[Theme] Pictorial UV

[Bjørn Rørslett]

To elaborate the point made by Andrea: blocking IR contamination is the key to successful UV photography.

Using a dandelion as example, capturing with the UV-Nikkor lens on a D70 camera. This camera already has pretty good IR blocking as it was not modified at all. Even the stock model of D70 is able to record UV, but compared to modified cameras its sensitivity is of course much lower.

Visible light as a reference:



Using the Nikon FF filter that was delivered with the UV-Nikkor. As everything at that time was film-based and normal film stocks lack IR response, nobody talked about IR contamination back then.



Apparently the dandelion mop has no clear "bull's eye" pattern to boast of?

However, that conclusion is entirely false, just look what happens if a better UV bandpass filter is deployed on the lens. Now IR contributions are eliminated and the real UV signature can be seen.




The full article is found here:

http://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/107-how-to-use-filters-for-uv-photography/

[Akira]

... it could be safe to say that the IR contamination doesn't really affect the bull's eye pattern.  Maybe.

Akira, I was thinking about this. How important we consider the IR washout that occurs with "leaky" UV-pass filters probably depends on the nature of the UV photography in progress. If the goal is artistic and the IR contamination is minor, then perhaps it doesn't matter too much. If the goal is documentary, then we must add on more IR-blocking and crank up the artificial UV illumination to ensure we are achieving a good representation of the UV-signature for the given scene. Of course, we are never capturing an actual UV-signature because the raw data must be tweaked in order for human eyes to see a photograph instead of a flat, dark mess. 

Having said all that though, it is surprising how many people do not realize that all UV-pass glass leaks IR and that it is necessary to block as much as possible in order to claim that the photograph is UV. For example, the U-330 - if used without any IR blocking at all - passes so much IR, that it can be used as a kind of funky IR filter outdoors in sunlight where the ratio of UV/Visible/IR is about 5/45/50 (depending on location, altitude, time of day).

Well, I am rambling on here.......this is what happens when one attempts to think. 

Fully agree with you, Andrea.  One of the main reasons for our awareness of IR contamination even as newbies was Bjørn's thorough tutorial on  his original website.  U-330 was basically good enough for the films (except for the IR film, of course) which are virtually immune to IR.

[Andrea B.]

Is UV film still available? I know absoutely nothing about film. 
We do have a Nikon film camera here of some kind. (Belongs to Michael.)

[Bjørn Rørslett]

A b/w film will have *some* sensitivity to UV even though the makers these days add a UV-filter on top of the emulsion.

Colour film - tungsten-balanced material used to be the best choice, but no idea what the situation is these days. Most film types have lost terrain or even became obsolete during the last decade, rumours tell me.

You can mount all of your existing F-mount lenses to that film camera (if you find it, and there is film to be purchased/developed somewhere). Then there is the small problem of getting any useful slide or negative into digital format for web use.

[Akira]

I don't think any slide film for tungsten bulb lighting are in production.

Fuji still makes color negative film called Natura 1600 which can be used for UV using U-360 or U-330.  I tested it once.  The color balance of the prints is quite strange but interestingly brilliant.  "If" I can find the print(s), I will shoot them with my DSLR and post here.

[charlie]

Cinestill makes a Tungsten balanced iso 800 film capable of being pushed to 3200. It is motion picture stock that's been repurposed for 35mm and the anti-halation rem-jet layer has been removed from this film, not sure if that would make a difference for UV work. It is however negative film, not slide film.

[BW]

A quick test with my oldest boy to see if UV could offer something for portraits. A "Billy the kid"-theme was the first that came to mind. It has some potensial.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Try decorating with some sun lotion. You will be surprised.

[Jakov Minić]

Børge, what a beautiful portrait!
Get two sun tan lotions, one with a low factor of 5 and one with a high factor of 50 UVP 
Then apply them on different places

[BW]

I tried with my wife. She use some anti aging cream ( ) that is absolutely fantastic and expensive. It turned out to be a sunscreen

[Akira]

A quick test with my oldest boy to see if UV could offer something for portraits. A "Billy the kid"-theme was the first that came to mind. It has some potensial.

Indeed the portrait looks like an old glass plate image from 19c. 

[Andrea B.]

Yes, perhaps give it a sepia tone effect? Cool portrait.

[BW]

Thanks Andrea! A slight golden tint might make it more "authentic". I think I shall add texture layer as well. Post later. Nice tip

[BW]

This treatment might give the picture more of a "authentic" wet plate collodion "look". To a certain degree, it works IMO. Dont be afraid to give me the thumbs down. The texture was from the glass of my wood stove. With the proper lighting I might get som more 3D-pop out of texture, but this will do for now.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

All that is required now is a 'Wanted' poster with the period typeface in print.

By the way, happy to see my old UV workhorse camera found itself a new good home ...