Hello from Oxfordshire UK

[Andrew Dayer]

First, thanks to Birna for processing my application to join.

 

I've been developing an interest in UV and to a lesser extent IR photography for a while now with no particular motivation beyond curiosity and wondering if the 'unseen' with reveal something interesting- basically the photographic version of turning rocks over to see what lurks below. I guess you're all ahead of me on that? After quite a few years in business, I'm hoping to take this interest - together with general and macro nature photography forward as part of a Masters programme in the next year.

 

Right now I'm just about starting with some cheap and primitive equipment:

 

Camera:    Nikon D50 unconverted - my first digital camera that I knew would be useful again one day.

Filters:       Baader U-Venus + adapters

 

Lighting:    Alonefire X901UV 10w 365nm torch. Sourced from Amazon for fun and for crude screening of optics (visible fluorescence when shining through an unattached lens).

 

                   Flash - have an old Vivitar 285HV that I'll modify as a first step.

                   The sun...

Lenses:      I have a number of enlarger lenses for macro use that crossover with UVR use eg EL-Nikkors although I've focused on shorter focal lengths until now.

 

I've also acquired a few 35mm f3.5 with random names and designs based on info here and on Dr Savazzis' website. Mixed results so far (on my super-crude test) but some OK eg the Optimax

 

                   A Soligar and an Autocrat 50mm 3.5 enlarger lenses. Both seem good.

                   Nikon 105mm f2.8D Micro; not the 105 UV but does maybe have some transmission? To be checked properly

                   Various good visible light lenses and some real junk that I don't know why I keep

                   Nikon F to M42 & other adapters; extension tubes, bellows etc

Since I'm here to learn (and contribute if I can) I'd like to know if I'm short of anything for these first steps which are only for me to prove and develop my technique?

One thing I don't have is a PTFE WB target. I haven't found anything grey (how about a frying pan) and haven't found much more than white plumbers' thread tape.

.

Thanks in advance for any help and advice.

[dabateman]

Yes the Nikon 105mm AF-D macro lens does  transmit UV. I was surprised by mine.

Also plumbing tape is PTFE, so you just need to keep it clean and wrap a few layers around a business card or something. 

I have know idea about the D50, if it leaks enough UV to get started. But maybe. 

[Ming]

Welcome, Andrew.

I got my PTFE sheet from Amazon https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07GGNNF3Q

There is a seller on eBay https://www.ebay.com/itm/265047850200

 

[Andy Perrin]

You really need a converted camera. You won't be happy with the results you get until you get that filter out of there!

[Doug A]

Hello Andrew and welcome to the forum. You will find it tough going without converting the camera to full spectrum. Only about 3% of sunlight is UV. Even a modified flash the size of a Vivitar 285HV puts out very little UV. There have been many versions of the 285HV. If you are connecting the flash to the camera be sure to check the trigger voltage first. Puny digital cameras won't handle the voltage old 35mm cameras could. I've seen 285HV with 6 volts (safe) to way over 100 volts (no where near safe).

 

Thanks,

Doug A

[Andrew Dayer]

11 hours ago, dabateman said:

Yes the Nikon 105mm AF-D macro lens does  transmit UV. I was surprised by mine.

Also plumbing tape is PTFE, so you just need to keep it clean and wrap a few layers around a business card or something. 

I have know idea about the D50, if it leaks enough UV to get started. But maybe. 

 

I'm guessing the 105mm D macro doesn't have much UV depth but I didn't find anything on that here. Lens has 9 elements in 8 groups but I don't know about coatings (https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0072). Different designer to the 105mm UV (https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0033/)

Plumber's tape. Well, I have some so I'll give it a try.

Nikon D50 is an early DSLR with CCD sensor. It does have some UV sensitive as I have obtained an image with the Baader U and vintage 35mm f3.5. Enough to learn on and free to use.

[Andrew Dayer]

11 hours ago, Ming said:

Welcome, Andrew.

I got my PTFE sheet from Amazon https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07GGNNF3Q

There is a seller on eBay https://www.ebay.com/itm/265047850200

 

 

Thanks Ming. The eBay seller looks possible (the Amazon one not available, maybe a cross-boarder thing)

[JMC]

Welcome to the forum Andrew.

