Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'uv'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Gear Zone
  • Technical Zone
  • Travel Zone
  • Story Zone
  • Learning


  • Wide Angle Primes (6mm to 35mm)
  • Standard Primes (40mm to 70mm)
  • Telephoto Primes (70mm to 400mm)
  • Super Telephoto Primes (+400mm)
  • Zoom Lenses
  • Z Mount Lenses


  • Zoom Lenses
  • Primes Lenses
  • Adapted Lenses


  • My Life In Photography
  • General
  • In My Professional Opinion
  • Personal Views On Equipment


  • General Forum
    • Announcements
    • Ask Questions
    • Micro Four Thirds Gear
    • Fujifilm Gear
    • Nikon Gear
    • General Photo Gear
    • Off Topic
    • Gear Classifieds
    • Archives
  • Photo Sharing Forum
    • Best Of Fotozones
    • Birds
    • Nature
    • People
    • Photojournalism
    • Places
    • Macro Photography
    • Other
  • Lightroom Classic's Topics
  • YouTube Videos's Videos
  • Fotozones Safaris's Topics
  • Carspotters's Topics
  • Analog Photography's Analog Photography Topics
  • Planespotters's Topics
  • Apple Users's Topics
  • Professional Photography's Topics


  • Community Calendar
  • Challenges Calendar
  • Fotozones Safaris's Safari Calendar


  • eBooks
  • Lightroom Presets
  • Printable Photo Files
  • Ringtones
  • Lightroom Classic's Files

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start






Real Name

Patreon Link



Photographic Interests

How did you find us?

Motivation For Joining?

Fav. Camera

Fav. Lens

Fav. Editor

Found 77 results

  1. Steve (infraultra) discovered a truly useful and very sharp lens for reflected UV photography! Here a summary of my (and assembled from his) findings so far in its own thread, so it won't get lost... That "Petri Kuribayashi" 3.5/35mm lens is a true gem for UV work and deserves praise. I know of M42 and Exakta mount versions (I have both). It also came in a "W.Acall Kyoei" and a later, just labeled "Petri" version, identically looking. The front filter thread is 46mm and the front does not rotate while focusing. It is a preset lens, so has two front rings, one sets the working aperture, the other allows to fully open the aperture for focusing or close down to the preset value. I have re-measured its UV transmission and it's even better (83% at 365nm, i.e. 0.25 stops better. At 340nm the difference is 1 full stop! ) than the best (of many) Noflexar 35mm I have had here and measured. Its UV transmission reaches down to about 325nm. Here now a comparison when used with a UV transmissive filter, the Baader-U and Jupiter-U in that case, clearly showing that it reaches deeper into UV and with higher UV transmission as copmpared to the Noflexar 35mm (using Jupiter-U: peak 350nm vs 358nm and gaining 0.5 stops. Using Baader-U: 363nm vs 365nm gaining 0.4 stops): Focus shift is close to non-existing (although there is one, if being picky enough). The only drawback is its focusing, which ends at 3ft (about 1 meter) already, so tubes and/or a helicoid is needed for higher magnification. Infinity on a Nikon body is not possible as is, except using an adapter with corrective glass, which makes it a 42mm focal length (that built in Barlow lens that it actually is causes a factor 1.2x on focal length). UV Transmission is not affected with most such adapters. The lens itself allows to take off the rear camera mount and either has a grove or a thread mount there, so in principle a Nikon mount could be made for it, but I haven't done such modification yet. The glass is (single-)coated and reflections / flare is nicely reduced and overall transmission quite high. I have not yet seen any hotspot issues in any focused range. There have been reportedly other brands this lens was sold under, "Taika Terragon" is one, but the others I'm not so sure of if it is really the very same lens; I'm still investigating that. Be reminded that this review here only reflects this preset lens type that was made by Kuribayashi in the 50ies. .
  2. Guest

    RAW UV photography files

    Hi, I am starting a project on UV vision. And I am considering using a DSLRs. But before I go down the rabbit hole of UV photography I would like to "see" what I'm gonna get out of the camera, and be able to manipulate the files. I'm going to be performing some heavy color manipulation, so I want to rule any chance of the image not performing as I would like to. Could someone share an original raw file straight from the camera, ideally of a flower with some hidden pattern to the visible light spectrum. It would be great to test some material before I make the investment. This is for personal testing only, If you choose to share an image it will not be reproduced or profited from. Thank you for your help.
  3. This video was shot of ordinary people's. Skillfully composed and presented, UV photography/videography is no longer an obscure artsy-fartsy-botanical-medical curiosity. It emerges as an effective, mainstream tool for health campaigners. A must see for anyone who cares about his/her skin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9BqrSAHbTc
  4. Guest

