Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-01-2021, 06:07 PM   #16
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,416
QuoteOriginally posted by kb244 Quote
Couple more earlier today.

Full spectrum (no filter in front) - Front yard of a house

UV+IR (Schott BG3) - Lake with people

And Deep IR (Schott RG1000) - Little creek
Impressive results. It's making me think about modding a Q. So do you recommend going full spectrum for the most options?

Thanks,
barondla

05-01-2021, 07:10 PM - 2 Likes   #17
Pentaxian
kb244's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 372
QuoteOriginally posted by barondla Quote
Impressive results. It's making me think about modding a Q. So do you recommend going full spectrum for the most options?

Thanks,
barondla
It's probably the easiest option, because otherwise you'd have to replace the hot mirror piece of glass with some other kind of glass.

The problem with going full spectrum though is you have to spend money for the filters in front of the lens, and some of the specialty filters such as UV/IR dual-bandpass or UV pass only (as opposed to the typical range of IR longpass filters) can cost $80 to $200 each depending (bout 75 to 120 average for the good filters in a 52mm thread size for me). The kind like B+W 092 (695nm+) or the Hoya R25 (or similarly B_W 091, that sits between a Hoya R25 Medium Red and R29 Deep Red) for that "Goldie" look on a full spectrum, or Hoya R72 etc are relatively inexpensive, but most other kinds not so much.

Also the nice thing about keeping it full spectrum is that under artificial light conditions (indoors, or at night on the street etc), most of the results appear relatively "normal" but with just better sensitivity without cranking up the ISO as much. In many cases I've noticed that there is very little UV or IR leaching from the lighting source to overpower the visual light source. But if say a store has a "night mode" style security camera, you'll definitely see the IR beam emitting from it like a floodlight.

Downside though when not using a filter at all, you'll notice a slight fuzzieness during daytime (where both UV, visible, and IR light is present heavily), as UV and IR are not quite focused on the same plane as visible light (hence the old red IR Index mark that you move your focus ring to after focusing visually, when using infrared film), so usually when you focus there's a bit of a halo-ing effect, hence why it's good to get one of those UV/IR cut filters to throw back on the lens if you need to have a 'normal' session with the camera.

I noticed that because it does that, autofocusing without any filters especially when not at close range can miss a bit, but when I'm using either the UV+IR , or IR filters in front, focusing is fine even at a distance.

Here's a couple more examples earlier tonight.

One about 7P about an hour and a half before sunset (shot thru car winshield), with the yellow fiolage, it's the UV+IR Schott BG3 filter in front. But with no filter at all in front (and white balance set to CTE) it has the darker bushes/trees (green normally).

Then there's one of the bridge about 10 minutes after sunset, with thunderclouds behind me while shooting, so a lot of the light of the sun off to my rear right was getting quickly dimmed by the incoming storm clouds. Still some infrared reflectivity off foliage but not as much UV going on it seems like. There's still a bit of softness in details when not narrowed down to one of the three visibility areas (ie: UV, IR, or Visible).

Filters I own in 52mm are Schott BG3 1.5mm (UV+IR Dual Bandpass), B+W 091 (580-ish?+) B+W 092 (695nm+), Schott RG850 2mm, Schott RG1000 2mm, Schott RG1000 2.5mm, I have an old Hoya R25 sitting around somewhere.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q10  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q10  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q10  Photo 
05-01-2021, 07:36 PM   #18
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
i_trax's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Perth Western Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,122
So cool , I really like Q's.
I just ordered IR-72 filter URTH Plus+ , or whatever it is called.
I was told that it should work really well with CCD bodies , I have K10D.
I can also try to place that filter on a K mount lens and mount the lens on the "Q" via my Pentax Q to PKA adapter , that should give me some kind of IR rig , correct?
05-02-2021, 05:41 AM   #19
Pentaxian
kb244's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 372
QuoteOriginally posted by i_trax Quote
So cool , I really like Q's.
I just ordered IR-72 filter URTH Plus+ , or whatever it is called.
I was told that it should work really well with CCD bodies , I have K10D.
I can also try to place that filter on a K mount lens and mount the lens on the "Q" via my Pentax Q to PKA adapter , that should give me some kind of IR rig , correct?
The Urth seems more like marketing than anything (ie: pitching low carbon footprint to make, and a lot of coatings to make it resistant to cleaning). Also the Q10 is a CMOS sensor, not CCD.

