Sunday, August 12, 2012

Rudbeckia fulgida var. deamii: human vision vs bee UV vision; reflected UV ultraviolet photography

Today about another attractive flower, for humans as well as bees: Rudbeckia fulgida var. deamii. Shot outside with natural light (blue sky, no direct sun) in visible and ultraviolet light, using the Baader-U UV pass filter, a CERCO 94mm quartz flourite lens and my UV sensitive camera.

[click on image to see a larger one]

Visible light image:


Ultraviolet (UV) light image:


Diptych VIS - UV:


The petals of this R. deamii variant shows a, invisible for us humans, very distinct "bullseye" UV pattern, as many other Rudbeckia species do. Also this one is reflecting around 365nm at its petal tips and is creating a very distinct UV nectar guide for its pollinators.

The California Academia of Science has chosen these images for its new 2015 exhibit "Colors of Life"

Stay tuned, more will follow on that fascinating subject...

More info on this very interesting field may be found on my site http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos

Saturday, August 4, 2012

White Gazania rigens flower: Baader-U filter for reflected UV ultraviolet photography

More about a white Gazania flower, most likely Gazania rigens. Shot in visible and ultraviolet light, using the Baader-U filter and a high power Xenon flash as well as an UV sensitive camera.

[click on image to see a larger one]

Visible light image:


Ultraviolet (UV) light image:


Diptych VIS - UV:


The petals of this white Gazania are quite special, since they show in UV an otherwise invisible bright rim (reflecting around 370nm) against a UV darker, but still reflective (around 385nm) inside. The stigmas are also very UV bright, whereas the stamen are quite dark so overall create quite distinct UV nectar guides for their pollinators.

Stay tuned, more will follow on that fascinating subject...

More info on this very interesting field may be found on my site http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Filter leakage in reflected UV ultraviolet photography - DIY filter vs Baader-U

Today about leakage in reflected UV photography and how to detect it. When I started many years ago, non-UV leakage effects in supposedly purely reflected UV photography was a big issue before the now "standard" UV transmission filter, the Baader-U filter was brought to the market by the company Baader-Planaterium, Germany based on intensive research of astronomer Mr Thomas Baader, who combined Schott filter glass with a multilayered, dichroic overcoating to suppress IR leakage. The method before was using for instance filter stacks consisting of a IR leaking UV filter, SCHOTT UG1 or UG11, plus IR suppressing SCHOTT S8612, BG38 or BG40 filter glass. The downside was, that the suppression was far from being optimal and under certain shooting conditions one could get massive IR leakage. It takes a bit of experience to see that though and even today one can see a lot of such supposedly "UV images", but basically it is a mix of UV and near IR (NIR), if not often nearly purely NIR.

So how does a contaminated UV image look like? A first indication is that non UV reflecting parts (of a flower), that should look very dark, appeared lightened up. A good example to test is Rudbeckia (R. hirta was used here), as it has nearly completely UV absorbing petals in its lower petal parts towards the center, wheras the petal tips are very UV bright. My spectrometric research has confirmed that many times for different Rudbeckia species. Here an example for that:
[click on image to see a larger one]


Its gets pretty obvious, that the petal mid and base have very low reflection (pink line), wheras the petal tip (lilac line) has quite a UV reflection peak around 365nm. Now have a look at the right side of the graph, the visible (VIS) and near infrared (NIR) part of that spectra, from approx. 520nm onwards the reflection rapidly gets quite high, approaching some 50-60%). So any filter, that does not perfectly block these non-UV parts will show leakage i.e. flower parts that should be (very) dark will appear lightened up. Here an example for that:


Left shows the Baader-U filter used, middle and right show the results of using more (right) or less (middle) leaking UV filter stacks, here based on SCHOTT UG11 filter glass and a S8612 blocking filter glass (two different thicknesses were used, 2mm for the middle and 1mm for the right image). The flower petal parts that should be very dark, appear in a brownish red. [btw. stacking the two 1mm + 2mm S8612 filters onto the UG11 filter solves the problem, another proof for the leakage]

Remark: the actual color is irrelevant, as based on the whitebalance used, it could be basically any color. Important only is the intensity of these petal parts, which should be quite low, but isn't. Here another example for that, again Baader-U was used on the left image, middle and right are filter stacks (it is the same image, just differently white balanced).


Here another example, this time a Hemerocallis (Day Lily), left Baader-U, right a leaking filter stack was used:


All these images were shot using my UV camera and a flat, beyond 300nm transmitting CERCO f4.1/94mm quartz fluorite lens.

