Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

UV Vis IR portrait
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 6:36 pm    Post subject: UV Vis IR portrait Reply with quote
I found this interesting comparison :


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UV_Vis_IR_Portrait.jpg

Also the longer the wavelenght, the better the portrait (if you want to be alive after showing the result to the woman) Very Happy


PostPosted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
That's interesting. I started this thread. It is kind of related to your discussion, but I don't see anyone interested in the topic
http://forum.mflenses.com/hot-mirror-filter-t38075.html
Sad


PostPosted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stingOM wrote:
That's interesting. I started this thread. It is kind of related to your discussion, but I don't see anyone interested in the topic
http://forum.mflenses.com/hot-mirror-filter-t38075.html
Sad
\

Actually there is plenty of interest, just not much here. Try this:

www.irphotocom.com

Jules


PostPosted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 11:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
UV makes really pretty portraits indeed Wink Wink
I'll never ever try this again on a female, the wounds
are still healing...


PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2011 9:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
lulalake wrote:
stingOM wrote:
That's interesting. I started this thread. It is kind of related to your discussion, but I don't see anyone interested in the topic
http://forum.mflenses.com/hot-mirror-filter-t38075.html
Sad
\

Actually there is plenty of interest, just not much here. Try this:

www.irphotocom.com

Jules


That's not difficult to find techniques for IR shooting, but fur UV it is far more difficult Confused


PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2011 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Astonishing differences! Wink


PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2011 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
My main interest is purely to filter of the UV and IR interference so that in theory you should get a sharper picture and better colour for older dSLR bodies which are sensitive to this kind of contamination.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2011 10:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I found that teh B+W 486 isn't that great, as it really needs a steep filter curve which cuts out the VIS 400-700nm band (or 420-650nm if you want to be on the safe side). The Cut filters Leica sells are good but expensive. Also very good is the Cut filter by German company HELIOPAN ("digital") http://www.heliopan.de/produkte/digital-video.shtml

P.S.: I would be quite interested to learn about bodies that have such "contamination" as I use that side effect for my work!!

Last edited by kds315* on Sun Apr 10, 2011 10:50 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2011 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
I found that teh B+W 486 isn't that great, as it really needs a steep filter curve which cuts out the VIS 400-700nm band. The Cut filters Leica sells are good but expensive. Also very good is the Cut filter by German company HELIOPAN ("digital") http://www.heliopan.de/produkte/digital-video.shtml


Thanks Klaus!!

BTW where is the best online store to buy this filter?


PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2011 10:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I also heard good about the Marumi UV/IR Cut filter sold on ebay, Click here to see on Ebay for instance, but I haven't had them on my optical bench yet.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
I also heard good about the Marumi UV/IR Cut filter sold on ebay, Click here to see on Ebay for instance, but I haven't had them on my optical bench yet.


Thank Klaus. I think one key disadvantage of these filters is the narrow angle of incident. WA lenses would be out as you will get colour shifts at the edges.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2011 12:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
In fact, if I look at this :
http://infraredatelier.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/common_filters.jpg
By combining both a B+W 403 and a 093, I should be able to shoot in exclusively UV range (of course with the U-A Takumar 300/5.6) ?


PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2011 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You must have gotten something completely wrong Wink

Won't work at all, if you combine a UV transmission filter (with some IR leak) and a IR transmission filter
(which blocks UV and VIS completely) you get as a result just a little bit of the IR leakage.

Try again.... Wink Wink


PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2011 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I forgot that it cuts the IR transmission part of the 403 but also its UV part Laughing


PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2011 5:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If you want a really good UV transmission filter without any IR leak, teh Baader-U filter should be your choice!



PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2011 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I finally found prices for a such filter (I was also searching for the Schuler UV), but ~200€ for a tiny 2" filter (that would not suit a 58mm filter thread, so I would have a 28 to 200mm range without specially designed lens, instead of having a 20-300 range with a dedicated lens) is far too much for a personnal use.
I found an other solution, I'll buy the B+W 403 (cut visible light), and use film (don't record IR light) Very Happy I have plenty of Agfa APX that seem to be quite sensitive to UV and not to IR, and that I don't use since I have the 5D (that was my cheap FF solution, I don't need it now). That will cost me less than the Baader until I've shot around 1000 pictures - more than 30 rolls. I don't need color for shooting in an other field than visible light Very Happy


PostPosted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:22 pm    Post subject: UV photography Reply with quote
Most lenses will block significant amounts of UV, mainly due to the glass itself. Modern designs & fast lenses are apparently particularly bad.

I've found a UK supplier of 25mm filters to try out my old Kodak astigmat & some enlarger lenses for UV. Their website has spectral data for all the filters but unfortunatly they're not mounted for photography.
(see www.UQGoptics.com)

The Hoya U340 looks most promicing passing upto ~80% UV between ~270-390nm with only limited IR & no visible though the U330 is also a good possibility better UV transmittion but significantly more IR
I'll be pairing them up with a BG38 or 39 IR blocking filter since my camera is IR sensitive.
I beleive the U360 is a frequently used filter for UV photography but looking at the spectra it's UV transmittion is fairly poor & it leaks IR badly too!

Luckly I've found a potential use for them at work so have been able to try a good range free. Hopefully they'll be arriving soon Smile

I can't afford a U-A Takumar so If my lenses don't work I'll give a pinhole a go but exposures will be somewhat extreme...


PostPosted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
£32 for a 58mm Hoya R72 seems a bit low on this site.

I bought a B+W 403 for 49€ shipped (62mm, peak near to 75% transmission) and I'll be using films to avoid the IR problem Very Happy A roll to determine the right exposure settings with the 300/5.6 whish has no focus shift and transmission from 320nm (I would say that it will be rougly x5 exposure time, as the filter lets ~75% of UV light pass, and the UV band is 3 times thinner than the visible band), a second roll to test other lenses (S-M-C Takumars, mono coated low number lens elements lenses, enlarger lenses), then it should be great Very Happy


PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 1:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
To get the look of the photo on the first post, far right picture. Would you use a 720-850nm filter?


PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
As both film or digital sensors are not sensitive to low frequencies, you don't need a band-pass filter as restrictive as this. With a Hoya R72 (wich goes roughly from 720 to 4000nm) I already got such results Wink


PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 6:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've tried IR shooting with Canon 40D and the results are quite poor. Also shutter speeds are slooooow so hand holding is not an option.

Canon 300D or Nikon D50 are better options as the cut filter is nowhere near as strong.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The best DSLR for IR is the Pentax K100D, I always used it handheld, with the SR you can get decent results at f/4 200 isos Wink But now I rather use the Efke IR 820, strongest effect and no hard time PPing the pictures...


PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for all the information


PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, it gets quite obvious from all that speculation on filters and lenses here,
that no-one seems to care about my BLOG www.uvir.eu where I have
accumulated years of experience especially about shooting UV. But well, I won't
stop anybody from reinventing the wheel... Wink


PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
Well, it gets quite obvious from all that speculation on filters and lenses here,
that no-one seems to care about my BLOG www.uvir.eu where I have
accumulated years of experience especially about shooting UV. But well, I won't
stop anybody from reinventing the wheel... Wink


Actually Klaus, It's my prime reference for UV work, I've spent at least 10 times longer browsing it than all the other references combined.

However your budget greatly exceeds what I have to play with - So the Venus filter is right out (it costs more than my camera) let alone the specialist Takumar lenses.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Techniques
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2