Awesome video and very helpful for trying to do blacklight photography as using a flash for control over constant is better in my opinion. Also seeing how most black lights are now led and have such a bad output seeing filters being used and what part of a flash to remove is awesome. I’m mainly using 365-385nm as those cause the best fluorescent effect. Would be nice if camera places told us the diameter of their round flashes so we could order the right mod parts all at one time
BTW, Midwest Optical Systems now has a BP340 filter which has as little bleed on the violet side of the spectrum as the Hoya U-340 filter and no bleed in the red or near infrared same as the BP365. This could be a single filter option with little bleed in the 380-410 nm (less than 10% at 380nm) and no bleed on the infrared side until 825 nm well outside the visible light range (approx 380-750 nm). I just don't know how easily procurable it is. midopt.com/filters/bp340/
I love how simple and to the point this tutorial is. So many people waste so much time.. can’t wait to modify my flashes. Thanks for the links. I was wondering if you are using a regular camera, or a full spectrum camera? Thanks
Regular camera for this work! Since the camera is only collecting visible light that fluoresces from the UV into the visible spectrum, you just need your standard camera and lens. Ultraviolet reflectance, the direct capture of UV light, requires a whole different setup - full spectrum camera, special lenses etc. Glad you enjoyed the video!
Thanks so much Dave, always happy to share info like this, especially since it's so obscure and not many people have gone down this particular rabbit hole. :)
Hi, thank you for the video! Now, do you use one of those UV filters or do you mount both? I would definitely give it a try but I was curious if you can get good results with only using Hoya for example.
You're welcome! One of the filters has a light leak in the red spectrum, and the other has a light leak in the purple/blues slightly. They both work to cover each-other's leak, which would prevent contamination of the fluorescence of the subject. It's pricey, but it works. The other option is to use a Convoy S2 or C8 UV LED flashlight, which gives great results for static subjects that won't move over a longer exposure!
Not sure what you mean by "whole setup specs" - the description for the video has a lot of that. My UV images can be found in a number of places, including my website: www.donkom.ca/category/ultraviolet/
Con. Love your videos. For converting a flash, I have an old Canon 550EX speedlite (GN 180). Would this work well, or should I get the Yongnuo 660 with its higher GN of 217? Thanks.
I hope you didn't mean to call me a "con", Bill. :) The higher guide number of the YN-660 will likely help with maximum output, but moreover I don't know how Canon treated their flash bulb in the 550EX. Some flash bulbs directly have a UV coating on them instead of relying solely on the plastic in front of the bulb to block the light. Some don't. It's impossible to know until you test it out, but so far all of the Yongnuo flashes I have tried have untreated bulbs.
Don, excellent job explaining the process to convert the flash. You mentioned the xenon bulb transmits UV along with other wavelengths. So, there is no need to remove any UV coating on the bulb or is the UV protection just in the plastic?
Thanks Calvin! Xenon itself emits UV, visible light and infrared but some bulbs have coatings on them to stop the transmission of UV light. The bulbs in the Yongnuo flashes may have some sort of coating but a lot of UV light escapes them, relying on the plastic in front of the bulb to handle the UV light more effectively. For this reason, no adjustments to the bulb itself is required - just remove the plastic and you're good to go!
Hi Don , thanks for the tutorial . I' ve always read your articles religiously in OPC magazine . I have two questions for you . I am currently into camera trapping flying squirrel in mid air with a long 30 sec exposure during nightime ( 4 flashes) . I know they glow under UV light and taught this would maje an intersesting shot to have them underside glowing pink . So I was wondering . Would it work at all or would the ambiant ruin all of this .. ? Is there a lot of loss in power with the flashes ( right now they are mostly at 1/64 for this particular set ) ? Could I combine UV flash to expose the flying squirrel and normal flash ( to expose tree trunk and environnement) or would the UV light be ruined again by normal flash ? I use nikon sb28 since I have a lot of them .. Would this modification work on these flash or is the bulb itself has a UV filter? Thank you very much
Do you think it would be possible with film? And also, how dark would you say the flash comes out to be? I came here not for uv photography, I got interested in it by these video, but my original goal is noble photography, rn heliography, but later down the line also physautotype, daguerrotype and maybe salt printing. I have uv lamp used for gel nails which I use for contact prints rn, but I'd love to do some actual in camera photograph. From uncoated lenses fastest I have is 4 element f3.5, do you think that coating and more elements would greatly reduce the light, up to a point where even tho the lens is faster 1 stop it permits less light, because of the additional layer of glass and coating?
Thank you for this video. I am trying to build the setup to try my hand on UV photography. But getting the filters is a bit difficult. So just wanted to know can we use UV light source (UV lamp/light) instead of flash?
