Thanks for this video. If I understand correctly, the phosphorescence is converting the UV back into the visible spectrum, so you can use a regular camera, not a full spectrum sensor. I’ve been working many years in IR, and now interested on the other side!
Ben one of the things I most admire about you is how you love to experiment with different types of Technics allot like myself, Thanks again for sharing and showing us the Technics. Stay Safe my friend
So a regular old UV bulb won’t work, what’s the difference between the arms you have and something that can be purchased off of amazon? Can I somehow rig up a tiny uv bulb? (I’d love to buy adaptalux .... maybe someday lol)
Hi Jenn, the key is a bandpass filter in the end of the arm that blocks all of the Visible light created by the LED, leaving only UV. Generic UV LEDs like those in torches etc still let off a lot of visible light (blues and violets) which will overpower the fluorescence of the subject when it's something as subtle as this.
Now I wonder what cool effects could be achieved by letting the flower carry highlighter fluid through it's veins. kinda similar to how florists create artificially colored petals.
I tried one of these lilies in tonic water for a while but it didn't have much of an effect, though it was only in there for a day or so, so not sure that was long enough. I think if you fed plants some fluorescent liquids for long enough it would be stunning... on the list for me to try properly!
Wondering, can UV light, especially a flash based, can damage camera sensor? Asking since this is the light with much shorter wave length and higher energy?
When doing UVIVF, there is no modification to the camera so the UV protective coatings on the lens and sensor don't let UV light pass through to the sensor. No chance of damage. I can't speak for the risks involved when converting a camera to be full-spectrum, but that is not required for this kind of UV photography.
@@Adaptalux Thank you, can you please tell me what if I use microscope objectives wyth Raynox DCR-150 on it? Is camera's sensor still safe and wont get damaged, especially in long exposure times? Do these Adaptalux arms work in 365nm only?
Any DLSR will be able to capture UVIVF images without any extra filters or modifications, it's just a long exposure to capture the normal visible light created by the flower.
Doesn't uv light focus differently compared to visable light? Similar to infrared light being invisable except its band being 700nm and above where ultraviolet would be 400 and below
It's difficult to focus, but only because this technique requires total darkness. Use manual focus and focus on the subject before turning out the lights.
I would like to see various minerals that fluoresce under black light. Some can look very drab in white light, but when you shut off the lights and put a black light on the rock it will glow bright colors.
@@Adaptalux explore minerals that don't just fluoresce, but rather are "tenebrescent". Hackmanite and Tugtupite are great examples that are vibrantly orange under long-wave UV light! :)
Ours have a peak wavelength of 330nm. The further from the visible spectrum you can get, the less visible light you will need to filter out of your light and therefore the more UV is left. Generally speaking, the shorter the wavelength the better.
That's right Mr SnakeMan, it's a long exposure, the UV should be the only light in the room, so that the only visible light is that produced by the subject.
Thank you for this tutorial! It looks amazing! How would you adapt the technique for video? Do you think it's possible without adding glowing substances? thanks in advance :)
Hi Martina. The ability to capture this on video will be determined by how fluorescent your subject is. For something like our flowers, you will struggle to capture it without a long exposure or high power flash, meaning video is tricky! You either need to increase the amount of UV by having a more powerful source, or a more fluorescent subject. For example, UV inks and tonic water glow brightly enough for video even with only a little UV.
Hey Rosaline, It's definitely still possible. Depending on the subject and how close you can get the arm, but one should be enough for a subject that has a decent amount of fluorescence. As with any photography, more light just gives you more options with your settings.
I have not, but it might work with the right setup. I would expect the mirrors to reflect the induced visible light back onto the subject, causing the effect to have less overall contrast between unique colours and brightnesses.
Hi Antonia. You might struggle for video unless you are using a very fluorescent subject, like inks or tonic water. A long exposure is required to capture the light from things like plants. Your best bet would be to get a lot of UV power, lots of UV lighting arms might do the trick!
Great videos Ben. How did you found that spider in the garden at night? You knew before the shoot it's there, or you went out with a torch to find something to photograph? How long did it take to set up the scene to shoot it? (I'm totally newbie in photography :) thank you
We used a white lighting arm in the Control Pod to act as a focusing light/subject finder. You can then unplug or turn off the white light to take the pic!
Interesting but I am interested in how different wavelengths effect fluorescence. Minerals behave totally differently when exposed to different UV wavelength
I'm sure we will have the opportunity to explore some minerals in future videos! Our UV arms peak at 330nm so it will certainly be interesting to see what reacts and what doesn't.
We have found that it usually isn't needed as the UV light drops off very quickly after the subject, leaving the background naturally black. Only case where it would be needed is if there is something highly fluorescent back there.
Obviously your not going to be doing a video on this for obvious reasons, but front and backs of driving licences, pages of passports and some credit cards etc have some great UV to photograph as an intrest, also old paper money is great too (the new plastic money only has and 5, or 10 etc for the monatry denomination, but old money is interesting)
Hi Pedro, for most of these shots we used a Nikon 18-105, but for macro we more often use the Tamron 90mm (though ours recently broke after many years of use).
Hi Natalia, thanks for watching! There's no need to modify your camera for this kind of UV photography, you are only capturing the visible light created by the fluorescence, not the UV light it's self.
There is no need for a UV filter most of the time. most cameras and lenses already have UV-blocking coatings. There's no extra filters or camera modifications needed, other than a pure UV light source.
Unfortunately the filters needed for UV are very costly, even to us to put into our arms. Buying the filter to modify a flash can cost 100s too, it's a pretty specialised bit of glass so it does create a bit of a barrier to entry.
@@AdaptaluxI have a pair. There is a clear blue visible light coming out of each? Or is it just that, everything fluoresces to a certain extent, and it’s that that I’m seeing when I see it on the back of my hand or on a bit of paper etc when I’m checking that they are on? What are the ultra fluorescent bits that I’m seeing on ‘some’ flowers’ pollen, and dust etc? Also on things like scorpions , fungi for eg. Is that the same process but just to a much greater extent? Am I even making sense?
Correct! Most things will have a very small amount of glow, like leaves or even your hand. Fingernails slightly more so! The things with better fluorescence will glow brighter, like pollen and dust. Mostly, flowers will only glow slightly under UV, but with a long exposure the effect is more pronounced. Dust and pollen can be an issue though as it will glow much more brightly than the petals and leaves. You will notice the effect most with objects that totally change colour in response to UV, like a kiwi or lichen.
