[bollicina31]

Good morning to all, you.
I wanted to know, but ...
I would be interested in taking pictures in UV, but just a thimble filter, or a digital amended.


But I'd be more curious to take pictures in UV.
I have read many threads on the net, I saw cars modified, special lenses, to sum things NASA.

Now, someone told me: "The photographs in the UV spectrum, are easier to do with the reflex fim / film."

I wanted to know if this is true, and what kind of film should be used.

More importantly is how they develop?

Not being digital, I can not work in PP, so it is something serious?

thanks

[Adam]

I thought that UV photography was used mostly for stars.

Here's an interesting read on the topic: Ultraviolet photography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Haven't seen anything about film, though.

[RioRico]

UV and other spectrum-slicing photography is part of forensic and scientific work. The usual digital tools are forensic dSLRs made by Sigma and Fuji, and filters that block unwanted portions of the EMF spectrum, and sometimes special lenses that don't block UV emissions. Digital sensors are generally sensitive at the IR end of the spectrum and insensitive at the UV end. Film is just the opposite, generally sensitive to UV and blind to IR, which is why UV-blocking filters were and are so common. Films for recording specific parts of the EMF spectrum were formerly available; I don't know if they still are. I suggest looking for publications about forensic photography.

[newarts]

The UV cutoff for Bayer Filter sensors is around 350nm, but that's also the cutoff for typical optical glasses ( http://www.schott.com/advanced_optics/german/download/schott_tie-35_transmit...er_2005_en.pdf).

Therefore, wouldn't expect film would be much better than digital sensors unless special UV lenses are used.

I converted a Fuji F20 to UV (< 350nm) and found little of photographic interest in flowers,etc.

Many published examples of "UV photography" are actually UV fluorescence photography illuminated with short UV (or bare electronic flash.)

Dave

[bollicina31]

I thought that UV photography was used mostly for stars.

Here's an interesting read on the topic: Ultraviolet photography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Haven't seen anything about film, though.

Thanks, Adam
Friendly as always

UV and other spectrum-slicing photography is part of forensic and scientific work. The usual digital tools are forensic dSLRs made by Sigma and Fuji, and filters that block unwanted portions of the EMF spectrum, and sometimes special lenses that don't block UV emissions. Digital sensors are generally sensitive at the IR end of the spectrum and insensitive at the UV end. Film is just the opposite, generally sensitive to UV and blind to IR, which is why UV-blocking filters were and are so common. Films for recording specific parts of the EMF spectrum were formerly available; I don't know if they still are. I suggest looking for publications about forensic photography.

Hello, and thank you for your reply.
I read a lot of information about the network of cameras, fuji
Their kit is very expensive, as well as special optics Takumar, or other brands.
That's because I was looking film, just to try to take pictures in "UV", without spending much money.

[bollicina31]

The UV cutoff for Bayer Filter sensors is around 350nm, but that's also the cutoff for typical optical glasses ( http://www.schott.com/advanced_optics/german/download/schott_tie-35_transmit...er_2005_en.pdf).

Therefore, wouldn't expect film would be much better than digital sensors unless special UV lenses are used.

I converted a Fuji F20 to UV (< 350nm) and found little of photographic interest in flowers,etc.

Many published examples of "UV photography" are actually UV fluorescence photography illuminated with short UV (or bare electronic flash.)

Dave

Hello, and thank you for your reply.

I find it very interesting what you write ...
explain to me how did you convert the fuji?
And the flash you used?

Sum of the case give me all the info thanks.

[séamuis]

if its of any interest, Asahi Optical (Pentax) used to have a whole system of lenses dedicated to this. they are as rare as can be now, but they are out there for a price. the Quartz and Ultra-Achromatic Takumars. you can find some info and photos here: The Macrolens Collection Database

[Super A-wesome]

UV Photogeaphy is a lot less accessible than Infrared photography. You'd need special-purpose lenses that transmit those wavelengths because normal glass will absorb it all. I don't know of any currently produced lenses for UV photography but there are the Taks mentioned above and There are UV-Nikkors. Unfortunately, these, being special purpose lenses, are very rare, and subsequently quite expensive.

[pop4]

I don't know of any currently produced lenses for UV photography but there are the Taks mentioned above and There are UV-Nikkors. Unfortunately, these, being special purpose lenses, are very rare, and subsequently quite expensive.

I know of one, the Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 UV-VIS-IR APO Macro, for Nikon mount, available for about US$4495.

[bollicina31]

if its of any interest, Asahi Optical (Pentax) used to have a whole system of lenses dedicated to this. they are as rare as can be now, but they are out there for a price. the Quartz and Ultra-Achromatic Takumars. you can find some info and photos here: The Macrolens Collection Database

UV Photogeaphy is a lot less accessible than Infrared photography. You'd need special-purpose lenses that transmit those wavelengths because normal glass will absorb it all. I don't know of any currently produced lenses for UV photography but there are the Taks mentioned above and There are UV-Nikkors. Unfortunately, these, being special purpose lenses, are very rare, and subsequently quite expensive.

I know of one, the Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 UV-VIS-IR APO Macro, for Nikon mount, available for about US$4495.

Thank you all of the information
I know the old pentax special lenses on ebay you do not see a long and very expensive as the COASTAL.
There are models Nikkor from 500USd, which are used, can be scarce due to their low cost.
The problem is to adapt these old Pentax lenses.

In a website, say to use optics with less internal lenses, lenses, there are less and less UV rays are absorbed.
Disassembling and then brushed with paste lever scratches (fine)

[newarts]

Here is the bandpass for a typical Bayer Filter showing a UV cutoff at about 370nm for blue & green (but below that for red.)



Here's a transmission spectrum for a $8.95 "Wood's Glass Filter*" from B&H:


The Woods Glass filter's Blue transmission cutoff matches the Bayer Filter array's blue cutoff pretty well (except that the Bayer array's Red filter seems to go deeper into the UV than its Blue filter... it looks like a filter that goes deeper into the UV might be useful for the Red Bayer channel!)

I just received the filter from B&H - wholesaled by Rosco.com and will try some tests with my K-x.

Dave

* the filter isn't actually Woods Glass, which is a dark purple borosilicate glass containing Nickle Oxide, but is a coated interference filter.