Yes you can! However in each scenario you need "pure" UV light for best results. This often means filtering down UV lights that leak part of the visible spectrum - virtually every UV light source could be better. About the best I've found are Convoy S2+ LED flashlights, but these still benefit from some filtering if you are trying to image dim organic fluorescence in some flowers and insects.
Thank you so much for posting this instructional video. Now I’m ready to make my own flashes! I have one question - do you use regular unmodified camera or a full spectrum camera with this set up?
You're welcome, Ivo! Since the light we're after is visible light (having fluoresced from UV light), your normal ordinary camera is used to take these images. The only special ingredient is the flashes. :)
Hi Don, Great work! love it. For the Hoya U-340 77mm filter, is there a other similar product? try to found on eBay and cant get 77mm. Or is the U-360 works too? Thanks again! and you got a new fan! ( I am in Canada)
The U-340 and U-360 are quite different in their transmission. You might be able to ask one of the sellers that have sold them in the past if they have any stock on them (just check the "completed listings" box) or you can always get a filter in a different size. I preferred the 77mm because it fits nicely at the edges of the flashes, but smaller sizes would work too - you'd just need to be a little more generous with the Gaffer's tape. Also, the VERY best solution comes at a much higher expense: The XNite 330C + XNite BP1 filters that can be purchased from www.maxmax.com/shopper/category/9197-77mm - one is under UV, one is under the visible filters category, and they block not only visible light but also infrared light. Since our cameras inherently block IR light with a filter in front of the sensor, this extra advantage isn't really needed, unless you're thinking about exploring UV reflectance work, an entirely different beast than UV fluorescence. :)
Hey Don! Thank you for this! am I correct in assuming this will work for black light reactive body paint on a person? In the past ive used a powerful black light to capture these photos, but it just does not allow me to use the shutter speeds im after. This seems like it will be a solution, however my environment, although it is fairly dark, has a lot of ambient light. will this flash be bright enough to illuminate a subject that is a several feet away from the flash/camera? these are full body shots. or will I need to double or tripple up the flash? if so, I could see this becoming rather expensive rather quickly
The small cheap flash will not give you the light your needing. Go for a larger open headed corded flash and silver umbrella. I say silver because using a white one will cause the light to become visible light instead of just the uv your looking for. I used just a cheap bandpass filter on a flash head to see if it would have any fluorescent effect in my well lit room after taking a black frame shot and it worked as hoped so good luch
Thanks for the vid, really insightfull. I've got one question i havent found on the comments: i've read elsewhere that uv light can damage the camera sensor... so, if i were to use this flash off camera, should i put a uv filter in front of my lens? Is it true that i could damage my sensor with the exposure i could get out of this (or any given lightorch from amazon)? I know cameras have a uv filter biuld in, but is it there for the purpose of protecting the sensor, or to avoid any undesired shining spots on its surface?
All cameras have filter placed in front of the sensor that block UV as well as infrared light. If they didn't, the camera would have a warped view of our reality as human beings who cannot see these wavelengths of light, but a CMOS sensor is actually sensitive to it. I have a camera modified for full spectrum work and the direct imaging of UV light by removing these filters... and the camera is just fine even with direct exposure to ultraviolet radiation. So, I cannot confirm with certainty that UV light does not harm a camera but I have never experienced any harm and I push the limits pretty far. :)
@@DonKomarechka Thank you very muchh! :) that helped, i'm gonna try some lightorch macro and we'll see if this needs to scale up to somehing like modifying a flash
Loved this idea, however just had a price for the Hoya filter and it cost £500 and wait 3months for it as its a special order. Anyway of doing this cheaper?
Would this work for a flashlight? What I'm asking is if removing the low iron Glass lens and putting an optical pass filter meant for cameras in 365 nanometer UV spectrum; could you also put that same optical pass filter in front of a high power LED or halogen flashlight and make it a UV flashlight?
Not LED for sure. It might be easier to just get a UV flashlight and do a long exposure - no flashlight is going to give you the kind of output that a speedlight would, so you’re going to need a longer exposure or higher ISO anyway. Side bonus, with a flashlight you can do some light painting with it.
Thank you for this video. I'd love to try this, but getting the filters is a bit difficult and expensive. I was wondering; is it not possible to just use a normal 850nm IR filter to cut off the red leak (instead of the midOpt filter)? Or have I totally misunderstood something? Thanks again
Glad you enjoyed the video Ki! Yes, the filters are expensive but it really is critical to get a pure, clean UV light source. If you take a look at the transmission chart for any 850nm IR filter, you'd be right that it would cut any red bleed... but it would also cut 100% of the UV spectrum as well, making it completely useless. The goal is to let as much of the UV spectrum through while nullifying as much of the visible spectrum as possible.
@@DonKomarechka Oh I see.. I knew there was something I was forgetting. Thanks for clearing that up. I guess there isn't really a cheaper way of doing it then. By the way, how many flashes do you typically use? I'm assuming at least 2 would be ideal ?