It should still work, but so would a lot of other options.

Regarding the PKA adapter if you have the official Pentax one with the built in shutter, then you won't have as much limitations over a native lens. But if you just mean an adapter without any kind of electronic contact or built in leaf shutter, then there will be some limitations particularly in long exposure setting, and that it'll be purely electronic shutter (the native lens with electronic contacts have their own shutters and ND filters built in).

PS: Keep in mind it's best to shoot in raw mode (DNG) with this stuff, rather than rely on the jpeg to give you enough details to play with especially since you may have to pull colors here or there to get the best result.


Last edited by kb244; 05-02-2021 at 06:03 AM.
05-02-2021, 10:00 AM   #20
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
i_trax's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Perth Western Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,122
QuoteOriginally posted by kb244 Quote
The Urth seems more like marketing than anything (ie: pitching low carbon footprint to make, and a lot of coatings to make it resistant to cleaning). Also the Q10 is a CMOS sensor, not CCD.

It should still work, but so would a lot of other options.

Regarding the PKA adapter if you have the official Pentax one with the built in shutter, then you won't have as much limitations over a native lens. But if you just mean an adapter without any kind of electronic contact or built in leaf shutter, then there will be some limitations particularly in long exposure setting, and that it'll be purely electronic shutter (the native lens with electronic contacts have their own shutters and ND filters built in).

PS: Keep in mind it's best to shoot in raw mode (DNG) with this stuff, rather than rely on the jpeg to give you enough details to play with especially since you may have to pull colors here or there to get the best result.
thank you,
as I stated K10D has CCD , NOT the Q.
Q-PKA adapter is the dinky-di Pentax product with all goods included and with rather high price-tag,
I never did RAW but you can learn everything , will give it a go
05-02-2021, 10:13 AM   #21
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,416
QuoteOriginally posted by kb244 Quote
It's probably the easiest option, because otherwise you'd have to replace the hot mirror piece of glass with some other kind of glass.

The problem with going full spectrum though is you have to spend money for the filters in front of the lens, and some of the specialty filters such as UV/IR dual-bandpass or UV pass only (as opposed to the typical range of IR longpass filters) can cost $80 to $200 each depending (bout 75 to 120 average for the good filters in a 52mm thread size for me). The kind like B+W 092 (695nm+) or the Hoya R25 (or similarly B_W 091, that sits between a Hoya R25 Medium Red and R29 Deep Red) for that "Goldie" look on a full spectrum, or Hoya R72 etc are relatively inexpensive, but most other kinds not so much.

Also the nice thing about keeping it full spectrum is that under artificial light conditions (indoors, or at night on the street etc), most of the results appear relatively "normal" but with just better sensitivity without cranking up the ISO as much. In many cases I've noticed that there is very little UV or IR leaching from the lighting source to overpower the visual light source. But if say a store has a "night mode" style security camera, you'll definitely see the IR beam emitting from it like a floodlight.

Downside though when not using a filter at all, you'll notice a slight fuzzieness during daytime (where both UV, visible, and IR light is present heavily), as UV and IR are not quite focused on the same plane as visible light (hence the old red IR Index mark that you move your focus ring to after focusing visually, when using infrared film), so usually when you focus there's a bit of a halo-ing effect, hence why it's good to get one of those UV/IR cut filters to throw back on the lens if you need to have a 'normal' session with the camera.

I noticed that because it does that, autofocusing without any filters especially when not at close range can miss a bit, but when I'm using either the UV+IR , or IR filters in front, focusing is fine even at a distance.

Here's a couple more examples earlier tonight.

