delete

[arri]

-

[Andy Perrin]

Gorgeous!

 

By the way, are you tagging your posts? We have a Film tag.

[arri]

-

[dabateman]

Excellent image.

Your lens and film have a nice sharpness.

[photoni]

I used a self made lens with a single 75mm and 1000mm element. In combination it is a 65mm lens with f/2.8 Here I used f/8 or 11 Ilford FP4+ in Wehner Developer I prefer panchromatic B&W film because of the sensitivity into the UV band, around 280nm You can see that the flower pollen began to luminesce. I used no filter, the sample shows the full range between 280-680nm

 

arri, sorry, I think it's the contrast of a very strong side light

panchromatic film sees 99.99% visible light, UV is irrelevant. I believe that to see the UV part you should take pictures in the dark with a UV led

[colinbm]

Beaut flower

[arri]

-

[Andy Perrin]

The light in sunshine is almost all visible and IR. There isn't much UV to begin with. The film may be sensitive to UV, but if there is nothing to record (relative to visible) you will get a mostly visible light photo. I think you need at least a BG filter to push the response towards blue/UV, even if you don't want a pure UV photo.

[arri]

-

[Andy Perrin]

So far I like your photos as art, but I don’t understand why you want to post mostly-visible light photos on a UV forum. Any UV contribution in these photos is a small effect, whereas my interests are in UV as the majority of the image (or at least substantially affecting it). But maybe others see it differently!

[colinbm]

We can post what we like to post, especially in mixed light.

It is up to the sites owners to decide what is not suitable.

[Andy Perrin]

I didn't say it wasn't suitable, colin, just that I don't get it. I suppose there are many things in life I'm just not destined to understand, and why someone would want to do this is one of them!

[colinbm]

I didn't say it wasn't suitable, colin, just that I don't get it. I suppose there are many things in life I'm just not destined to understand, and why someone would want to do this is one of them!

This is not how to encourage a new member with a different approach.

[dabateman]

I like also using 2mm S8612 filter only for some of my UV/vis images with two 365nm lights.

It has sort of a mixture of uv reflectance and UV induced fluorescence.

 

 

 

[Fandyus]

I didn't say it wasn't suitable, colin, just that I don't get it. I suppose there are many things in life I'm just not destined to understand, and why someone would want to do this is one of them!

I agree with you, Andy. These pictures are basically just normal visible light.

[nfoto]

If the conditions are clearly specified and stated, I see no problem. As the optically simple lenses used likely have little chromatic correction, they will deliver images with a lot of chromatic aberrations of the lateral and axial kinds, meaning the image inherently is blurry. Undercorrected spherical a berration also contriute. In a b/w rendition the effect is nice, dreamlike and hazy. However, unless a robust UV bandpass filter has been applied for the captures, it would be misleading to designate the ensuing pictures 'UV images'.

[nfoto]

Deleting one's contributions is not something we admins encourage at UVP.

[photoni]

I'm sorry that "septac" has deleted all posts, probably ... like me ... he's a touchy old man

[Andrea B.]

If this kind of thing continues, then I will have to turn off the capability to delete posts.

[Andy Perrin]

What on earth...

 

Nfoto, the problem I was having is that there was essentially no UV content at all (or anything but visible light) in those pictures, pretty as they were. I just wanted him to push things towards UV enough that they would at least have a mix of UV and visible to comment on. Or why else be showing them to *us*? I don't think I was the correct audience!

[Stefano]

If this kind of thing continues, then I will have to turn off the capability to delete posts.

I think members already can't delete posts, I've tried in the past with double posts but you have to leave at least one character, like a dot. We can only edit them.

[dabateman]

If this kind of thing continues, then I will have to turn off the capability to delete posts.

 

Its not deletions, but maybe time limited post editing. After 2 or 3 hours only an Admin should be able to open up a post for edits

[Andrea B.]

I think members already can't delete posts, I've tried in the past with double posts but you have to leave at least one character, like a dot. We can only edit them.

 

But I have other controls, Stefano & David, which I do not currently impose.

 

Thankfully, this kind of thing is fairly rare.

[nfoto]

Recently, we have seen several example of threads in which a single member is actively destroying content. This is a behaviour we simply do not wish to be the norm here on UVP as it is disruptive and against the aims of our community.

 

Disagreement with view points of others should be dealt with in the form of civilised discourse and further exchange of ideas and facts. A chain-saw massacre of one's own contributions is NOT the appropriate step to take for a member of UVP.

[Andrea B.]

Yes Mark removed his photos for some reason. I felt so bad about that because the photos were excellent.

 

 

Birna, I will probably move these destroyed topics into the Retired Threads section.