Modifying Equipment for Infrared and Ultraviolet Photography

[@nabeel164]

Yesssss, exactly what I was looking for. So good when someone knows exactly what they're talking about

[@ShevillMathers]

I had my UV conversion done and the CMOS detector has also being deBayered, so all pixels are now luminence with increased sensitivity, the dectore is also Petlier cooled via a Temperature controller. The get use in astronomy as well as in macro UV. I have modified some flash guns to allow max UV and plan to use Nikkoe EL lenses which were designed To pass UV and have a flat field edge to edge. All this new modern digital equipment is magic, it keeps me associated with my former early career in forensic pathology when it was all film, much of it B&W with Linhof 5x4 cut film and some IR with IR film. Happy days and memories of interesting/unusual cases. Regards, and thought your introduction to the topic with exhibits to display, came across well. I also taught scientific, still & Video/Soft X-Ray etc. imaging and found that having an item in your hand or on the table when talking about equipment, keeps students attention far longer than a talking head for an hour. Best from Down Under-Tasmania 42 South.( Former Leeds Med School, UK) A very different lifestyle on this tranquil Australin island paradise .

[@bittertruth6175]

Very valuable information and concisely presented. Thanks.

[@reusedisland1904]

Thank SO much for sharing your expertise. Very illuminating 👍

[@galespring9028]

Harshad, thanks for your question. You have several problems to consider. Although I have not specifically tested the D3400, it is certain the sensor is a lot more sensitive to infrared (IR) than it will be to ultraviolet (UV). (And don't forget, if you have not removed the cameras Bayer filter on the sensor, it is absorbing IR and UV - it must be removed). One problem is the Schott UG-11 filter leaks a bit of infrared. If you look at the transmission curves, it passes a lot of ultraviolet (good) and only a small amount if infrared (bad). Unfortunately, if you check the cameras response curves you would find an opposite curve. This means the small amount of IR will affect the image. Another problem, all modern lenses are multicoated to reduce (among many other things) the effects of UV - they absorb ultraviolet. Lenses designed to pass UV (and focus it to create an image) are very expensive and usually made of quartz or fluorite, not classic 'optical glass'. I have had some luck with old, uncoated optics that pass some UV. A known lens that many (including me) use is the old style Nikon enlarging lens, 80mm f 5.6 with the chrome ring (not the same lens with a black ring). They're cheap and they pass UV. Lastly, the Schott UG-11 was ideal for ultraviolet photography using traditional silver halide film since the film was sensitive to UV (most of us used Kodak Tri-X pushed to ISO 1600) but not sensitive to infrared. The filter that works for digital UV is the Baader BPU2 (also called the 'Venus' filter). It's an interference filter so can be designed to pass very specific wavelengths and eliminate others. Now finally, if you use the combination of equipment you have suggested, you will get an image, but it will be mostly an 'infrared-affected' image with very little UV influence. The situation you described was used in the early days of digital photography - even by scientists who knew their science, but didn't really understand photography. This is a fascinating (well, to some) and expensive topic to explore. I hope this rambling helps.

[@fgmjbm]

Muchas gracias maestro. Saludos desde España.* *Thank you, teacher. Greetings from Spain.

[@Pavanfanofdumb27]

This is the best video for beginners! Thank you so much!

[@falkhammermuller9342]

Could you also place the filters just in front of the lens?

[@southbridgeforestHOA]

yes, but if using a dslr you wont' be abel to see/frame the subject. with mirrorless cameras you need sunlight or other strong uv light source to see and frame the subject

[@harshadrajput3898]

hey there I have nikon D3400 with stock lense + 55-200mm zoom lense I brought UG-11 filter for ultraviolet photography... kindly suggest

[@angelisone]

Anyone knows where I can buy UV filter & tools to cut from 24mm X 36mm on down?

[@southbridgeforestHOA]

regular glass cutter works, BUT you would be better off just buying the filter from a conversion place for around $150

[@thebigfellar7178]

Mr. Spring can you suggest a filter that does or allows you to see I.R. with a nikon 900 ,and or 1000 ?

[@fffmpeg]

i believe it needs removing the filter inside the camera

[@leobn2010]

Thank you very much indeed for such an informative video. Would you care to share info on the “almost like a mirror” type of filter that permits UV light go through? Is it a nikon filter? would it allow to take medical photos as if a wood lamp was used? Thank you very much for your professional help. Best wishes leo.

[@LeonAguileraRadford]

Professor Spring, thanks a lot for such an informative video. Bjørn Rørslett advices to wipe out the lens coatings, in order to let UV radition pass through its optical elements. Furthermore, if I were of your university's English Dept. I would ask you to lecture on English pronunciation: Yours is perfect.