    Montenegro 2014

  5. Guest

    True monochrome converted D800

    Lloyd reports that he is toying with a true, non-bayer monochrome converted D800! UV sensitivity improved the most. http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20131128_1-NikonD800-monochrome.html
  6. It' seems to be very difficult or expensive to get hold of a SB-14 for my UV project... Isn't it possible to modify a SB-11 for UV? Or does anyone have a SB-14, SB-14UV or SB-140 they don't use they would be willing to part with for a reasonable price?
  7. Guest

    D300 to be UV

    I'm modifying a D300.
  8. Yesterday my Nikon repair tech spent a good number of hours disassembling my Nikon D40X in order to retrieve the special-cut Baader U filter inside it (courtesy Vivek Iyer). Then, a brand new D3200 was the non-cooperative host for a filter transplant. These cameras are not really designed with such in-depth surgery in mind so getting into the camera takes time and patience. The D40X has been one of the cornerstones for my UV work for several years now. Humble and low-end as it might appear, it has proven itself under rough field work where other items have failed. True the handling is an acquired taste as advanced photography obviously wasn't a target for its control layout, but once you get the hang of it not hard either. Since all my lenses for UV are CPU-modified and so are extension rings and bellows units, the little D40X accepted them without ever questioning their Nikkorish origin. The camera has the Baader U 2" inside so visual viewing through the finder is present, this makes it easy to use the camera for hand-held close-ups with the SB-140 flash. For the last year or so, the D40X has been joined by a Panasonic GH-2 for UV photography. The Panasonic costs more but is more cheaply built and thus cannot take the same level of beating. I'm already on body #2. Despite this small drawback, the GH-2 offers much better "UV w/b" (this can be reliably done in-camera) and can do UV video fairly well under natural light conditions. The video footage does not need additional colour correction since the balance is correct straight off the camera. The 16 MPix sensor of the GH-2 gives slightly better UV detail than the D40X with the latter having "merely" 10 MPix; however, dynamic range is more restricted and noise tends to enter earlier than what the maker's pamphlets promise. The biggest problem with the GH-2 is that it is awkward to use for indoor studio setups unless you can shine a constant UV light onto the subjects and using such light sources introduces a lot of issues on their own. Thus I preferred the D40X, but then the pixel count might be on the low side for some applications. I noticed the D3200 with 24 MPix as a candidate for replacing the D40X, ad recently availed myself of a sample at a very low price to give it a try. The D3200 has inherited many of the control features of the D40X and share its physical dimensions so clearly aims for the same market segment. Still there are noteworthy improvements such as Liveview, HD video, and GPS support in addition to the increase from 10 to 24 MPix. They both use the same IR Remote (ML-L3) but the D3200 has an additional receiver for IR on its rear side. Battery technology is, as usual these days, different, meaning even more chargers to bring on a trip. I picked up the camera this morning and haven't had time to play it in depth, but from what I see so far, results are promising and in particular, images have that silky coherence that the GH-2 often had trouble to reproduce. Colours are, as expected, very reddish straight off the camera, so profiling is required. For now I'm using a tweaked D40X profile but will try to make a separate one for the D3200 when time permits. UV response seems to be on the same level as the GH-2 and using Liveview for focusing even on a dull, rainy October day was not a problem. Haven't tried UV video yet, but since colours will be off, I probably reserve the GH-2 for future UV video work. Here is a Bidens ferulifolia from today's test shots. The UV-Nikkor was set to f/11, ISO 400, with a single SB-140 unit at 40-50 cm distance. Captures using Liveview, by the way. With my Broncolor studio flashes, f/16-f/22 at 100 ISO for closeups was easily achieved with the flash output reduced to 50%. Thus the modified D3200 ranks amongst the most UV-responsive cameras used by me. First, to underscore you cannot, or rather should not, use images run straight off the camera, here is the jpg the D3200 produces, Second, a properly processed NEF to show the camera indeed has the same UV characteristics as the GH-2 (with w/b set in-camera for UV) or the D40X (profiled).
  9. Guest

