Cadmium Posted December 4, 2018 Share Posted December 4, 2018 Sparticle, Canon 199A full spectrum converted flash, wireless flash trigger, and tripod with arm. Link to comment
Andy Perrin Posted December 4, 2018 Share Posted December 4, 2018 They look like they are about to kiss. Link to comment
dabateman Posted December 4, 2018 Share Posted December 4, 2018 Cadmium,Do you use the stock 199 flash diffuser on there or is it modified? Actually looking closer thats not the difuser on the front. Do you have S8612 glass on the flash? Then use U340 filter in the diffuser, when you want uv only? @Andy,I think you need to leave the house more and do a photo walk. ;) Link to comment
Cadmium Posted December 4, 2018 Author Share Posted December 4, 2018 There are no filters used on the flash for this. The 199A flash is modified for full spectrum with the original diffuser removed because it doesn't transmit UV.I have a piece of UVT plastic installed in that flash, with a lightly sanded surface, but it doesn't make any difference if the flash has that or not, because I use a very thin sheet of PTFE behind the Sparticle as a diffuser, works better, more evenly diffused light.To be exact, 1/64 inch thick (.4mm thick). It is not shown in these photos, I usually clamp it on the back, last thing, and usually I use another 199A that has no diffuser installed in it.UVT plastic:https://www.polymerp...ents_uvta.shtml The arm is all I have added, it takes the place of another tripod or such. This is fast and easy to set up.I am impressed with the arm, it locks up all three swivel and pivot points at the same time with one knob.The wireless flash trigger is cheap, very handy, and essential for shooting longer lenses. If anyone wants specifics, just ask. Link to comment
DaveO Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 What I would like to see: put a light tight enclosure around the Sparticle and flash gun then, in the dark, let the light from the filters fall onto a sheet of PTFE and photograph the result so you are seeing the colour of each filter reflected from the PTFE as you would from a flower. Do a white balance as you would normally. Dave Link to comment
Cadmium Posted December 14, 2018 Author Share Posted December 14, 2018 Dave, Interesting idea, I will try it.The illuminated target would need to be far enough away from the filter to be able to photograph the projected light,and then the light from the filters would be fairly out of focus, I would think.Would there really be any difference between photographing the illuminated projections ON a surface of PTFE or photographing the back of that same PTFE surface (being thin enough) and putting that surface closer to the filters?I would not expect there to be any difference between the filters and the projection, same colors, only more spread out and diffused.Anyway ideas? Link to comment
DaveO Posted December 14, 2018 Share Posted December 14, 2018 I wouldn't expect any difference either except when we photograph flowers we are taking the light reflected from the subject rather than the light itself if you take the illuminated filters. Link to comment
Cadmium Posted December 15, 2018 Author Share Posted December 15, 2018 Dave, here you go.Like I said, the projected light from the Sparticle bandpass filters is scattered and fuzzy on the target, at any distance.In order to photograph the target, on the reflected side, it has to be at least some small distance from the front of the Sparticle bandpass filters.This was about 3" (75mm), just enough for the camera to peer over the top of the Sparticle from behind and downward toward the PTFE target in front of the Sparticle.There is no difference between photographing the reflected side of the PTFE target, or photographing the far side of the PTFE target, only brightness and exposure time,the colors remain the same.Both shots share the same PTFE white balance. Exposure time and all settings are the same, other than focus. Kuribayashi 35mm f/3.5 and Baader U were used for both shots.Noisy because of high ISO, I forgot to change that. Link to comment
DaveO Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 Excellent. I am always in favour of the "suck it and see" approach, too many people "knew" what would happen and crashed out in the past. It's also good to see all the reflected colours together without the burning out that seems to happen when the direct light saturates the sensor. Thanks, Dave Link to comment
Andy Perrin Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 Something that might be interesting: seeing if we could produce the metamers that we always discuss the possibility of around here in discussions of UV false color by shining the filters on top of each other. Link to comment
Cadmium Posted December 16, 2018 Author Share Posted December 16, 2018 Have at it :-) Link to comment
Andy Perrin Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 When I get my sparticle. Link to comment
Cadmium Posted December 16, 2018 Author Share Posted December 16, 2018 Every boy and girl should have a Sparticle! Ho ho ho... :) ...or a Spectrometer... Or maybe just a camera, and do some 'actual photography', as Birna use to say... Link to comment
Andy Perrin Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 I've been good this year, Santa...-- I actually have a huge post to make soon, but I'm still processing images (because, yes, HUGE). I got most of my friends Victorian cards this year (1870s-1890s) and I took multispectral images of all of them before I sent them off. I did UV, vis, 550nm longpass, 720nm longpass, 1000nm(?-it's chinese...) longpass, UVIVF, UVIIF for all of them...and there were 13 cards or so. You do the math. Like I said, it's a lot of processing! Link to comment
Andrea B. Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 Cadmium, I mos' def want to know about that Arm!! I am looking for a good Arm which might hold a rather heavy SB-14 flash mod. I would like to be able to mount two SB-14s for UV work. Not sure I will go to a three SB-14s for lighting, but perhaps. The SB-14s have an attachment bar which fits under the cam. But I like the idea of mounting them off a tripod instead - as shown above. Link to comment
Cadmium Posted January 15, 2019 Author Share Posted January 15, 2019 I think that tripod is a Manfrotto MT055CXPRO3, which has the built in "Easy Link" feature for attaching arms and such.I think the arm I am showing there is the Manfrotto 244 Mini Arm, it also has a special hot shoe attachment I attached to is separately.https://www.bhphotov...ageID/accessoryThey also have the larger and smaller arms, and actually quite a few other arms.https://www.bhphotov...Top+Nav-Search=I have 3 arms, 244 (which is much bigger), 244 mini, and 244 micro.They also have several goose neck style arms (flex arms).Some are packaged with different pre-assembled attachment ends, depending on what you want them for, but they can all be reconfigured later with different attaching gear.I really recommend their Anti-Rotation attachment ends, which are perfect for attaching to the "Easy Link" and for attaching to their Nano Clamps.If your tripod has the built in "Easy Link" then you can attach to that, if not, then you will need a clamp at one end to attach to the tripod legs or neck (careful using clamps on carbon fiber legs/parts).If you want to mount multiple flashes on one arm, then you will maybe use a bar to distribute your flashes on...?... I don't know.You can also attach multiple clamps to any arm or leg, etc... Or just use three arms clamped on wherever you want.If you do all of that in public, you will want to also order a big NASA patch for your arm, and freshen up on your quantum field theory in case people start asking questions.https://www.physics.harvard.edu/events/videos/Phys253(or just call Bob)Let me know if you have any questions. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now