One about 7P about an hour and a half before sunset (shot thru car winshield), with the yellow fiolage, it's the UV+IR Schott BG3 filter in front. But with no filter at all in front (and white balance set to CTE) it has the darker bushes/trees (green normally).

Then there's one of the bridge about 10 minutes after sunset, with thunderclouds behind me while shooting, so a lot of the light of the sun off to my rear right was getting quickly dimmed by the incoming storm clouds. Still some infrared reflectivity off foliage but not as much UV going on it seems like. There's still a bit of softness in details when not narrowed down to one of the three visibility areas (ie: UV, IR, or Visible).

Filters I own in 52mm are Schott BG3 1.5mm (UV+IR Dual Bandpass), B+W 091 (580-ish?+) B+W 092 (695nm+), Schott RG850 2mm, Schott RG1000 2mm, Schott RG1000 2.5mm, I have an old Hoya R25 sitting around somewhere.
Lots to absorb. Thanks for the info. This will take some studying.
Thanks,
barondla
05-07-2021, 11:24 PM - 2 Likes   #22
Pentaxian
kb244's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 372
Did some long exposure testing (I didn't exactly prioritize perfect focus) to see how sensitive it was to the night sky in an apartment parking lot that has a bit of light pollution from the sides etc.

Name:  IMGP6372.jpg
Views: 102
Size:  360.0 KB

There was a consistent flare that was always there, I thought maybe it was the dust removal ribbon cable that I left intact, so snipped that and tucked it, still persisted.

Then I figured, based on my experience with my IR modified Olympus, it was probably the native lens as they're usually designed to filter UV or have anti-glare coating on the back sometimes. So I put my old Pentax-M 50/1.4 on it with a cheap mechanical 'dumb' adapter. Which as you know only allows for 2" max, so I also cranked the ISO up to 1600 to see if I could get the flare. Turns out it's the native Standard Prime 01 lens, the flare doesn't happen with my 1951 Canon 35/2.8 LTM or Pentax-M 50/1.4 lens. More than like I'll need that expensive PK to Q adapter to utilize anything past 2 seconds (and to have a leaf shutter).

Name:  IMGP6398.jpg
Views: 99
Size:  66.6 KB

Edit: The 06 Telephoto Zoom lens does not exhibit the flare.

Edit #2 : The 02 Standard does not exhibit it either, however it seems like inifnity focus is lost severely if you go any wider than 10mm (it's already pretty lost on all the native lens).


Last edited by kb244; 05-08-2021 at 12:35 AM.
05-09-2021, 09:42 PM   #23
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,416
QuoteOriginally posted by kb244 Quote
Did some long exposure testing (I didn't exactly prioritize perfect focus) to see how sensitive it was to the night sky in an apartment parking lot that has a bit of light pollution from the sides etc.

Attachment 534102

There was a consistent flare that was always there, I thought maybe it was the dust removal ribbon cable that I left intact, so snipped that and tucked it, still persisted.

Then I figured, based on my experience with my IR modified Olympus, it was probably the native lens as they're usually designed to filter UV or have anti-glare coating on the back sometimes. So I put my old Pentax-M 50/1.4 on it with a cheap mechanical 'dumb' adapter. Which as you know only allows for 2" max, so I also cranked the ISO up to 1600 to see if I could get the flare. Turns out it's the native Standard Prime 01 lens, the flare doesn't happen with my 1951 Canon 35/2.8 LTM or Pentax-M 50/1.4 lens. More than like I'll need that expensive PK to Q adapter to utilize anything past 2 seconds (and to have a leaf shutter).

Attachment 534103

Edit: The 06 Telephoto Zoom lens does not exhibit the flare.

Edit #2 : The 02 Standard does not exhibit it either, however it seems like inifnity focus is lost severely if you go any wider than 10mm (it's already pretty lost on all the native lens).
Weird about the 01 and flare. So your theory is uv is causing the problem?
Thanks,
barondla
06-10-2021, 04:47 PM - 2 Likes   #24
Pentaxian
kb244's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 372
QuoteOriginally posted by barondla Quote
Weird about the 01 and flare. So your theory is uv is causing the problem?
Thanks,
barondla
Though I'm not as sure anymore.