    Speedlite 199A for UV

    Hi. This is the flash I was referring to. Canon Speedlite 199A, has low trigger voltage and goes as deep into UV as the Vivitar 285 and at least matches it for UV output. This is the bigger brother of the 177A I referred to before. Both use 4xAA batteries. The 177A requires a few screws on the body to be removed, or the flash's plastic UV-blocking lens cut out to allow UV shooting. The 199A is a little more straight forward. The 199A with the 2 screws which need to be removed to get rid of the UV-blocking plastic lens: Once the 2 screws are removed, you just need to lift it slightly and push it towards the back of the flash so the black frame comes off the flash: The UV-blocking plastic lens comes off very easily and the black frame can be re-secured: To protect the Xenon tube, you can place the slide-on diffuser over the flash. Just remember to remove the diffuser before shooting in UV: This is to demonstrate UV output from Canon 199A (left), Vivitar 285, Canon 177A (right). Taken with UV-Zeiss Jena with 330AF20 filter stacked with 325BP10. Vivitar 285 placed next to PTFE sheet (f8 ISO 100): Canon 199A (f8 ISO 100): Canon 177A (f8 ISO100): Boon
  10. Guest

    And another filter test

    Yesterday I went to to customs, payed 20% VAT and 15% Taxes and got my Precision U. This morning, I went shopping (groceries) and as a gift I got a little flower, when leaving the shop. So I thought "This is a sign!" and I started some testing :-))) I put the flower in a little vase (with water off course) and placed it at a window sill. Camera: Lumix G2 UVVISIR, set to 100 ISO Lens: the famous Novoflex Light: 1.) Ambient daylight through the window (almost noon), sunny outside 2.) a flash, an old, high voltage METZ 45 CT , dismanteld from all covers, only the bright nude flash tube, manual mode set to 25 ASA (I think, that is the max power it can do) 3.) A 365nm led torch (Polarion) Filters: 1) a recent Baader U 2) the very recent Precision U All pictures white balanced and processed with the same setting (WB from a shot on PTFE) I did not give much attention to focusing and nice pictures it was just the colors I was interested in with the new filter. Due to the high voltage, I have to trigger the flash manually, so I choose a long exposure time (50s), that the flash could reloade twice during exposure. The first picture is taken with the Baader U (at f 8 ) and the flash is triggered 3 times from different positions as you could guess from reflections in the center of the flower.   The second picture is taken with the Precision U (at f 3.5) and again the flash is triggered three times (so there is less DOF and probablly I might have moved the camerea a few mm in between). With the third picture, I altered the light, same settings as in the second picture, but I held the Baader U in front of the flash. Now the fourth comes again with the same setting, but the flash was exchanged by the torch and I tried during the 50s exposure to illuminate everything somehow.     I have done further tests with IR-filters (the B+W 090, 091 and 092) and it seems, with the Precision U I can "look through" these filters with the above camera/lens but with the Baader U I can not. From these I add only two (1 s exposure time, f3.5, flash triggered once, again same picture processing as above, both not properly focused). The first is taken with the precision U. What you see is three filters, from the left to the right the 092, the Baader U and the 091. Theay are placed against the filter boxes (not flat on the ground) and the flash is targeted at the back and the light is reflected from there mostly through the filters. In front of the filters is a UV goggles. The next picture is the same, but the Baader and Precision exchanged. Werner  
  11. Guest