@@wayofki of course there are cheaper ways, but you might not get the purity of the light source, which will contaminate the scene especially when shooting a subject with very dim fluorescence. One flash is enough to start - you can set the camera to be a longer exposure in complete darkness and fire it multiple times, even moving it around to act as if it was multiple flashes. This approach doesn't work for moving subjects like insects, but there are plenty of static subjects worth exploring! I use 3-4 flashes, because I have them. I could use less and still get great results. I started off with only one! :)
@@DonKomarechka Thank you. I appreciate the advice. I actually came across your UV photography a year or two ago, and have wanted to try it out ever since.
@@wayofki give it a shot, it's a totally new word to explore not just with plants but also minerals and artificial fluorescence as well. I've made some freezing soap bubbles glow by using invisible ink (fluoresces bright blue) in the bubble formula. Tons of creative avenues to explore!
Use any trigger, just buy a Yongnuo flash since you'll be making a flash that can only be used for UV work moving forward. Wouldn't want to do this to a flash you have other purposes for. :)
Do I need to do UV-induced fluorescence photography in the dark using an unmodified camera? Or can I do it outside, with a higher f stop to limit visible light, with a powerful UV flash? Or do I also need visible light filters on the camera lens if I want to do it outside during the day?
You'd need to make sure that the ambient light is inconsequential to the exposure - a simple test by taking a photo without the UV flashes on should yield a dark frame - nothing visible. This is very hard to do even in ambient room light let alone outside during daylight hours. Keep in mind that while the lights emit UV light, your camera captures VISIBLE light that has fluoresced off the subject so you cannot filter away visible light and still get an image. Effectively, you'll need to work outside at night or in a darkened studio for best results. :)
I really want to try this a long time ago but those filters are really expensive! :( would you recommend the UV pass filter from the counterfeit money detectors? Those are 365nm UV pass filters too, but i think not as good as hoya and midopt.
Those filters unfortunately bleed a lot of visible light, so you'd get your fluorescent results contaminated and there will be a very frustrating colour cast. Another option to consider is UV LED flashlights - look for a Convoy S2+ with an LG LEUVA33U70RL00 diode for decent results. Still a bit of light bleed but very good place to start.
Hello good morning, the reason for my message is to ask you if converting a flash for UVIVF photography can be done with any Flash? or does it have to be a younguo flash? . I have sony alpha cameras (A7III, A7SIII, A7, ...) Thanks a lot. Best regards
Since you'll likely be using the flashes in manual mode, at full power, it doesn't matter what camera you use. Whether I use a Lumix camera, Sony, Pentax etc. they all work in manual mode with this flash (and any flash). You do not need, nor would you ever use, the ETTL features of this flash.
I have important question, will the two filters counter act any harm to a person eye sight? Hoya states, "WARNING: DO NOT use this filter for visual observation. Sunlight and other light sources contain ultraviolet radiation which will damage your eyes!" I hope the second filter (MidOpt BP365) will stop any damage that the person might get if he/ she is exposed to flashes on the subject.
Yeah, it would be dangerous. Effectively you're only allowing the UV light through. So, by the very nature of this, you could damage your eyes. Take the necessary precautions and wear protective eye wear. UV light has been shown in some studies to cause early-onset cataracts and you really don't want to give a sunburn to your retinas. That said, minor exposure wouldn't cause that much harm since the UV light would be of the long-wave variety. Just like spending time outside in the sun it can cause damage, but that damage is governed by the amount of exposure. If you are unsure of the danger, please do the proper research and come to your own conclusions about the risks - at your own risk.
Not sure what kind of flash bulbs Godox uses in those lights. Some bulbs have a UV protective coating directly on them, rather than depending on the transparent plastic in front of the flash head to block UV. You might be able to get an answer out of Godox but it wouldn't have to come from one of their engineers!
This can be done in relative darkness, but doesn't always have to be in complete darkness. The simple test is to try and take a photo with the UV light source off, based on the appropriate exposure for the subject with the lights on. If the resulting image is black, the amount of ambient light isn't going to affect the image. If something is still visible in the image, you need to address the ambient light and make your environment darker. For all of my "normal" (non-UV) macro work, they are done with brighter ambient light but also much more intense light sources on the subject, negating the impact of the ambient light on the image.
Hello Don - I'm curious to know if modifying a the flash this way diminishes the output of light? Reason is - I'm looking into producing old tintype photography in doors, but the emulsion used for tintypes is only sensitive to UV light. But needs a lot of light because the ISO is like 1. I'm wondering if I modify a flash if this will help in anyway emit enough UV light to produce the a tintype image. Any thoughts? Thanks! Saed
Hey Saed - modifying the flash does both. the first modification of removing the pieces of plastic from in front of the xenon flash tube would widen the spectral output of the flash. If your tintypes have no sensitivity to visible or infrared light, there would be no reason why you would need to filter this down to "just" UV light using expensive filters. You can use just the bare xenon flash bulb and it should work for you.
@@DonKomarechka Don, Collodion which is basically the emulsion for Tintypes is only sensitive to light between 325 nanometer (uv) and 510 nanometer (bluegreen) light. So do you think by modifying a Speedlite will do the trick? Or is there filters I would need to add to it to achieve that?
@@DonKomarechka Don - another option is I have White Lighting strobes that use a single-ring, 14mm flashtube that is UV-coated and daylight-balanced at 5600K would this work instead of modifying a speedlite? I sent you a previous message about the how the tintypes are sensitive. Any input would be greatly appreciated.
@@saedhindash5169 your answer is sort of in your question. If the xenon bulb itself has a UV coating, there is really no convenient way to remove that. The speelites I was using from Yongnuo do NOT have coated bulbs and instead depend on the plastic components in the optical path to block UV light which are easy to remove. I'm not saying it's impossible to strip that UV coating off, but that's not a job I'd want to do. :)
Define "well beyond"? Possibly that using a flash at full 1:1 power increase the flash duration substantially, allowing for a faster sync, but in turn you'd be losing some of the light output from the flash. To make the most of the light, I'd actually dial it UNDER the listed sync speed so nothing is blocked by the shutter curtains.
@@DonKomarechka i am using half power on my speedlite and my shutter speed is 1/350 but my sync speed is 1/200 and this speedlite does not have HSS. It looks like the exposure is decreased when I increase the shutter speed that's odd. I may try another speedlight to test it out. This speedlite outperforming my expectations
"Half Power" is still well beyond the base of 1/256, 1/128 or 1/64 that many flashes offer. Think of it this way: they don't adapt the voltage to increase output, the adapt the time. A longer flash duration does not mean that all of the flash output will be recorded at faster shutter speeds but it means that it's likely to cover the mechanical shutter window evenly, with a lot of wasted power on either side. You are correct, it seems like your sync speed is faster, but a lot of the flash output is being wasted. If you set your shutter speed a bit lower than your normal sync speed, you'll likely notice a significant exposure difference. Science! We don't often get into the maths of all this, but it can be helpful to go back to bare basics to understand what's really going on.
Yes, for some subjects, with a caveat. Most UV flashlights are poorly filtered and spill a lot of visible light which will "contaminate" the fluorescence. You'd need to either filter down the light in a similar way to filtering a full-spectrum flash, or get a nice one. Anything that carries the "Convoy" name is generally a safe bet, but materials vary with all of these lights. Continuous light isn't suitable for all subjects either, especially insects or other moving things.
ZWB2 glass allows for deep red transmission. This is fine to filter down UV LED light sources for a purer UV output, but remember that Xenon is a full-spectrum light that also dishes out a lot of infrared light. As such, you'll notice a red light leak when using just a ZWB2 filter in front of your light. This doesn't matter so much for highly fluorescent things like certain minerals, highlighter ink etc. but it contaminates the images of lesser fluorescent subjects like insects and flowers.
@@DonKomarechka I will mainly use this for mineral photo. Already ordered the filter before I saw your tutorial. Will test and see what I get. Thanks for your kind reply
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
Awesome video and very helpful for trying to do blacklight photography as using a flash for control over constant is better in my opinion. Also seeing how most black lights are now led and have such a bad output seeing filters being used and what part of a flash to remove is awesome. I’m mainly using 365-385nm as those cause the best fluorescent effect. Would be nice if camera places told us the diameter of their round flashes so we could order the right mod parts all at one time
This is so perfectly explained as usual for you!
BTW, Midwest Optical Systems now has a BP340 filter which has as little bleed on the violet side of the spectrum as the Hoya U-340 filter and no bleed in the red or near infrared same as the BP365. This could be a single filter option with little bleed in the 380-410 nm (less than 10% at 380nm) and no bleed on the infrared side until 825 nm well outside the visible light range (approx 380-750 nm). I just don't know how easily procurable it is. midopt.com/filters/bp340/
I love how simple and to the point this tutorial is. So many people waste so much time.. can’t wait to modify my flashes. Thanks for the links. I was wondering if you are using a regular camera, or a full spectrum camera?
Thanks
Regular camera for this work! Since the camera is only collecting visible light that fluoresces from the UV into the visible spectrum, you just need your standard camera and lens. Ultraviolet reflectance, the direct capture of UV light, requires a whole different setup - full spectrum camera, special lenses etc.
Glad you enjoyed the video!
Thanks so much for being willing to share this information. Well done and subbed 😀
Thanks so much Dave, always happy to share info like this, especially since it's so obscure and not many people have gone down this particular rabbit hole. :)
Hi, thank you for the video! Now, do you use one of those UV filters or do you mount both? I would definitely give it a try but I was curious if you can get good results with only using Hoya for example.
You're welcome! One of the filters has a light leak in the red spectrum, and the other has a light leak in the purple/blues slightly. They both work to cover each-other's leak, which would prevent contamination of the fluorescence of the subject. It's pricey, but it works. The other option is to use a Convoy S2 or C8 UV LED flashlight, which gives great results for static subjects that won't move over a longer exposure!
Thank you for this video, I'm going to give it a try :)
tried it yet?
Do you have whole setup specs? (including camera and filters)
Where to find examples of your uv photos?
Not sure what you mean by "whole setup specs" - the description for the video has a lot of that. My UV images can be found in a number of places, including my website: www.donkom.ca/category/ultraviolet/
Con. Love your videos. For converting a flash, I have an old Canon 550EX speedlite (GN 180). Would this work well, or should I get the Yongnuo 660 with its higher GN of 217? Thanks.
I hope you didn't mean to call me a "con", Bill. :)
The higher guide number of the YN-660 will likely help with maximum output, but moreover I don't know how Canon treated their flash bulb in the 550EX. Some flash bulbs directly have a UV coating on them instead of relying solely on the plastic in front of the bulb to block the light. Some don't. It's impossible to know until you test it out, but so far all of the Yongnuo flashes I have tried have untreated bulbs.
Thanks you very much.. Please upload more videos
Don, excellent job explaining the process to convert the flash. You mentioned the xenon bulb transmits UV along with other wavelengths. So, there is no need to remove any UV coating on the bulb or is the UV protection just in the plastic?
Thanks Calvin! Xenon itself emits UV, visible light and infrared but some bulbs have coatings on them to stop the transmission of UV light. The bulbs in the Yongnuo flashes may have some sort of coating but a lot of UV light escapes them, relying on the plastic in front of the bulb to handle the UV light more effectively. For this reason, no adjustments to the bulb itself is required - just remove the plastic and you're good to go!
I love that stove. What make is it?
I'm definitely going to try this at some point. Thanks for the instructional video!
You're welcome, glad this video is helpful for exploring this conversion!
Hi Don , thanks for the tutorial . I' ve always read your articles religiously in OPC magazine . I have two questions for you . I am currently into camera trapping flying squirrel in mid air with a long 30 sec exposure during nightime ( 4 flashes) . I know they glow under UV light and taught this would maje an intersesting shot to have them underside glowing pink .
So I was wondering .
Would it work at all or would the ambiant ruin all of this .. ?
Is there a lot of loss in power with the flashes ( right now they are mostly at 1/64 for this particular set ) ?
Could I combine UV flash to expose the flying squirrel and normal flash ( to expose tree trunk and environnement) or would the UV light be ruined again by normal flash ?
I use nikon sb28 since I have a lot of them .. Would this modification work on these flash or is the bulb itself has a UV filter?
Thank you very much
Do you think it would be possible with film? And also, how dark would you say the flash comes out to be? I came here not for uv photography, I got interested in it by these video, but my original goal is noble photography, rn heliography, but later down the line also physautotype, daguerrotype and maybe salt printing. I have uv lamp used for gel nails which I use for contact prints rn, but I'd love to do some actual in camera photograph. From uncoated lenses fastest I have is 4 element f3.5, do you think that coating and more elements would greatly reduce the light, up to a point where even tho the lens is faster 1 stop it permits less light, because of the additional layer of glass and coating?
Hello. Do you mean 2 off the same midopt filter, or that there are two types of filter?
Sorry, I figure it out - but I was unable to delete my comment 😞
Thank you for this video. I am trying to build the setup to try my hand on UV photography. But getting the filters is a bit difficult. So just wanted to know can we use UV light source (UV lamp/light) instead of flash?
Yes you can! However in each scenario you need "pure" UV light for best results. This often means filtering down UV lights that leak part of the visible spectrum - virtually every UV light source could be better. About the best I've found are Convoy S2+ LED flashlights, but these still benefit from some filtering if you are trying to image dim organic fluorescence in some flowers and insects.
Thank you so much for posting this instructional video. Now I’m ready to make my own flashes!
I have one question - do you use regular unmodified camera or a full spectrum camera with this set up?
You're welcome, Ivo! Since the light we're after is visible light (having fluoresced from UV light), your normal ordinary camera is used to take these images. The only special ingredient is the flashes. :)
Don Komarechka Thank you so much for letting me know. I really appreciate all the knowledge you share with aspiring photographers like myself
Hi Don, Great work! love it. For the Hoya U-340 77mm filter, is there a other similar product? try to found on eBay and cant get 77mm. Or is the U-360 works too? Thanks again! and you got a new fan! ( I am in Canada)
The U-340 and U-360 are quite different in their transmission. You might be able to ask one of the sellers that have sold them in the past if they have any stock on them (just check the "completed listings" box) or you can always get a filter in a different size. I preferred the 77mm because it fits nicely at the edges of the flashes, but smaller sizes would work too - you'd just need to be a little more generous with the Gaffer's tape.
