UV Photography with Leica (Warning: Long post…)

regit

Established
Local time
11:08 AM
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Messages
135
Location
Perth, Australia
Disclaimer: This may or may not be your cup of tea (coffee), but if it is, it can bring in “new light” to your photography (literally speaking) and it can be a bucket-load of fun 🙂

Dear all, I'm posting this as an attempt to spark some interest in invisible light photography. You may or may not have heard about UV photography, but for those who haven't, in a nutshell, it is about capturing reflected UV light. Technique-wise, it is no different from capturing IR, the only difference is that you'll be doing from the other end of the light spectrum.

Currently, most pictorial UV photography work is done in digital and Nikon D70 being the best for the job... And no, not all DSLR can capture UV well, not the D2X or D200 and none from the Canon camp for example...

But capturing long-range UV on film on the other hand, is quite doable in all kinds and types of film camera. Recently, I've found that capturing UV with Leica (or any RF) is one of the best ways to do so on film. But before the specifics, let’s see what UV photography has to offer.

The applications of UV photography range from police forensic to skin treatments, but the most common application as a starter (and tester) is to capture the guiding nectar patterns found on some flowers. The common dandelions for example, while appear to be all yellow to ours eyes, actually has differentiated nectar guide for insects. This guide can be seen under reflected UV but remains invisible under normal lighting. Here's an example...

original.jpg


As a photo hobbyist, you're of course not restricted to capturing flowers, but almost everything that tickle your fancy. Capturing human subjects for example, will give you really dark skin-tones (imagine using an orthochromatic film with a really dark-blue filter) …

original.jpg


… or you can simply let your imagination go wild ... (a composite of 3 UV photos)

original.jpg


So where does Leica (or RF) fits into this equation and why is it good for UV photography?

Here're why:

1) Like post-800nm IR filter, UV filter are black filter. When used on SLR where viewing is blocked by black filter, there're much filter-swapping involved between framing and shooting, you know this if you do IR on SLR... hardly any good for fast street actions. But with a RF and its separate viewfinder, all you need is to frame (focus) and shoot.

2) Apart from a few $5k-upwards lens like the UV-Nikkor 105/4.5, there is a focus-shift involved when taking UV photos, just like IR. But the focusing mechanism on the RF is independent from the collimation of the lens. That is, you can easily collimate a lens for UV on an RF (though making it useless for visible light) but impossible to do so on a SLR since the latter is based on WYSIWYG and UV is something we can't see!!!

3) Finally, from my experience (with a M7 and MP), whatever Solms use as meter in the later Leicas, it seems to be sensitive enough to meter well and consistently with UV. With a SLR (Nikon), metering is sometime a hit or miss affair.

If you’re interested in UV photography, here's what you need to get started:

1) UV filter - There are many different type of UV filters to cater for different UV band/range, commonly designated by their peak UV transmission, i.e. Hoya U-340 peaks at ... 340nm 🙂 The cheapest and easiest way is to get a B+W 403 (similar to Hoya U-360) from B&H or Adorama.

2) Lens - Not all lenses passes UV. The rule of thumb is to use one that has the simplest optical design, preferably without coating and cemented elements. Canon Serenar 100/4 (a triplet) and old Elmar 50, Industar-22/50 (Tessar with only one cemented group) come to mind. Personally, I use the Helios-103 (even though it is a Biotar) simply because I had no other use for it 🙂 Collimation is by trial and error since no visible light means negating the use of ground glass. Typically, focusing points needs to be a tad closer. BTW, if you have a Zeiss UV-Planar for LTM, use it or send it to me if you don’t!!!

3) Film – Unlike IR, which go between $10-20 for HIE and RIE, almost all panchromatic B&W film is capable of capturing UV. The faster the better since with the UV filter, approximately 7-stops of light loss is common. Plus-X and Tri-X (with the help of diafine) works well from my experience ... Here's one from Tri-X...

M7+Helios-103+B+W 403+Tri-X@1600 in Diafine 4+4
original.jpg


But for colour, it is a bit tricky... firstly, almost all colour films don't respond well to UV (killed a lot of Portra, Reala, NPH/Z etc, along the way), with the exception of Fuji RTPII 64T (soon discontinued) and Fuji Natura 1600. On top of which, most pictures with most UV filters are not too exciting with the films that work, with the exception of Hoya U-330. For Natura, the only way is to order from Japan through something like Webpearl ... as for U-330, you can order one from Newport glass or similar optical company. Here’s one from Natura 1600 …

M7+Helios-103+Hoya U330+Natura 1600
original.jpg


So what?!?! You may ask after all these … As mentioned at the top of the post; this may or may not be your cup of tea. But if photography is about capturing light (reflecting your memories the way you want to remember them), then UV is another kind of light waiting to be captured…. Congratulation if you have made it to the end of the post!!!
 