    Camera for airborne UV

    Hi all, My name is Geert Verhoeven. In my research, I deal mainly with airborne remote sensing for archaeological purposes (photography, multi-spectral, 3D extraction, UAVs etc.). Together with the help of Klaus, I was able to acquire the very first NUV aerial photographs ever for archaeological purposes (had even the interest of Marco Giardino of NASA who dug up some declassified Russian literature). For those interested, the paper (Verhoeven, G., Schmitt, K., 2010. An Attempt to Push Back Frontiers – Digital Near-UltraViolet Aerial Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science 37(4), 833-845) can be downloaded from my Academia website. Apart from some experiments in the 70s and 80s, aerial UV is mainly used in active systems to look for oil spills. I would, however, like to build further upon my previous experiences and now use an NUV camera on one of my R/C multicopters or even from a manned aircraft. So far, I use the Nikon D200 (UV converted by Optik Makario) with Novoflex Novoflexar (purchased from Klaus) + Baader filter. Although quite sensitive to NUV, this combo is waaay too slow for straightforward aerial research). So, I am looking at a new camera that has at least the UV response of the Nikon D200 (or close) but allows for higher ISOs (without noise compromising my image detail). I see that many of you use the NEXs, but how is their absolute NUV response compared to the D200. Anyone did some tests on this? What abouth D300s, D7000, D5100? Preferably, the camera body should be small (increases the flight time of my drones). I scientifically tested the full spectrum response of the Nikon D200 a few years ago. Although I was planning to publish it soon, time issues kept me from doing it so far. For those that are interested: I attach here the NUV response of the Nikon D200 (tested without internal filter or lens and quite different of most curves floating around on the internet). Since I still hope to find some specific NUV-time, I would still like to publish this curve and some related NUV research, so treat it confidentially and do not put it on other forums please. For the testing methodology, please consider: Verhoeven, G., Smet, P., Poelman, D., Vermeulen, F., 2009. Spectral Characterisation of a Digital Still Camera’s NIR-Modification to Enhance Archaeological Observation, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 47(10), 3456-3468. @ Klaus (or anyone else): did you find any new affordable lens (focal length < 40 mm) whose spectral transmittance is higher than the Novoflex? When up in the air, every photographic stop counts! All info is welcome. Cheers, Geert
  12. Guest

    UV transmission of old lenses

    Hi. I was thinking about certain old lenses which have over the years developed a reputation as not being very sharp. Can this be linked to the lens's ability to transmit UV? Certainly having tried a few lenses which seem to have a reputation for not being sharp for UV, and have found them to perform reasonably well on my Nex-5N (both for UV and visible photos). Could this be because of the amount of UV it lets through which affected film in the past, but is now cut off by the ICF of digital lenses (or by our selective filtering to block visible light)? Not sure if the UV filters used at that time would have helped. An example of this is the Soligor 35mm f3.5 (not the auto version) which I bought to try for UV; this has had some bad reviews online about its not being sharp. Klaus kindly tested this lens as well for UV transmission and it does go slightly deeper than the Noflexar 35/3.5 (by another 10-15nm), but not have as good a peak in the higher UV range, and has very little focus shift as well. I have found it to produce reasonably sharp images both in UV and visible light, and bearing in mind the Noflexars sell for £200-300, and this lens can be found for less than 1/10th of that. So perhaps old lenses which were labelled unsharp should be revisited with digital photography to see if that has changed with the new technology (and to see whether it is useful for UV imaging)? Boon
  13. The Nikon SB 14 and SB 140 are the recommended light sources for UV, but I wondered if any of these would be good and may need a cost effective modification. I saw these listed. SB 10 12 15 21 23 24 26 27 28 SB 59 DX
  14. Some of you may be interested in some portraits taken by Cara Phillips using UV to highlight subtle (and not so subtle) differences in people's skin, freckles, pigmentation etc. I saw these in the Guardian newspaper in the UK, and there's a link to some of them here: http://www.guardian....s?newsfeed=true
  15. Guest

    Absorbtive filter detail

    I was asked if absorptive filters/stacks provide more detail than the dichroic coated Baader U. This first pic is an IR leak test showing the original photos and size. These share the same settings, other than exposure time. #1 Since the shared in-camera preset white balance used for the JPG files above is not precise to either filter, I have assembled these versions below for better comparison. #2
  16. This is a potted garden Dahlia growing on the deck of the summer house. I was surprised to find that in UV its two colours, maroon & white, translated to UV-dark & UV-light. Click each photo for the 1000px wide, sharp versions. "-) (1) Visible: f/11 for 1.6" @ ISO200 D300 + Zeiss 60/4.0 UV-Planar + Baader UVIR-Cut Filter + Ambient Light (2) Ultraviolet: f/11 for 1/60" @ ISO400 D300 + Zeiss 60/4.0 UV-Planar + Baader UV-Pass Filter + SB-14
  17. I've been testing a few filter designs on behalf of Reed F. Curry (NG member 'overmywaders'). A reference was made to them earlier as the Neptune U, but Reed choose to designate the improved version (Mk.2) as the Precision U instead. The transmission curve shows it is a broad-band UV filter with a passband maximum around 65% and peak transmission in the 350-360 nm window, with half band approx. 320-380 nm. There is a small nIR leak peaking at 700 nm. The overall shape of the filter curve is very similar to that of the ubiquitous Baader U ("Venus") in its later incarnations, but unlike the Baader this filter is absorptive not dichroic. This leads to a quite thick filter. Don't ask me about the design details or glass types because I don't know. Here is the transmission curve as I got it from Reed. Note the label on the chart uses the former filter name. I guess the name-change occurred quite recently. Also observe the chart is on a log scale so as to show the IR response more clearly (or, to be precise, show at all since these data points aren't visible on the linear-type chart). So, how does this filter perform for UV shooting in practice? It is readily apparent from the chart that less UV is transmitted compared to the Baader U 2". Depending on the subject and llght conditions, the difference is anywhere from -1 to -1.7 stops, around -1.3 being typical. For landscapes this is no big deal, but could be more influential if you are on a tight budget and cannot use powerful UV light sources. Still as it lets you do hand-held UV (in sunshine at least), perhaps not a show-stopper on its own. I learned immediately that the Precision U needs its own w/b profile, you cannot apply the one made for the Baader U 2. If you fail to follow this the colours straight off the camera will be rather muddy and tinged with mustard hue. A separate w/b using a neutral PTFE target sets the Panasonic GH-2 + Coastal 60 APO lens to the appropriate UV false-colour scheme. This is broadly similar to that delivered byt the Baader U 2, but slight differences exist. more on this later. Normally, I prefer rear-mounting the Baader U 2" as this allows more versatility in terms of what lens(es) can be used for UV work. Unfortunately, as I received it mounted in a 52 mm thread cell, the diametre of the Precision is about 1 mm too big for it to be put into my m4/3 adapters. So, for the time being, testing has to be conducted with an ordinary front mounted filter. For the comparison to be valid I ran the Baader front-mounted as well. The concern of a possible disastrous IR leakage has been raised in earlier discussions. Due to the inclement weather of late any IR contamination is rather a moot issue. However, during a *very* brief spell of sun disc sighting today, I quickly shot the two filters each stacked with B+W 93 or a narrow-band 10 nm IR filter (going from 700 to 850 nm in steps of 25 nm). Light conditions varied too much even during this short period to make comparisons entirely reliable, but from what I saw, the Precision U is no worse in temrs of IR contamination than the Baader U 2, rather, the opposite impression was obtained. But I need to repeat this test series when (if, ever) there is a period of clear blue sky and sunshine. Suffice it at present to state that IR contamination appears to be kept well under control by both candidates. Now, for some practical examples. First, UV shots of Leontodon autumnale, which just is getting into bloom in my district. Shot with the GH-2 and Coastal 60 APO lens, using the specific w/b for each filter. Lighting by my SB-140 workhorse flash. Field conditions were again abysmal, very windy and intermittent rain. This is the Baader U 2" Here is the comparison, with the Precision U Not much of a difference I'd reckon. The Precision necessitated one stop wider aperture on the lens, as mentioned earlier. But do pay attention to the details in the UV-darker parts of the flower head. Don't compare sharpness as these shots were acquired in a windy situation with a hand-held camera. It is rather a miracle one is able to get any UV at all. Over to a more pictorial example. This time I shot with the venerable W-Nikkor 35 mm f/3.5 lens on the Panasonic GH-2. The subject is, yes, you guessed right, a locomotive in the wall. People have the weirdest ways of expressing their individuality. The shots made by the candidate filters were processed identical in the workflow. Again, exposure difference was about 1 stop in favour of the Baader, but for this scene with a tripod-mounted camera that is of no consequence at all. First, the Baader locomotive, Then, the Precision locomotive. As I said, the identical processing of both images. What is not immediately apparent from the whole frames is that Baader leads to less well defined details, in particular in the darker shadow areas. I already alluded to that when the flower shots were discussed. The same appears here. The Precision rendered these parts of the frame much better. To illustrate, compare the two 100% crops below (these also indicate that the '57 model lens is a darned fine performer, by the way. But this I already knew). (Baader 100%) (Precision 100%) So, to sum up the impression this far, both filters work for their intended purpose. You can use either with very good results and in most cases, get largely similar results too. Perhaps the Baader has an edge if you are into UV flowers with hand-held cameras and real-time UV viewing through Liveview, as this filter transmits about 1.3 EV brighter in UV. But this can easily be compensated by opening the lens up a stop, so is no show-stopper. I'll return with more filter observations when I have done more field work. Meaning I really long for a weather change to the better.
  18. Guest

    New lens for UV

    Hi. Thought I would share some results from a lens I have been adapting for the Sony Nex-5N, with the aim of making as small a kit for UV as possible. Here are some pics. UV photos were taken handheld. Nex-5N + new lens (40/3.5 Triotar) all the way in: All the way out: Orchid taken with this lens and Baader U at f16: Orchid with 330AF20 filter (330nm filter with 20nm bandwidth) - sorry but did not focus right as I do not have a UV torch which reaches that deep into UV at f3.5: It does have a small amount of focus shift, but much better than the Minox lens I tried before. The UV photos were taken with a flash which I will post about when I have a chance, as it is very easy to mod, has safe triggering voltage, and compares very well with the Vivitar 283/285. Boon
  19. Guest

    Ultraviolet Quartz Lenses

    Has anyone had experience using any of these? These are UV quartz lenses used for electronics, optics, medical and precision industrial applications, optimized for 266nm. So they transmit below 300nm, but I have been told they are uncorrected and have massive focal shift. http://ukaoptics.com/uvquartz.html http://www.midopt.com/lenses_uv.html
  20. Hi. Just to say the Nex shadow hotshoe adapter I ordered has arrived today. It basically creates a hotshoe/PC sync port on the Nex-5N for use with off-camera flash. I've just tested it and it works fine for both wireless flash and through the PC sync cable port. Finally I can use the flash without that optical trigger and the small flash which comes with the camera. I'll post a pic of it later. $80 later and the Nex-5N is closer to being a great UV camera; it is certainly cheaper than modding the Nex-7. Now if only they would upgrade the firmware to alllow for more than one custom white balance, that would be great. Boon
  21. In a never ending quest of finding the wide-angle lens that will at least somehow work for UV and will be affordable/accessible, I decided to try the Sony E-mount 16mm F/2.8 lens again. Here are my observations. It does allow Baader-U2 to be mounted in front with no vignetting. It does allow very close focusing (24 cm). It does not transmit too deep into UV, but not much different from the other wide angle I tried (Tamron Adapt-a-matic 21mm). It does show a mild central hot spot and color shift towards the edges of the frame; the level of both depends somewhat from the lighting conditions and subject. So here are two examples, at around closest focusing distance, handheld during overcast (hence high ISO). The hot spot and focus shift is visible in the first picture, but much less so in the second one. Alex
  22. Guest

    [UV] Day Lilies

    It was cloudy yesterday so I took a break from work and explored the yard. The following are some day lilies I found. More light and less wind would have been helpful.
  23. Playing around with a Raw Developer demo to see how this editor works, I found that its Auto White Balance dropper gives an interesting result on some of my UV photos. First, here's a UV photo, as shot except for resizing, made with D300 + 105/45 UV-Nikkor + Baader-U using Incandescent white balance and a Neutral[0] picture control. This is an erigeron in Death Valley, California, February 29, 2012. (Leap Day!!!!!) In NX2, I applied a calibrated white balance setting determined by using reflectance standards. The picture control is still Neutral[0]. At this point no other edits have been applied. The photo would require, at minimum, an exposure boost and perhaps a bit of D-Lighting, but that's not necessary for the purpose here. In Raw Developer, I used the Auto1 white balance selection and got this. There are no other edits !!!! Quite amazing how close this WB is to that in the calibrated photo. (There is a Raw Dev watermark because I am using a demo version.) Even though I knew that the NX2 WB setting "Calculate Automatically" would not work well, I'll show it here just for completeness. I had to dial back contrast and saturation to naturalize the look after using this WB setting, so the picture control became Neutral[0,-3,0,-3,0].
  24. Here are few animations I made recently. Each is a combination of 40 frames made by combining UV and VIS layers of different opacity. Large number of frames resulted in a small overall size of the image. I could do bigger size, but then I would have to cut on the number of frames and the transition will not be as "smooth". May be I should try to make a video-file instead, but how to make it go in circles? ----- ----- P.S. These are real bees and flies, not plastic "dummies" from a bait shop :wink:
  • Create New...

Important Information

By visiting this website you are agreeing to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy & Guidelines.