I got a UV cut filter for my lens it made a big difference that made to my uvivf pics.

[Craigo79]

Played with wb until I liked it.

 

[colinbm]

Nice Craig, I need to do some of this.

[otoien]

Very nice and detailed. Any before and after images with regards to UV cut filter? I would have thought the UVIR filter of a stock camera sensor would have cut most of the UV?

(There can be fluorescence in the lens though as we have shown here before).

[Craigo79]

I have no before and after pics but it made a big difference to my 5d Mark IV using the same lens as i have in the past though..... Next time i do something like this i will try with and without the filter.

[Doug A]

@Craigk79amazing image. The colors and detail are superb. I find a Tiffen UV Haze 2 filter gives purer colors vs no filter, on a Pentax 645 A 120 macro. Surprising since heavily multi coated Pentax lenses usually pass less UV to begin with. The filter was worth the small investment.

 

Thanks for sharing,

Doug A

[dabateman]

Looks good.

I should compare a golden kiwi to a regular one some day.

The kiwi berries also are quite bright. 

[Craigo79]

22 minutes ago, Doug A said:

@Craigk79amazing image. The colors and detail are superb. I find a Tiffen UV Haze 2 filter gives purer colors vs no filter, on a Pentax 645 A 120 macro. Surprising since heavily multi coated Pentax lenses usually pass less UV to begin with. The filter was worth the small investment.

 

Thanks for sharing,

Doug A

Thank you , Mine is a vivitar UV Haze

[Andy Perrin]

I think that while it’s true that the multi coated modern lenses pass too little UV relative to the visible light in sunshine to be worth using as UV-only lenses, they also pass more than enough in the 400-390 range to mess up the colors in a UVIVF scenario where there is nothing but the weak visible fluorescence to compete with. If the visible competition is wimpy, the UV appears stronger by comparison, even in spite of the sensitivity differences and the low lens transmission. 
 

For UVIVF and also the 405nm laser, I’ve been using the Tiffen haze 2E filter which cuts at 420nm. Not even the laser gets through!

[colinbm]

Hi Craig, I was surprised that the Vivitar haze cut the UV this well, but it is still just passing some of the UV into the fluorescence.
You will get a slightly better fluorescent result with a filter that cuts closer to 410nm.

[JMC]

With my stock 5DSR, the internal filters had quite a leak at 365nm -

 

So it doesn't surprise me that adding a UV cut filter makes a difference to your pictures. Not all cameras have this, but I always advocate using a UV cut filter on the lens for fluorescence work.

[colinbm]

But with Craig's Vivitar Haze filter he is still getting a leak at 395nm which will fluoresce many things.

[Craigo79]

Thank you Colin

[Craigo79]

I have just found in my stash a Hoya UV 0 77mm

 

[colinbm]

Greatly reduces any 395nm leak...

[Craigo79]

Baby Cos leaf... Used the Hoya filter here.

[Craigo79]

Colin that filter I am guessing is very expensive?

[colinbm]

Not like a Baader

 

[colinbm]

Just down the road from you....
https://crkphotoimaging.com.au/products/00zeist*uvfl/zeiss-t--uv-filter

[colinbm]

Its like a McDonalds ice-cream & Streets Blue Ribbon ice-cream....

[Andrea B.]

The basic rule of UV-induced visible fluorescence photography is Double Filtration.

Don't trust that your illumination source only outputs UV.

Don't trust your internal camera filtration only records VIS.

 

I've meself made quite a number of vis fluor photos without one of the necessary filters,

but I *always* mention any missing filter so that everyone is clear about what they are seeing

even though probably 80% of the time (wild guess!), you get the same photo with only 1 filter 

that you would get with Double Filtration. Just depends on the gear being used.

 

Double Filtration Rule also holds for UV-induced IR photos.

And for any X-induced Y photos.

 

Double Filtration Rule can be tossed for artistic effects, of course.

Just say what you've used or not used.

---

 

Craig, the Kiwi fluor photo is beautiful !!

---

 

[Craigo79]

9 hours ago, colinbm said:

Just down the road from you....
https://crkphotoimaging.com.au/products/00zeist*uvfl/zeiss-t--uv-filter

My good friends brother works for that store. I actually won a voucher through them a few years ago with sigma Australia Thanks for the link may come in handy should I decide to get more serious about this.

 

3 hours ago, Andrea B. said:

The basic rule of UV-induced visible fluorescence photography is Double Filtration.

Don't trust that your illumination source only outputs UV.

Don't trust your internal camera filtration only records VIS.

 

I've meself made quite a number of vis fluor photos without one of the necessary filters,

but I *always* mention any missing filter so that everyone is clear about what they are seeing

even though probably 80% of the time (wild guess!), you get the same photo with only 1 filter 

that you would get with Double Filtration. Just depends on the gear being used.

 

Double Filtration Rule also holds for UV-induced IR photos.

And for any X-induced Y photos.

 

Double Filtration Rule can be tossed for artistic effects, of course.

Just say what you've used or not used.

---

 

 

Craig, the Kiwi fluor photo is beautiful !!

---

 

 

Thank you , I really am quite surprised at the difference from not using to using a uv cut on the lens

[photoni]

16 hours ago, Craigk79 said:

Played with wb until I liked it.

 

These photos are amazing, I would like to try too

 

I have a contact on Flickr called "Craig B." taking UVIVF photos ... is it you or a namesake.

[Craigo79]

1 hour ago, photoni said:

 

These photos are amazing, I would like to try too

 

I have a contact on Flickr called "Craig B." taking UVIVF photos ... is it you or a namesake.

Thank you. That would be Craig Burrows I think he does lovely work. I am very new to this. Just did a lavender

 

 

[colinbm]

Nice one Craig

[OlDoinyo]

It's amazing how many of those "UV" filters are passing 80%+ at 350, isn't it? I have always favored filters labeled "skylight" for more reliable UV blocking. It would be interesting to see a graphical comparison of some of those.