I picked up a LUV U II filter (made by uviroptics on ebay), which is a SCHOTT UG11 UV Bandpass filter stacked with a S8612 glass (IR and Visible suppression) designed to show only UV light (approximately 320nm to 395nm, peak around 360nm).

It's rather slow, so this shot of some black-eyed susans (they have yellow petals) in full on sunlight was 1/15th shutter, f/1.9, ISO 800.

Given that this is pure UV, full sun, and higher ISO, but no cast of any kind.

I'm also wondering if the lens itself has any coating that naturally blocks or filters out some UV, though I tried a 1951 Canon Serenar 35mm f/2.8 just for exposure and seems to be about the same.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q10  Photo 
06-10-2021, 04:57 PM   #25
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,416
QuoteOriginally posted by kb244 Quote
Though I'm not as sure anymore.

I picked up a LUV U II filter (made by uviroptics on ebay), which is a SCHOTT UG11 UV Bandpass filter stacked with a S8612 glass (IR and Visible suppression) designed to show only UV light (approximately 320nm to 395nm, peak around 360nm).

It's rather slow, so this shot of some black-eyed susans (they have yellow petals) in full on sunlight was 1/15th shutter, f/1.9, ISO 800.

Given that this is pure UV, full sun, and higher ISO, but no cast of any kind.

I'm also wondering if the lens itself has any coating that naturally blocks or filters out some UV, though I tried a 1951 Canon Serenar 35mm f/2.8 just for exposure and seems to be about the same.
Hmm. The black-eyed Susan UV photo looks exceptional.

Thanks for sharing,
barondla
06-10-2021, 05:18 PM   #26
Pentaxian
kb244's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 372
QuoteOriginally posted by barondla Quote
Hmm. The black-eyed Susan UV photo looks exceptional.

Thanks for sharing,
barondla
Looking into it some more, seems like on the UV side it gets a bit difficult, because the glass itself can easily filter/block it out. This thread I found, was using special quartz flourite lens with an UV enhanced xenon flash.

He's using the same filter I have.

A new UV transmitting filter: LUV U-2 | Mu-43
06-10-2021, 08:32 PM   #27
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,416
QuoteOriginally posted by kb244 Quote
Looking into it some more, seems like on the UV side it gets a bit difficult, because the glass itself can easily filter/block it out. This thread I found, was using special quartz flourite lens with an UV enhanced xenon flash.

He's using the same filter I have.

A new UV transmitting filter: LUV U-2 | Mu-43
Interesting. Saw a comparison between Zeiss and an American macro lens ( Don't remember the name). Seems like the name started with a C, but it wasn't Century. Its claim to fame was optical correction from UV to IR. No glass elements! All quartz. It out resolved the Zeiss macro by about 200 lpm! Wowza.

Thanks,
barondla

Last edited by barondla; 06-10-2021 at 10:21 PM.
06-11-2021, 10:01 PM   #28
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 318
Original Poster
@kb244
Wow, great pics. I want to do UV pics on a Q but could not find a suitable UV pass filter cheaply.

How about modding a flashgun for UV output to overpower the slow UV pass filter.

Ultraviolet Photography

I would not want to use it on people, but no qualms on flowers in the summertime.

Last edited by 2old4toys; 06-12-2021 at 08:39 AM.
06-13-2021, 06:28 PM - 1 Like   #29
Pentaxian
kb244's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 372
QuoteOriginally posted by 2old4toys Quote
@kb244
Wow, great pics. I want to do UV pics on a Q but could not find a suitable UV pass filter cheaply.

How about modding a flashgun for UV output to overpower the slow UV pass filter.

Ultraviolet Photography

I would not want to use it on people, but no qualms on flowers in the summertime.
Guess it depends on how powerful the flash is, and most of what is in that picture appears to be the florescent effect of things containing phosphor rather than UV itself.

I have a 365nm and 395nm LED flashlights and even those putting out a lot more seem to still require a higher ISO than usual.