These filter stacks work basically the following way, explained using SCHOTT's filter calculation program for a similar filter stack. The obvious weakness for that case is around 700nm:

[courtesy and (c) SCHOTT]

So, be aware of these effects when assembling your own filter, or buying commercially available filters, as you may end up with useless "UV images", but they may look interesting nevertheless ;)

A hint and a simple explanation: a classic transmission chart of a filter in 0-100% linear scale does not show possible leakage issues. The exposure difference between UV photography and VIS/NIR photography is in the range of 8-12 exposure stops more for UV, so if a filter transmits in the VIS or NIR region more than OD3 (1E-03 or 0.001) it will most likely leak, since 10 stops equal a factor of 1024 i.e. 2exp(10), so 1/1024 = 0.001 that means a normal exposed UV image at -10EV and one through a filter that transmits 0.001 will be about equally exposed. But 0.1% in a linear 0-100% chart is pretty impossible to see, or can you see it here?

[courtesy and (c) SCHOTT]

It is the same example as shown above, just in the usually presented linear graph, so be aware.

There is a continuation of this article HERE.

Stay tuned, more will follow on that fascinating subject...

More info on this very interesting field may be found on my site http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos

Saturday, July 28, 2012

Zinnia angustifolia mix: human vision vs simulated bee vison; reflected UV ultraviolet photography

From a walk through the beautiful Hermannshof, Weinheim, Germany I brought home these shots of a mix of flowering Zinnia angustifolia, that special mexican variety. I took some shots in normal human vision VIS, in UV using the Baader-U filter, as well as in simulated bee vision using my XBV2 and new XBV6 filters respectively. So here comes Z. angustifolia in its multispectral representation.

[click on image to see a larger one]

Visual shot:


Simulated bee vison using XBV2 filter:


Simulated bee vison using XBV6 filter:


UV using Baader-U filter:


VIS-BV-UV quadriptych:


These Zinnia specimens expose their well known deep into reaching UV (<360nm) tip pattern very nicely, on some there even is no visible pattern at all.

As you may have noticed, I'm still working on my bee vision (BV) filters; BV6 is one with very intensive colors and much shorter exposure time, due to new filter glass combinations.

Stay tuned, more will follow on that fascinating subject...

More info on this very interesting field may be found on my site http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos

Petri Kuribayashi 35mm vs CERCO quartz fluorite lens for reflected UV photography III

Here now a test using that previously mentioned Petri Kuribayashi f3.5/35mm lens when used with the standard UV transmission filter, the Baader-U as well as my shorter wave Jupiter-U filter, compared to the Noflexar f3.5/35mm lens, but now also in comparison to a quartz fluorite lens, here the CERCO f4.1/94mm.

[click on image to see a larger one]



The CERCO 94mm delivers a peak transmission of about 55% at 350nm when used with the Baader-U filter and about 48% at 338nm when using the Jupiter-U filter. That compared to the Kuri 35mm which has a peak transmission of about 58% at 362nm, wheras the Noflexar 35mm shows one of about 45% at 365nm when teh Baader-U filter is used. And when using the Jupiter-U filter, the Kuri 35mm has a peak transmission of about 43% at 350nm, wheras the Noflexar 35mm shows one of about 30% at 358nm.

So using the very same filters, the CERCO 94mm reaches much deeper into UV, which could have been expected, based on its flat UV transmission. However it is a much more expensive lens and quite hard to find, so the Kuri 35mm certainly is a welcome new find for the aspiring UV shooter, also considering that it virtually has no focus shift between UV and visible light.


Stay tuned, more will follow on that fascinating subject...

More info on this very interesting field may be found on my site http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos

Petri Kuribayashi f3.5/35mm lens for reflected UV photography II

Here now a test using that previously mentioned Petri Kuribayashi f3.5/35mm lens when used with the standard UV transmission filter, the Baader-U as well as my shorter wave Jupiter-U filter, compared to the Noflexar f3.5/35mm lens.

[click on image to see a larger one]



When using the Baader-U filter, the Kuri 35mm has a peak transmission of about 58% at 362nm, wheras the Noflexar 35mm shows one of about 45% at 365nm, that is a gain of about 0.4 stops for the Kuri 35mm.

When using the Jupiter-U filter, the Kuri 35mm has a peak transmission of about 43% at 350nm, wheras the Noflexar 35mm shows one of about 30% at 358nm, that is a gain of about 0.5 stops for the Kuri 35mm, based on its deeper reach into UV.

There is a part III about this lens HERE.

Stay tuned, more will follow on that fascinating subject...

More info on this very interesting field may be found on my site http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos

Flower decay made visible using reflected UV ultraviolet photography II

While I was shooting flowers at Hermahnshof, Weinheim park, I noticed that in UV the wilting / ageing / decay of a flower can be easily detected, wheras in visible light this is not visible to us humans. I have written about that effect earlier here.

A UV sensitive camera, Cerco 94mm lens, Baader-U resp. UV/IR Cut filter was used; standardized UV palette using my ReflectionDisc

[click on image to see a larger one]

VIS (left) - UV (right):


The larger, yellow Helianthus tuberosus flower on the right side clearly shows that it has aged and will be wilting soon. In reflcted UV things get much easier to see immediately. So I'm sure pollinators (bees) knew that way before us...


Stay tuned, more will follow on that fascinating subject...

More info on this very interesting field may be found on my site http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos