• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Some flowers

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
I don't have the talent of Dr Klaus Schmitt, but I was curious to try UV photography. The first thing, I understood, was to check whether the typical UV pattern would appear on flowers:

Phlox_Subulata_vis.jpg


Phlox_Subulata_uv.jpg

Apparently, it does. These flowers are a cultivar of phlox subulata growing on my balcony.
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
But the question I wanted to answer was whether a pattern would appear on bracts, the modified leaves that some plants like lavender use to attract insects:

Lavandula_stocheas_vis.jpg


Bracts are the fluffy violet leaves on top of the flower group here. Let us have a look in UV:


Lavandula_stocheas_UV.jpg

The result appears to be negative. Too bad.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Is it possible that your UV is too broad a spectrum or narrow and misses the wavelengths that show up?

Asher
 

Dr Klaus Schmitt

Well-known member
Very well done - and you do have talent Jerome!!

Yes, Phlox does have a "UV bullseye pattern"

Unfortunately I don't have UV shots handy of this cultivar type of Lavender.

Which UV filter have you used if I may ask?
 
Last edited:

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
My first UV tries date back a few years, actually (2013). This may explain the peculiar choice of camera. At the time, SLRs were not always practical , as not all of them had live view, which would be necessary to focus. At the time, your blog also discussed how some sensors were almost blind to UV. So I reasoned I needed a P&S with a particular sensor. I chose a Sigma DP-1, which was sold out for cheap and removed the IR filter. I use it as an IR camera from time to time and infrequently as an UV camera.

The foveon sensor has the advantage that IR images can also show real colours, somewhat "IR ektachrome" style. It has the inconvenient that the processing software is limited and that the base resolution is somewhat lacking. It is reasonably sensitive to UV, the images above were taken handheld at 1/15s. The ergonomics are disastrous for UV, as the built-in screen is difficult to see in bright sunlight.

I planed to eventually get a Sigma SLR (a SD1 Merrill would be perfect for IR), but never found one at a price I was willing to pay. And purely for UV, a SD quattro would probably be just as good and cheaper.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Jérôme,

I have always admired the Foveon sensor. The seem to me like a cross between Kodachrome II and Polaroids!

Do you have that work online. I would love to see it!

Asher
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
I don't understand what "work" you have in mind.

Besides, I tried that IR-modified camera but could not produce something that would satisfy me. So I don't think I put anything online. But if you tell me what you need to see to judge the camera capacities, I may be able to construct some test pictures.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Jérôme,

By “work” I jest meant you shooting experience with this unique camera. I am especially interested in flowers, landscape and faces!
 

Dr Klaus Schmitt

Well-known member
My first UV tries date back a few years, actually (2013). This may explain the peculiar choice of camera. At the time, SLRs were not always practical , as not all of them had live view, which would be necessary to focus. At the time, your blog also discussed how some sensors were almost blind to UV. So I reasoned I needed a P&S with a particular sensor. I chose a Sigma DP-1, which was sold out for cheap and removed the IR filter. I use it as an IR camera from time to time and infrequently as an UV camera.

The foveon sensor has the advantage that IR images can also show real colours, somewhat "IR ektachrome" style. It has the inconvenient that the processing software is limited and that the base resolution is somewhat lacking. It is reasonably sensitive to UV, the images above were taken handheld at 1/15s. The ergonomics are disastrous for UV, as the built-in screen is difficult to see in bright sunlight.

I planed to eventually get a Sigma SLR (a SD1 Merrill would be perfect for IR), but never found one at a price I was willing to pay. And purely for UV, a SD quattro would probably be just as good and cheaper.
Hmm, well I tried a Sigma FOVEON camera many years back and I was rather disappointed with its UV sensitivity and it was rather noisy at bit higher ISO. It collects dust somewhere since then. If you are serious about UV, try a modern, mirrorless camera (Panasonic, Sony, I know are working well. Nikon Z I heard, too.
 
Last edited:

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
By “work” I jest meant you shooting experience with this unique camera. I am especially interested in flowers, landscape and faces!

Since you asked for flowers, I tried daisies and a rapeseed field yesterday:

SDIM0108.jpg


SDIM0117.jpg

The pictures would be more interesting by sunny weather as the sky stays blue, but this what I could do quickly.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Onile the idea of seeing things differently. It would be great If one could selectively remove wavelengths in Photoshop. Perhaps that exists?

Asher
 

Dr Klaus Schmitt

Well-known member
Onile the idea of seeing things differently. It would be great If one could selectively remove wavelengths in Photoshop. Perhaps that exists?

Asher
Well, I have done similar a while ago using a SIGMA camera with FOVEON chip inside, these are the three RGB channels, representing blue: UV, green: VIS, red: IR



and the complete image was this then:
 
Top