Jump to content


First test (self) portrait

UV Portrait

8 replies to this topic

#1 Anfy

    Member

  • Members
  • 14 posts

Posted 09 August 2014 - 17:48

No, I won't call it a selfie.

Unmodified Nikon D70, ISO 200, 1/40 sec., Nikon Series E 35mm at f/11 (!), Baader U-filter, two Elinchrom D-Lite-it 4 with "sport" reflectors. The D-Lites do not have any UV domes, so as far as I know it should be safe for my health (recalling Andrea's advice) to make use of them without any special protection, like in a normal taken picture.
Some post production in Photoshop Elements 7.0, Topaz Labs B&W Effects with yellow filter.

You see some bruises on my chest, almost invisible in visible light, due to one of favourite cats I live with, Marcellino Silvestrino (I am a favourite of him too, thus the claw-marks in his - always successful - attemps to jump on my shoulders :o )

There is some banding on the left side box, but maybe the corrugated paper texture, not apparent in ordinary light.

Ciao!

Attached Images

  • Attached Image: DSC_0091cSMALL.jpg

Edited by Andrea B., 24 July 2015 - 19:20.


#2 msubees

    Zach Huang

  • Members
  • 389 posts
  • Location: Michigan, USA

Posted 09 August 2014 - 23:55

I must say, this is very bright for a UV portrait, and it does not have good "UV feel" -- donot know why. I did one for myself also and it was much darker.

#3 Anfy

    Member

  • Members
  • 14 posts

Posted 10 August 2014 - 04:09

Thank you for your comment.
Maybe the (software) yellow filter applied during the B&W conversion, which lighted considerably the image, is responsible for the look. Or the fact that the monitor I am working with at the moment is (o, the horror!), uncalibrated.
As far as I know with a Baader U-filter on the front of the lens there should be no visible light/IR contamination, but I may be wrong.

Ciao!

#4 Anfy

    Member

  • Members
  • 14 posts

Posted 10 August 2014 - 06:06

Another two things:
- I have quite a pale skin, and am not tanned;
- (on a tech side, do not know if it makes a difference) I did NOT reverse mounted the Baader U filter, since I am waiting for the Nikon AF-1 holder and step rings.

Ciao!

#5 Andrea B.

    Desert Dancer

  • Owner-Administrator
  • 9,110 posts
  • Location: UVP Western Division, Santa Fe, New Mexico

Posted 10 August 2014 - 13:42

oh Anfy you wild & crazy guy you !! You appear to have just emerged from the depths of -- where? somewhere! - having just victoriously completed a difficult and daring mission. Perhaps you have succeeded in rescuing Kitty Bonbon from the sewers of Paris? (I didn't think we would ever hear from her again!)

**********

I suspect the editing has indeed affected the tones of the UV photo. Perhaps show us a small portion of the photo without that yellow filter?

**********

The primary reason for reversing the Baader-U to have the pink, shiny side facing the subject (facing out) is for better IR rejection (or is it absorption - I can't remember which right now). Also, perhaps more importantly having the pink side facing out helps prevent flare and hotspots because light inside the lens won't bounce off the shiny surface. Hotspots and flare can bite you sometimes in UV even with dedicated lenses.

**********

I think you will have some fun making UV portraits. Don't forget the possibilities of face & body painting with sunscreen. I have no idea whether tanned skin photographs differently in UV than does untanned skin. So Anfy, get together a few models of varying skin shades for a sunshine shoot and post the results for us so that we can see the answer!
Andrea G. Blum
Often found hanging out with flowers & bees.

#6 JCDowdy

    JCDowdy

  • Members
  • 1,188 posts
  • Location: Arlington, TN

Posted 10 August 2014 - 16:26

Melanin effectively absorbs UV, so tanned skin most definitely photographs very differently in UV than untanned.

Anfy, I do not understand the comment "The D-Lites do not have any UV domes, so as far as I know it should be safe for my health (recalling Andrea's advice) to make use of them without any special protection, like in a normal taken picture." I realize there may be a slight language barrier and acknowledge your English is much better than my nonresistant Italian!

Also, I have an E series lens and it's UV transmission does not extend very far across the transmittance band of the Badder-U filter, thus rendering images with different false UV-coloration.

#7 Anfy

    Member

  • Members
  • 14 posts

Posted 10 August 2014 - 17:11

@ Andrea: LOL! :o

@JCD: the comment about the UV health risk was in response to Andrea's statement:
"WARNING about UV PORTRAITs: UV is harmful to the eyes. I don't think it is wise to flash a UV flash into someone's eyes. Better to have them sit still in good strong sunlight while you make the portrait";
and to the experience of those who removed, for better UV pictures, a glass dome which by default - as far as I know - absorbs UV light in Broncolor strobes (and which is lacking instead in Elinchrom D-Lite-it 4 flashes).

Ciao!

Edited by Anfy, 10 August 2014 - 17:12.


#8 JCDowdy

    JCDowdy

  • Members
  • 1,188 posts
  • Location: Arlington, TN

Posted 10 August 2014 - 17:30

Yes, I just wanted to be sure that is what you meant, since some people get that backwards.

Even a coated strobe tube will emit some longer wavelength UV just below the visible, otherwise the color would be affected.

Good Shooting

Edited by JCDowdy, 10 August 2014 - 17:32.


#9 Anfy

    Member

  • Members
  • 14 posts

Posted 10 August 2014 - 18:02

@ Andrea:
here is a crop of the original picture, with the edited portion obviously on the left.
WB was on Auto, since I have no idea to custom set it on a D70 with a visible light blocking filter and flash strobes.

Ciao!

Attached Images

  • Attached Image: DSC_0091dSMALL.jpg




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users