Also, the VERY best solution comes at a much higher expense: The XNite 330C + XNite BP1 filters that can be purchased from www.maxmax.com/shopper/category/9197-77mm - one is under UV, one is under the visible filters category, and they block not only visible light but also infrared light. Since our cameras inherently block IR light with a filter in front of the sensor, this extra advantage isn't really needed, unless you're thinking about exploring UV reflectance work, an entirely different beast than UV fluorescence. :)
@@DonKomarechka thank you!
Hey Don! Thank you for this! am I correct in assuming this will work for black light reactive body paint on a person? In the past ive used a powerful black light to capture these photos, but it just does not allow me to use the shutter speeds im after. This seems like it will be a solution, however my environment, although it is fairly dark, has a lot of ambient light. will this flash be bright enough to illuminate a subject that is a several feet away from the flash/camera? these are full body shots. or will I need to double or tripple up the flash? if so, I could see this becoming rather expensive rather quickly
The small cheap flash will not give you the light your needing. Go for a larger open headed corded flash and silver umbrella. I say silver because using a white one will cause the light to become visible light instead of just the uv your looking for. I used just a cheap bandpass filter on a flash head to see if it would have any fluorescent effect in my well lit room after taking a black frame shot and it worked as hoped so good luch
Don does it matter which filter goes first, so which one is closest to the flash head
Thanks for the vid, really insightfull. I've got one question i havent found on the comments: i've read elsewhere that uv light can damage the camera sensor... so, if i were to use this flash off camera, should i put a uv filter in front of my lens? Is it true that i could damage my sensor with the exposure i could get out of this (or any given lightorch from amazon)? I know cameras have a uv filter biuld in, but is it there for the purpose of protecting the sensor, or to avoid any undesired shining spots on its surface?
All cameras have filter placed in front of the sensor that block UV as well as infrared light. If they didn't, the camera would have a warped view of our reality as human beings who cannot see these wavelengths of light, but a CMOS sensor is actually sensitive to it.
I have a camera modified for full spectrum work and the direct imaging of UV light by removing these filters... and the camera is just fine even with direct exposure to ultraviolet radiation. So, I cannot confirm with certainty that UV light does not harm a camera but I have never experienced any harm and I push the limits pretty far. :)
@@DonKomarechka Thank you very muchh! :) that helped, i'm gonna try some lightorch macro and we'll see if this needs to scale up to somehing like modifying a flash
@@marc5279 I recommend the Convoy S2 as a great place to start. Good luck!
Do you know where I can buy UV pass filter & tools to cut from 24mm X 36mm on down?
Loved this idea, however just had a price for the Hoya filter and it cost £500 and wait 3months for it as its a special order. Anyway of doing this cheaper?
Those filters are available for a fraction of the price you were quoted on eBay, available right now: www.ebay.com/itm/163845797641
Would this work for a flashlight? What I'm asking is if removing the low iron Glass lens and putting an optical pass filter meant for cameras in 365 nanometer UV spectrum; could you also put that same optical pass filter in front of a high power LED or halogen flashlight and make it a UV flashlight?
Not LED for sure.
It might be easier to just get a UV flashlight and do a long exposure - no flashlight is going to give you the kind of output that a speedlight would, so you’re going to need a longer exposure or higher ISO anyway. Side bonus, with a flashlight you can do some light painting with it.
Awesome
Thank you for this video. I'd love to try this, but getting the filters is a bit difficult and expensive. I was wondering; is it not possible to just use a normal 850nm IR filter to cut off the red leak (instead of the midOpt filter)? Or have I totally misunderstood something? Thanks again
Glad you enjoyed the video Ki! Yes, the filters are expensive but it really is critical to get a pure, clean UV light source. If you take a look at the transmission chart for any 850nm IR filter, you'd be right that it would cut any red bleed... but it would also cut 100% of the UV spectrum as well, making it completely useless. The goal is to let as much of the UV spectrum through while nullifying as much of the visible spectrum as possible.
@@DonKomarechka Oh I see.. I knew there was something I was forgetting. Thanks for clearing that up. I guess there isn't really a cheaper way of doing it then.
By the way, how many flashes do you typically use? I'm assuming at least 2 would be ideal ?
@@wayofki of course there are cheaper ways, but you might not get the purity of the light source, which will contaminate the scene especially when shooting a subject with very dim fluorescence. One flash is enough to start - you can set the camera to be a longer exposure in complete darkness and fire it multiple times, even moving it around to act as if it was multiple flashes. This approach doesn't work for moving subjects like insects, but there are plenty of static subjects worth exploring!