 

Quite a few use plumbers tape for white balance. I just got a disk of PTFE from Ebay, and then slightly roughened up the surface.

 

Jonathan

[Andrew Dayer]

10 hours ago, Andy Perrin said:

You really need a converted camera. You won't be happy with the results you get until you get that filter out of there!

 

Thanks Andy. The D50 does work... I also have a D200 said to be converted but out of commission at present. I don't know much of the D200's history but the side grip has a 1cm / 0.5" red strip added and I recall reading somewhere that one of the converters added that to indicate conversion (to what??).

But I think the biggest issue with either is no Live View so I am really shooting in the dark.

[nfoto]

Some of Nikon's earlier DSLRs with CCD sensors had quite weak UV blocking filter internally whilst IR rejection was pretty good. Thus D40 could do some nice things in UV and if memory serves, its successors the D50 and D70 followed suit. Do note that the D40X behaved quite differently and had to be converted, and the same holds for D200. In the greater scheme of things no LiveView is a minor annoyance and a challenge worth its while to overcome. I did shoot IR with my D1 & D200 cameras without LiveView as long as they were my main IR systems, ie. for years.

 

And lest I forgot to mention, welcome to UVP.

[Andrew Dayer]

2 hours ago, Doug A said:

Hello Andrew and welcome to the forum. You will find it tough going without converting the camera to full spectrum. Only about 3% of sunlight is UV. Even a modified flash the size of a Vivitar 285HV puts out very little UV. There have been many versions of the 285HV. If you are connecting the flash to the camera be sure to check the trigger voltage first. Puny digital cameras won't handle the voltage old 35mm cameras could. I've seen 285HV with 6 volts (safe) to way over 100 volts (no where near safe).

 

Thanks,

Doug A

 

Thanks Doug.

Comments on the unconverted D50 as other replies. I'm planning to use the flash off-camera with optical triggers along the lines of Adrian Davies's setup (RPS presentation from last September).

How many of these flashes needed? I have one but assume upto four...

[Andrew Dayer]

20 minutes ago, JMC said:

Welcome to the forum Andrew.

 

Quite a few use plumbers tape for white balance. I just got a disk of PTFE from Ebay, and then slightly roughened up the surface.

 

Jonathan

 

Thanks Jonathan. Its tape for now since I have it... and hate plumbing to a good use for now!

 

Thanks also for your RPS Scientific Imaging presentation from last September. Admired & enjoyed in one.

[Andrew Dayer]

10 hours ago, nfoto said:

Some of Nikon's earlier DSLRs with CCD sensors had quite weak UV blocking filter internally whilst IR rejection was pretty good. Thus D40 could do some nice things in UV and if memory serves, its successors the D50 and D70 followed suit. Do note that the D40X behaved quite differently and had to be converted, and the same holds for D200. In the greater scheme of things no LiveView is a minor annoyance and a challenge worth its while to overcome. I did shoot IR with my D1 & D200 cameras without LiveView as long as they were my main IR systems, ie. for years.

 

And lest I forgot to mention, welcome to UVP.

 

Thanks Birna.

I'll work with the D50 until the D200 is serviceable and characterised (it might be IR converted, not UV). Maybe a more modern full spectrum camera after that (D3x00 or D5x00 seem a good option)

I've found a Nikon AR1 hinged filter holder (same as supplied with original 105mm UV) and ordered some step rings so I should be able to attach the Badder U to the front and set up in visible. If that's a mad idea or unworkable, I is cheap at least.

 

[Adrian]

Hello Andrew, For many years I used a full spectrum converted Nikon D300 from eBay, and El Nikkor lenses, and grey plumbers PTFE tape. Worked a treat! In my experience the 105mm Nikon micro Nikkor  lens is not very good for UV transmission. 

[JMC]

2 hours ago, Andrew Dayer said:

 

Thanks Jonathan. Its tape for now since I have it... and hate plumbing to a good use for now!

 

Thanks also for your RPS Scientific Imaging presentation from last September. Admired & enjoyed in one.

No problem Andrew, and thanks. I'll be giving another talk to the RPS this December, on my UV microscopy this time, and going in to how I built (and tested) the microscope and showing some of the images at different wavelengths in the UV.

