like to do all 3 with every shot. Man it would be so much easier with just one camera (& lens!).It's a dilemma and potentially a fiscally responsible one. My canon has awesome lenses and judicious macro capabilities and is just frankly easier to use. But no UV pics--at least I have not tried any.You know, I am going to try and take some UV pics with my Canon/Baader U today. I will blast off my Vivitars a few times during a long exposure and see what happens. Long exposures, high iso--yeah I know it's been done but I am trying it anyway. Did lenses have UV coatings in the 50's?What about something like this which was made in 1959:http://www.ebay.com/...0-/161549483855 -D Link to comment
msubees Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Damon, nice work! in the visual shot, I assume you meant 1/160 sec, not 160 sec for exposure? Zach Link to comment
Damon Posted February 1, 2015 Author Share Posted February 1, 2015 Thanks Zach!1/60 sec is actually right. Good catch. -D Link to comment
enricosavazzi Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Did lenses have UV coatings in the 50's?What about something like this which was made in 1959:http://www.ebay.com/...0-/161549483855Multicoatings (i.e. multi-layer coatings) should have become common later than the 50s (perhaps in the 70s). Anything from the 50s is probably single-coated. This is not a guarantee for a usable UV transmission, but it does help. The lens image at the link shows yellowish reflections, which probably indicate single-layer coatings. Some of the earlier 35 mm F/3.5 mm accidental UV lenses that we already know about have similar yellowish reflections. On the other hand, some of the later models of these lenses have bluish reflections but in practice they work just as well as the earlier ones in UV. There might be perhaps a difference of half a stop in UV transmission, or at most one stop, between these types of coatings, but nothing that prevents their use in UV photography. Absorption by the glass and by glue between optical elements seems to be more important in these lenses, so I guess the same applies also to other lens models of the same age. Link to comment
Damon Posted February 6, 2015 Author Share Posted February 6, 2015 Good to know Enrico.Thanks for the info.There are cheaper old Canon lenses than that one to try out that's for sure. I will look around -D Link to comment
JCDowdy Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 I see no practical, affordable and anti pain in the rump way to do UVIVFL at say, 5X with the D70. Like the Poinsettia closeup. Maybe a 2 foot bellows. :) "Just don't shoot stuff that close". "Hey Doc, my arm hurts when I move it that way" "Well then don't move it that way". You might try the coupled reversed lens technique. I tried it in UV and was able to image conical cells on my first attempt much to my surprise. Like the man says most folks will already have the lenses and the male/male coupling rings are dirt cheap. Link to comment
Damon Posted February 7, 2015 Author Share Posted February 7, 2015 Wow! How cool.I never would have thought that a combination like that would have worked.That's pretty darn cool. Thanks for sharing. -D Link to comment
JCDowdy Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Yeah, Johan's site is interesting, he is a member on this site also. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now