Even using my studio strobe does put out some residual UV light, but it has to shoot full blast (it's an older 750W strobe) just to get moderate exposure around ISO 200.

Chances are that even with modification to a strobe, the visible light spectrum is still going to overpower the UV side by a great margin, which is somewhat what happened with the Schott BG3 (UV+IR, but lets in some residual visible light around 400-450nm), but if you have materials that fluoresce, pick up a 365nm LED flashlight for the most impact (most UV flashlights are the more common 395nm ones that will exhibit more purple visible light and more subtle fluorescing effect).

The second post in that thread is useful as it goes into explaining UV lighting sources, and how you still need to have some kind of UV-Pass, Visible light blocking on the lens side.

And as stated a couple times there, UV emission especially strong UVB/UVA is harmful to the eyes.
06-13-2021, 10:54 PM - 2 Likes   #30
Pentaxian
kb244's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 372
My old photogenic powerlight 750 studio monolight strobes do give off some UV light.

So with the Pentax Q10 (and keeping in mind with the native lens, it's a leaf shutter, so shutter speed has very little impact on exposure here), I've tried a UV shot of one of my fountain pens, and an IR shot.

This is a Pelikan M640 Special Edition Mount Everest fountain pen, 18K gold nib, and has a sort of metal barrel with plastic grip, piston knob, cap and what not. While the barrel does look textured with the gold etching (it's a topographical map of Mount Everest), there is a clear coat of some sort of acrylic on the outside, leaving the barrel smooth to the touch.

For reference this is two visible light shots (shot a few years ago on the old Olympus E-P3 and an Oly 45mm f/1.8)





Then with the Pentax Q10, with just the IR cut filter removed (no glass put back in its place), using the 01 Prime lens. Both shots are done at 1/250th shutter, f/3.2 aperture, ISO 100 on the IR shot, and ISO 200 on the UV shot.

On the UV shot, the strobe was pointed directly at the pen from 3 feet away, full power. On the IR shot, since the camera was waaaaay more sensitive to IR (but more likely the strobe gave off way more IR light than UV), I had to drop it down to 1/4 power, point it up at the ceiling to bounce, and place a sheet of paper above the pen to further diffuse/darken the light.

The IR shot is using a Schott RG850 longpass (850nm+ deep infrared) filter in front, and the UV shot done with a LUV U II (UVA-only from about 320nm to 395nm with 360nm peak), both of which I got from uviroptics on ebay.





As you can see the clear coat on the pen blocks some UV light, but passes IR (and visible) light quite easily.

Also regarding exposure and difficulty lighting, with my conversation with Steve (uviroptics), photographing with UV light is a "dark world" as he says. Long exposure or specialized lighting is pretty much to be expected. Also from other sources (such as collective on UV photography forums, and other sources), it's said that nearly all consumer digital cameras, regardless of conversion method or even just naked sensors, can't see below 300nm, so any UV they do typically see is strictly UVA, there's some very narrow examples of UVB I saw out there, and extremely limited stuff for UVC out there (the world is pretty much pitch black below 280nm).

---------- Post added 06-14-2021 at 02:22 AM ----------

Btw this is a fireworks video shot with the Q10, no filter in front, just the 01 Prime. Can see quite of bit of the internal reflection.

Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, conversion for pentax, exposure, filter, glass, ir, light, mirrorless, pentax, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q-s1, q10, q7, sensor, shutter
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Samsung NX mini, a Top Infra-Red ILC for $125 geo444 Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 11 04-16-2020 12:58 AM
Pentax K-3 in-camera infra-red effect? Theov39 Pentax DSLR Discussion 8 03-13-2018 02:45 AM
Travel K5 infra red filter mode shot. charliezap Post Your Photos! 11 10-25-2012 06:22 AM
Infra-red conversion excanonfd Pentax DSLR Discussion 3 04-15-2012 05:29 PM
Landscape Trying out the K5 infra red filter. charliezap Post Your Photos! 12 08-14-2011 05:11 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:17 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top