I use 3-4 flashes, because I have them. I could use less and still get great results. I started off with only one! :)
@@DonKomarechka Thank you. I appreciate the advice. I actually came across your UV photography a year or two ago, and have wanted to try it out ever since.
@@wayofki give it a shot, it's a totally new word to explore not just with plants but also minerals and artificial fluorescence as well. I've made some freezing soap bubbles glow by using invisible ink (fluoresces bright blue) in the bubble formula. Tons of creative avenues to explore!
I'm Sony user and I use Godox speedlights and triggers. I wonder if the process is similar? Any thoughts would be great.
Use any trigger, just buy a Yongnuo flash since you'll be making a flash that can only be used for UV work moving forward. Wouldn't want to do this to a flash you have other purposes for. :)
@@DonKomarechka thank you for the information!!!
@@smdvisionphotography my pleasure!
Do I need to do UV-induced fluorescence photography in the dark using an unmodified camera? Or can I do it outside, with a higher f stop to limit visible light, with a powerful UV flash? Or do I also need visible light filters on the camera lens if I want to do it outside during the day?
You'd need to make sure that the ambient light is inconsequential to the exposure - a simple test by taking a photo without the UV flashes on should yield a dark frame - nothing visible. This is very hard to do even in ambient room light let alone outside during daylight hours. Keep in mind that while the lights emit UV light, your camera captures VISIBLE light that has fluoresced off the subject so you cannot filter away visible light and still get an image. Effectively, you'll need to work outside at night or in a darkened studio for best results. :)
I really want to try this a long time ago but those filters are really expensive! :(
would you recommend the UV pass filter from the counterfeit money detectors? Those are 365nm UV pass filters too, but i think not as good as hoya and midopt.
Those filters unfortunately bleed a lot of visible light, so you'd get your fluorescent results contaminated and there will be a very frustrating colour cast. Another option to consider is UV LED flashlights - look for a Convoy S2+ with an LG LEUVA33U70RL00 diode for decent results. Still a bit of light bleed but very good place to start.
Thanks for this! :)
@@vangelaobli That's what I'm here for!
Hello good morning, the reason for my message is to ask you if converting a flash for UVIVF photography can be done with any Flash? or does it have to be a younguo flash? . I have sony alpha cameras (A7III, A7SIII, A7, ...)
Thanks a lot.
Best regards
Since you'll likely be using the flashes in manual mode, at full power, it doesn't matter what camera you use. Whether I use a Lumix camera, Sony, Pentax etc. they all work in manual mode with this flash (and any flash). You do not need, nor would you ever use, the ETTL features of this flash.
@@DonKomarechka thanks!!!!!!👌😉👍
I have important question, will the two filters counter act any harm to a person eye sight? Hoya states, "WARNING: DO NOT use this filter for visual observation. Sunlight and other light sources contain ultraviolet radiation which will damage your eyes!" I hope the second filter (MidOpt BP365) will stop any damage that the person might get if he/ she is exposed to flashes on the subject.
Yeah, it would be dangerous. Effectively you're only allowing the UV light through. So, by the very nature of this, you could damage your eyes. Take the necessary precautions and wear protective eye wear. UV light has been shown in some studies to cause early-onset cataracts and you really don't want to give a sunburn to your retinas.
That said, minor exposure wouldn't cause that much harm since the UV light would be of the long-wave variety. Just like spending time outside in the sun it can cause damage, but that damage is governed by the amount of exposure. If you are unsure of the danger, please do the proper research and come to your own conclusions about the risks - at your own risk.
@@DonKomarechka Thank you for responding back to my question. Have great day.
@@mike0697 you too! :)
big question - can i mod with this filters my godox ad200 flash head (not bulb)? Plz answer
Not sure what kind of flash bulbs Godox uses in those lights. Some bulbs have a UV protective coating directly on them, rather than depending on the transparent plastic in front of the flash head to block UV. You might be able to get an answer out of Godox but it wouldn't have to come from one of their engineers!
Could you just use a ultraviolet flash light?
Can you use an IR filter and get the same result or something similar
No, entirely different results. :)
Is it possible to modify the same flash to only emit IR?
Just slap an infrared filter (eg. R72) on the front.
Is this type of photography done in the dark as well as your macro subjects
This can be done in relative darkness, but doesn't always have to be in complete darkness. The simple test is to try and take a photo with the UV light source off, based on the appropriate exposure for the subject with the lights on. If the resulting image is black, the amount of ambient light isn't going to affect the image. If something is still visible in the image, you need to address the ambient light and make your environment darker.
For all of my "normal" (non-UV) macro work, they are done with brighter ambient light but also much more intense light sources on the subject, negating the impact of the ambient light on the image.
Thank you could you do a tutorial? If you have not already.