[@galespring9028]

Leon, thanks for your comments. Removing the coatings from lenses is not an easy task and you would have to do it to the internal elements as well (including the ones cemented together). This is why many older lenses are preferred since the UV and other coatings were not applied effectively - or at all. Another little hint, the old style (with a chrome ring) Nikon 80mm f/5.6 EL-Nikkor enlarging lens has little to no coating for UV. Many people have discovered this are using it for UV. Nothing, however, is more effective than the true UV quartz/fluorite lenses. (But you can buy a small car for the same price). And I'm glad you can understand my accent. I have been speaking English for a very, very, very, very long time. Thanks.

[@lonniepaulson7031]

If you have a flash with a gold flash tube what kind if a filter would you need to put on the flash to record ultraviolet images?

[@galespring6447]

Sorry for the delay. I just saw this question. If it's a gold coated flash tube, the gold is there to absorb ultraviolet so no UV emitted. No filter will work. Some people have suggested removing the gold coating by scraping/polishing. Not something I have tried. Not sure I would recommend it. Some flash tubes do have a yellow coating (not real gold) that can come off with some solvents. Again, I wouldn't recommend it. Too much potential damage to the tube. So, if there is no UV being emitted, no filter will help. Newer flash units do not have coating on the tubes but, rather, rely on the plastic diffuser placed in front of the tube. I'd' try to find a flash tube that did not have a coating. Hope this helps.

[@peterjackson2632]

Very informative. Thank you for your expert knowledge

[@mixbsd]

Great video and very clearly explained for the absolute beginner. I'm guessing that the lens attached to the UV-converted camera is a Micro Nikkor 105mm Rayfact?

[@galespring6447]

Thanks for the comment. The lens in the video is actually the original 105mm UV Nikkor, f4, made by Nikon. They have been out of production for years. They are very hard to find used, not to mention very expensive. But then, so is the modern Rayfact designed after the UV Nikkor. I believe there is a 60mm version as well. One of my colleagues purchased the 105 Rayfact and is happy with it. Most modern lenses are made of optical glass and have coatings that absorb UV. My tests show (if they work at all) there is about a 7-stop difference and the contrast is lowered as well. If you want a cheaper lens that passes UV, find an old 80mm f5.6 Nikon enlarging lens the has the chrome ring around the barrel. You can usually find them, for less than $100.00 and they pass UV. You'll have to adapt it to the camera. And, glad you enjoyed the video.

[@WetDoggo]

oh be careful with that uv flash 😅 it will emitt UV-B too... which is pretty good at shredding DNA

[@andyvan5692]

great explanations, but you can also use UV light for industrial accidents as well ( lpg, refrigerant gasses, etc. have a dye's in them which reflects uv light, used in industry by mechanics to detect leaks in a system) and also to prove there was a leak in the first place, to determine if a hazardous substance leaked and was a cause of fire for example.

[@galespring6447]

Thanks for your comment. Yes, there are many applications for UV imaging. You reminded me that you can also use it for discovering micro fractures in metals. Endless........and interesting.

[@ccsas5398]

No need to make focus adjustments to mirrorless cameras or there lenses ;)

[@jeremyjw]

will any of these setups result in pictures\video like this ? kzbin.info/www/bejne/pWqloqWJdq2VisU i want a sunscreen detecting camera

[@galespring9028]

Jeremy, thanks for the question. The short answer is 'yes', you can convert a digital single lens reflex camera to give you these results. I highly suggest you use a Baader BPU2 (Venus) filter that has a transmission around 350 nanometers. It blocks all visible and infrared. I usually purchase mine through Company7 in Maryland USA. Some cameras work better than others in a UV conversion. You'll need to do some research on current camera options, however; I use a Nikon D7200 and it works very well for what you want. You can have it converted to a multi-spectral camera (effectively no filter over the sensor) or a dedicated UV camera by installing the BPU2 filter directly on the sensor. Both need to be professional converted. The Baader filter will need to be cut to size (a tricky task). The multi-spectral version allows any filter to be placed over the lens (so it can also be an infrared camera as well), but you have to use Live View to see the image. The dedicated (converted) camera allows you to see through the eyepiece since the filter is only on the sensor. I have both. Both work well. Good luck....and be sitting down when you price the Baader filter (it is a precision interference filter).

[@southbridgeforestHOA]

yes but it's not cheap, the filter alone is about $250. converted camera about $1000 and $100 for a lens.

[@LeendertCordemans]

Don't forget by using UV photography objective lenses without coatings. Lenses with coatings wouldn't work.

[@czernm20]

2:22 WROOOOONG, IT IS BECAUSE CAMERA IS NOT ADJUSTED TO FILM INFRA RED, NOT MY EYES.

[@kctaylor7563]

one day there will be a normal camera that can do both hears dreaming .

[@ertsixnine4938]

Why do you say “hwite” instead of “white”?

[@theformoverfunction]

Cuz he watches Bob Ross

[@iulyanah]

@@theformoverfunction Correct 😅👍

[@henrik5761]

Waste of time, essentially "you need a professional, and buy our equipment"