UV Vis IR portrait

[CarbonR]

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)

[stingOM]

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

[lulalake]

[kds315*]

UV makes really pretty portraits indeed
I'll never ever try this again on a female, the wounds
are still healing...

[CarbonR]

[LucisPictor]

Astonishing differences!

[stingOM]

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.

[kds315*]

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!!

[stingOM]

[kds315*]

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.

[stingOM]

[CarbonR]

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) ?

[kds315*]

You must have gotten something completely wrong

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....

[CarbonR]

I forgot that it cuts the IR transmission part of the 403 but also its UV part

[kds315*]

If you want a really good UV transmission filter without any IR leak, teh Baader-U filter should be your choice!

[CarbonR]

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) 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

[DConvert]

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

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...

[CarbonR]

£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 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

[mmelvis]

To get the look of the photo on the first post, far right picture. Would you use a 720-850nm filter?

[CarbonR]

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

[martinsmith99]

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.

[CarbonR]

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 But now I rather use the Efke IR 820, strongest effect and no hard time PPing the pictures...

[mmelvis]

Thanks for all the information

[kds315*]

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...

[DConvert]