How about film?

[lukaszgryglicki]

Did anybody try to make UV photos on film?

I wonder how it would perform?

I can take Nikon F4, load some film (but which kind - I assume some B/W are most sensitive to UV)

I can focus On D600 from a constant distance, say 3m - see what exactly needs to be set on the lens for a constant aperture, ISO, exposure (just check this on digital).

Then I can mount Nikkor 50/1.8 AF-D + Kolari UV-pass on F4, use the same settings and shoot few photos with exposure compensation say: -2, -1, 0, +1, +2.

Does it make sense, what should I expect?

[Stefano]

Yes, people have used film for UV photography. Look at this topic: https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/4643-has-anyone-ever-used-a-pinhole-and-maybe-film-to-take-uv-pictures

[lukaszgryglicki]

I'll review this... I can mostly see pinhole images, I was rather thinking about using an accidental UV lens, film (B/W or color?), and then develop & scan.

[dabateman]

There is a film tag that you should be able to search by.

Yes film is more sensitive to UV than digital. Also film is not sensitive to IR. So you don't need an IR blocking filter.

You can get away with just using 2mm UG1, U360, ZWB2 or 2mm Ug11. U340, Zwb1.

Black and white maybe easiest to look at. My Kodak portra film wasn't best. But order was Yellow, blue than red for sensitivity. So colors were a little odd.

 

Even Fuji instax film works with only blue response in color or black and white.

 

Have fun is they key.

Some film shots just look great, even though low resolution.

[Andy Perrin]

Yeah, plenty of people have done film on here, most recently dabateman did instant photos (Polaroid knockoffs) and someone also did an analog panoramic film format in UV. I think Clark.

[lukaszgryglicki]

Used Kodak Portra many times, by "But order was Yellow, blue than red" you mean that going from 400nm --> 300nm (or even lower) colors registered on film change from yellow, blue and then red? I need to find actual photo scans from the film that were made using a UV-capable lens...

[dabateman]

Sorry no I mean yellow was 2 stops more sensitive than blue which was 2 stops more sensitive than red. So the the colors are a little funky. I don't see yellow on its own very well so exposing for blue would be best. But that test was just in UVC. I didn't do a proper exposure series in UVA.

 

[Andy Perrin]

Dabateman, can you find your topic on that and link it?

[lukaszgryglicki]

Probably this? https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/4306-nons-camera-with-fuji-instax-mini-film-tries-uv/page__hl__film__st__20

[Andy Perrin]

No, that's the Instax, not the Kodak. But yeah, that's another example of what's been done with film around here.

[dabateman]

This was were it started.

https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/3721-uv-film-setting-experience/page__hl__%2Bkodak+%2Bportra__fromsearch__1

 

I don't think I scanned the rolls though.

[lukaszgryglicki]

Yep, read this too, but this is in 254nm which is far away from my plans for now. This is actually a (probably?) one of deadliest parts of "near" UV-C?

It is really far: 254 is for 400nm relatively as far as 1100 nm from 700nm (and 1.1um is out of reach for IR too - my full spectrum camera is still sensitive aboove 950 nm, but really a lot less).

[dabateman]

Yes but my last link with support from others wasn't in UVC, just UVA.

I am the only nut trying UVC. See the images and exposure settings indicated there.

[lukaszgryglicki]

So I would not even attempt to modify the lens - it will become "damaged" in my opinion. I prefer to try with two adapters. I also don't want to go mirrorless option.