[lukaszgryglicki]

For me 105/2.8 AF Micro Nikkor performed quite well in UV - not as good as EL-Nikkor but really good + bonus AF and macro.

 

[Andy Perrin]

That is interesting that any cameras still exist from the times before converting was required! News to me. 

[Nate]

Welcome Andrew,

Looking forward to seeing your journey in this slice of the spectrum.

[Andrew Dayer]

10 hours ago, Adrian said:

Hello Andrew, For many years I used a full spectrum converted Nikon D300 from eBay, and El Nikkor lenses, and grey plumbers PTFE tape. Worked a treat! In my experience the 105mm Nikon micro Nikkor  lens is not very good for UV transmission. 

 

Thanks Adrian. Tell me you got that tape at B&Q! I can't find anything grey anywhere and its received wisdom that WB needs grey.
 

Was your 105mm micro Nikkor one of the earlier versions or the same 'D' model as mine? I've done a crude test today and certainly get a usable image with it on the D50 and Baader U (with 365nm torch).

 

Thanks also for your RPS Scientific Imaging presentation from last September alongside Johnathan. Liked the UV book too :-)

 

[Andy Perrin]

While gray would be best, we get by with white PTFE and just make sure it’s not overexposed. 

[Andrew Dayer]

9 hours ago, lukaszgryglicki said:

For me 105/2.8 AF Micro Nikkor performed quite well in UV - not as good as EL-Nikkor but really good + bonus AF and macro.

 

 

It may be my favourite (US: favorite) lens to use since I got it nearly 30 years ago. And now I find its at least useable in UV!

Just to try here, I'm adding a couple of images. No effort made on composition, focus or even exposure. Subject distance approx 0.5m. Just a binary test 'is there light?' Both images just messed around with in camera calibration and coverted to default B&W

Visible light - Nikon D50 + Nikon 105mm f2.8 D micro. 1.3 secs @ f8 in ambient light (in my 'playroom'):

 

UV - Nikon D50 + Nikon 105mm f2.8 D micro + Baader U-Venus. 15 secs @ f8 in ambient light plus random lightpainting with 10w 365nm torch:

 

 

Focus shift on UV could be me be clumsy putting on the filter or maybe CA which presumable wasn't controlled for UV. This is technically my first proper UV image.

So maybe I don't need to save up for that Rayfact after all

[Andrew Dayer]

13 minutes ago, Andy Perrin said:

While gray would be best, we get by with white PTFE and just make sure it’s not overexposed. 

I guess exposure's going to be luck until I get flash sorted. Lightpainting must be random and the sun here in the UK is inclined to contary behavour.

[Andy Perrin]

Torches generally don't produce very colorful UV pics anyhow, so if you use the 365nm torch, you may as well make it monochrome. For better colors, use sunlight or UV-converted flash.

[nfoto]

If the UV-Nikkor/Rayfact is off limits, the oldest version of 105/4 Micro or the (optically equivalent) 105/4 Bellows Nikkors could be used. Or, if you venture away from the Nikon path, what about a Petri/Kuribayashi/Kyoei 100 or 135/3.5? The latter will produce reasonable close-ups on any Nikon SLR/DSLR, but infinity focus might be impossible depending on the adaptation.

 

Here are some spring flowers Gagea lutea and Orthocallis siberica with the Petri 135/3.5 on my Nikon D3200 (internal Baader U). Hand-held according to my field notes.

 

 

The lens is cheap on eBay (so far). Modifying it to F mount is easy.

[Wayne Harridge]

31 minutes ago, nfoto said:

If the UV-Nikkor/Rayfact is off limits, the oldest version of 105/4 Micro or the (optically equivalent) 105/4 Bellows Nikkors could be used. Or, if you venture away from the Nikon path, what about a Petri/Kuribayashi/Kyoei 100 or 135/3.5? The latter will produce reasonable close-ups on any Nikon SLR/DSLR, but infinity focus might be impossible depending on the adaptation.

That's interesting Birna, I hadn't heard that about the 105/4 Micro Nikkor, I'll have to give mine a try.  I'm not sure if it's the oldest version but the mount is AI rather than AI-S.