Landscapes and stuff

[Nate]

Went out to take some snaps, still cold here, about 19F/-7c  but the Sun came out.

All shots with BaaderU and EL Nikkor 80 5.6 metal  77D FS, or Canon 2000D and 50mm/R72

 

A little peak at the mountains with wally world down below

 

No color tweaking, Baader color with my setup isn't too bad

 

Saw this farm along the road, mountain was clear and sharp visibly 

 

A little bit of heavy equipment

 

Tweaked the purple a bit

 

I like the Mountain backgrounds, UV hazeified

 

These are everywhere around here

 

My first pic with a FS Camera, just got down to processing now. R72  and a Canon 50mm prime

 

Thanks for checking these out, Coming to terms with 350-400nm

 

 

 

 

 

 

[colinbm]

Interesting collection Nate, & sharp too.

[Andy Perrin]

Really excellent landscapes! I like the UV haze effect a lot. Those are the Rockies?

[Nate]

Thanks guys, That one is Moscow Mountain @Andy Perrin, I think technically the Rockies run through my area, but on maps there are so many sub ranges.

[nfoto]

Normally not endeared to churches, however your UV version is nice. The teasels are a bit surprising in their appearance as well.

[photoni]

@Nate for my personal taste for the IR photo I would increase the brightness and contrast

[Nate]

17 minutes ago, nfoto said:

Normally not endeared to churches

Me either, I usually stay away from them. I'll check out more teasels throughout the year as they're so abundant 

Thanks.

[Nate]

Thanks @photoniI'm still processing with my gaming monitor, so my out put is usually different than what I see, but I agree. Thanks

 

Forgot the contrast details, oops. still learning darktable

[Cadmium]

Nate, I like the Teasels (2nd to the last photo).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipsacus

[Nate]

@CadmiumThanks, and the link too. Definitely going to follow those throughout the year, didn't realise  all the different stages of them.

[Bill De Jager]

Welcome, Nate.  That's some nice work.  I like the teasels the most. 

 

You're in a beautiful region of Idaho with some very nice forests and lakes.  I haven't been by that part of the state for 50 years now.

 

For non-Americans, "Wally World" is a tongue-in-cheek term for Walmart, a chain of big-box stores that's found across the U.S.  The store (with its name) is visible towards the bottom middle of the first photograph along with its large parking lot out front.

[Andrea B.]

An interesting and informative series. And some good compositions, too.

I enjoy seeing other parts of the world through a UV filter. 

[Nate]

Thanks @Bill De JagerI'm still learning a lot from everyone on here. I did forget to mention it was Walmart, hope no one thought this was in a Chevy Chase movie

[Nate]

2 minutes ago, Andrea B. said:

I enjoy seeing other parts of the world through a UV filter. 

Thanks Andrea, as I do too

 

[Andrea B.]

Nate, I offer up the following comment about shadows as a fan of heavy equipment UV photos.  

Filter Test on Hitachi Backhoe

 

It can be useful in UV files to open up the shadows and dark areas a bit to see detail and a bit more false color. (This, of course, is entirely up to the photographer/artist.) For example, in your big truck photo the dark areas are slightly too dark. FWIW, here is a screen shot in Luminar with more open shadows. 

 

Shadows opened with extra microcontrast.

 

 

 

Shadows opened but no extra microcontrast.

[Andy Perrin]

Andrea, I agree with that as general advice, but on this photo I find I prefer Nate's presentation better. The Luminar is making a lot of artificial glowy edges here, and I really liked the silhouette effect in the original. Sometimes we should not disturb what lies in the shadows! 

[Nate]

Thanks Andrea, I figured I wouldn't bring them out more than what I saw irl, but I might have kept behind the cab too dark a bit, I think with this one, I was pre occupied with the purple as I didn't see much of it on other peoples shots, and still wondering why all mine have purple, and some others show my edits blue tone. 

[Andy Perrin]

Huh, my UV usually shows a lot of purple. 

[Nate]

I saw a guy on youtube that has UV videos, and I ask him what filter he was using, he said the BaaderU and it had more of a blue tint to the reflections. That's why I figured I was doing something wrong

 

[Andy Perrin]

White balance could be different, sensors different, or he could have tweaked it himself because he likes blue. 

[Nate]

8 hours ago, Andy Perrin said:

he could have tweaked it himself because he likes blue

This is true, never thought of that. Also after doing further reading from the link Andrea posed, Most likely down to camera manufacturer.

[Andrea B.]

...but I might have kept behind the cab too dark a bit

Nate, you were shooting against a very bright sky in UV, so the cab is too dark. Happens in Vis also, but maybe a bit worse in UV?

The choice is either a dark cab or a blown sky. Or some attempt to meter in between the brightest and darkest areas.

 

It seems easier to open up the dark shadows in the converter than it is to bring a bright sky under control. 

*****

 

 

The Luminar is making a lot of artificial glowy edges here.

 

Andy, that was *me* playing with microcontrasts! Sorry 'bout that!

I posted an additional version above without the added microcontrasts.

*****

 

 

I was pre-occupied with the purple as I didn't see much of it on other peoples shots, and still wondering why all mine have purple, and some others show my edits blue tone. 

I saw a guy on youtube that has UV videos, and I ask him what filter he was using, he said the BaaderU and it had more of a blue tint to the reflections. That's why I figured I was doing something wrong.

 

Nate, it's all false color. Not real. False color is an artifact created by UV light passing through the Bayer dyes. So there is no standard for it. There's no right way versus wrong way to white balance a file.

And.... all factors which go into making a UV photo file also affect what false colors come out of the final conversion. The camera, its sensor, its Bayer filter structure, the lens, the filter, the specific converter and its proprietary white balance algorithm, how you apply the WB tools. And then there's how much UV light is available while making the photo.

 

Generally speaking with most -- but not all -- digital cameras, you will get a fairly standardized result from applying white balance tools in most -- but not all -- converters. There are some converters which cannot make a WB on a UV file. Today, for example, I was trying out DxO Photo Lab. It could not white balance some of my Nikon D610 UV files. There are also some cameras which do not easily produce the blue/yellow/grey (or blue-violet/yellow/grey) toned false colors in a UV file. My current Panasonic S1R is way weird about that. I get cyanish-greens as well as blues and yellows after the WB step.

 

Also saturation plays a role in how some blue or blue-violet is seen. Less saturated blue begins to look like lavender. (Somewhere there's a topic about this on UVP.)

 

You're really doing OK with this. Keep up the good work!

 

Added Later:   I think we refer to the "blue false color" when we probably should say the "blue-violet" false color.

 

[Andrea B.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abney_effect

 

https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php?/topic/2674-reference-color-vision/

 

 

rgb = (78, 72, 104)

That is a sample from your church photo. The color there is a desaturated, slightly darkened blue. There is a touch more red than there is green, but not enough to call this anything but desaturated, slightly darkened blue. Interesting, yes???

[Nate]

Thanks Andrea for the clarification, for some reason I thought the purple color was the actual edge of the visible spectrum that the filter is allowing through.

[Andrea B.]

There is an insignificant amount of visible violet light between 400-405 nm which the BaaderU (and some other broadband filters or filter stacks) pass, but it gets recorded by the camera the same way the UV light between 385-400 nm gets recorded. So after white balance, you get the same false blues or blue-violets. Go look again at your diffraction grating example recently posted to review the extent of the false blue-violet below 400nm. (I could probably go lower on that boundary, say 380-400 nm.)