@@richiel135 It'll be in my upcoming book: skycrystals.ca/product/pre-order-macro-photography-the-universe-at-our-feet/
Hello Don - I'm curious to know if modifying a the flash this way diminishes the output of light? Reason is - I'm looking into producing old tintype photography in doors, but the emulsion used for tintypes is only sensitive to UV light. But needs a lot of light because the ISO is like 1. I'm wondering if I modify a flash if this will help in anyway emit enough UV light to produce the a tintype image. Any thoughts? Thanks!
Saed
Hey Saed - modifying the flash does both. the first modification of removing the pieces of plastic from in front of the xenon flash tube would widen the spectral output of the flash. If your tintypes have no sensitivity to visible or infrared light, there would be no reason why you would need to filter this down to "just" UV light using expensive filters. You can use just the bare xenon flash bulb and it should work for you.
@@DonKomarechka Don, Collodion which is basically the emulsion for Tintypes is only sensitive to light between 325 nanometer (uv) and 510 nanometer (bluegreen) light. So do you think by modifying a Speedlite will do the trick? Or is there filters I would need to add to it to achieve that?
@@DonKomarechka Don - another option is I have White Lighting strobes that use a single-ring, 14mm flashtube that is UV-coated and daylight-balanced at 5600K would this work instead of modifying a speedlite? I sent you a previous message about the how the tintypes are sensitive. Any input would be greatly appreciated.
@@saedhindash5169 your answer is sort of in your question. If the xenon bulb itself has a UV coating, there is really no convenient way to remove that. The speelites I was using from Yongnuo do NOT have coated bulbs and instead depend on the plastic components in the optical path to block UV light which are easy to remove. I'm not saying it's impossible to strip that UV coating off, but that's not a job I'd want to do. :)
@@DonKomarechka Understood. Why did you choose Yongnno? Do you know of any other speedlites that use xenon flash tubes?
Can i shoot images with one flash?
Sure!
My speedlight works well beyond sync speed after the modification . Do you know why this occurred?
Define "well beyond"? Possibly that using a flash at full 1:1 power increase the flash duration substantially, allowing for a faster sync, but in turn you'd be losing some of the light output from the flash. To make the most of the light, I'd actually dial it UNDER the listed sync speed so nothing is blocked by the shutter curtains.
@@DonKomarechka i am using half power on my speedlite and my shutter speed is 1/350 but my sync speed is 1/200 and this speedlite does not have HSS. It looks like the exposure is decreased when I increase the shutter speed that's odd. I may try another speedlight to test it out. This speedlite outperforming my expectations
"Half Power" is still well beyond the base of 1/256, 1/128 or 1/64 that many flashes offer. Think of it this way: they don't adapt the voltage to increase output, the adapt the time. A longer flash duration does not mean that all of the flash output will be recorded at faster shutter speeds but it means that it's likely to cover the mechanical shutter window evenly, with a lot of wasted power on either side. You are correct, it seems like your sync speed is faster, but a lot of the flash output is being wasted. If you set your shutter speed a bit lower than your normal sync speed, you'll likely notice a significant exposure difference. Science! We don't often get into the maths of all this, but it can be helpful to go back to bare basics to understand what's really going on.
Can one just use a uv flashlight?
Yes, for some subjects, with a caveat. Most UV flashlights are poorly filtered and spill a lot of visible light which will "contaminate" the fluorescence. You'd need to either filter down the light in a similar way to filtering a full-spectrum flash, or get a nice one. Anything that carries the "Convoy" name is generally a safe bet, but materials vary with all of these lights. Continuous light isn't suitable for all subjects either, especially insects or other moving things.
I'm struggling to find the hoya filter in the UK. What would I search to find an alternative? UV bandpass filter 77mm?
The Hoya filter can be easily found on eBay from a number of vendors. Here's one: www.ebay.com/itm/163845797641
@@DonKomarechka I'm in the UK...
@@jimmyreid5264 and that seller ships to the UK....?
can I use yongnuo 560 iii as I have a few with me. being a hobbyist would like to use them rather than buying new 660. pl advice
Yes, 560 works fine for this
Thanks for the great info! One question: Will you get the same result using a ZWB2 filter? That filter only allow 365nm to pass through...
ZWB2 glass allows for deep red transmission. This is fine to filter down UV LED light sources for a purer UV output, but remember that Xenon is a full-spectrum light that also dishes out a lot of infrared light. As such, you'll notice a red light leak when using just a ZWB2 filter in front of your light. This doesn't matter so much for highly fluorescent things like certain minerals, highlighter ink etc. but it contaminates the images of lesser fluorescent subjects like insects and flowers.
@@DonKomarechka I will mainly use this for mineral photo. Already ordered the filter before I saw your tutorial. Will test and see what I get. Thanks for your kind reply
@@hkanderful let me know how you make out!
@@DonKomarechka Will do