Regit,
Another magnificent post.
You have my vote as RFF'er of the month, even though only a couple days have gone by.

Incidentally, have you done any pinhole work with the Leica? I have a sneaking suspicion that it's a perfect camera for that, with a pinhole body cap.
 
bobofish said:
Regit,
Another magnificent post.
You have my vote as RFF'er of the month, even though only a couple days have gone by.

Incidentally, have you done any pinhole work with the Leica? I have a sneaking suspicion that it's a perfect camera for that, with a pinhole body cap.

Thank you for the encouragement 🙂 I've not done any pinhole with any camera yet, but would like to note that if you get the speed up or keep the camera very still, pinhole is the best setup for UV transmission 🙂

Currently, I'm trying to work out a consistent way to do close-up with the Leica. 0.5m on the M-Elmar is a little limiting ...

Here's a preview ...

original.jpg


And here's the very first protoype 🙂

original.jpg
 
Reg,
I like the pix and may want to pick up a UV filter. Do you have any opinion on the use of the G system with UV photography? Also, I assume normal processing is to be employed?
 
Hey, I think this is most interesting. I have seen a lot of good stuff written on this matter by Bjorn Rorslett (at www.naturfotograf.com). I guess this is a post I will revisit later when I have the 'mental space' for it. Thanks for putting in the effort on a long and informative post.
 
What is it about the D70 that makes it well suited for UV Photography?

What wavelengths are you going down to? I'll have to try this with my DCS200ir, but the only lens that I have that does UV is M42 mount. It is the Pentax 85mm F4.5 Ultra-Achromat.
 
steve garza said:
Reg,
I like the pix and may want to pick up a UV filter. Do you have any opinion on the use of the G system with UV photography? Also, I assume normal processing is to be employed?

Can't comment on the G system as I don't have one, but if you can find an appropriate lens, it should work. I would imagine collimation would be more difficult seen it would involved tweaking an AF lens, but compensating with manual override the same way for IR will be a good starting point. I think the 45mm is a good starting point to try.

And yes, processing is as per normal. The B&Ws were done with Diafine and the Colours were done in the 1-hour lab.
 
Last edited:
Brian Sweeney said:
What is it about the D70 that makes it well suited for UV Photography?

What wavelengths are you going down to? I'll have to try this with my DCS200ir, but the only lens that I have that does UV is M42 mount. It is the Pentax 85mm F4.5 Ultra-Achromat.

From what I can gather from Bjorn and Vivek, D70 has one of the "weakest" AA filter (so to speak). Not sure if sensor response play a part, but I suspect it does. Bjorn removed the filter and saw some but not drastic improvement. The last I heard, someone is attempting to dissolve away the bayer matrix to see if it helps... hardcore stuff...

As for wavelenght, down to 340nm is what I've try with film. Many lens exhibit good usability for UV without advertising so. One of the all time winner is the JML 50/3.5, it is almost as good as my UV-Nikkor for close-up in terms of transmission and image quality. As mention, Tessar design lens is worth a try as well. I was skeptical about the cemented group until I tried the Nikkor 45p... not stunning transmission, but produces good and crisp images. I guess the way with lens is to really trial and error at first.

M42 is fairly adaptable and it should be useful for close-up even if the flim register is off. Why not give that a go and tell us how it went 🙂 I've never tried the Takumar, but have heard good things about it 🙂
 
This is an excellent post, and great, interesting information and pictures. Thanks for it all, Regit.

I am, however, confused by one thing: why would you need the UV filter if that is what you want to use, UV light? Wouldn't you rather need a filter that blocks all visible wavelengths except UV? Just like IR filters, that filter all visible light except IR wavelengths, is used for IR photography? But UV filters are supposed to *block* UV light, not help it go through.
 
Last edited:
regit said:
From what I can gather from Bjorn and Vivek, D70 has one of the "weakest" AA filter (so to speak). Not sure if sensor response play a part, but I suspect it does. Bjorn removed the filter and saw some but not drastic improvement. The last I heard, someone is attempting to dissolve away the bayer matrix to see if it helps... hardcore stuff...

I wonder how the Epson R-D1 would handle this. It has the same sensor as the D100. I'm not sure if Epson choose the same AA filter as Nikon though. If the filters were a bit cheaper, I'd hold one up in front of my Summar and take some shots.

-Paul
 
gabrielma said:
This is an excellent post, and great, interesting information and pictures. Thanks for it all, Regit.

I am, however, confused by one thing: why would you need the UV filter if that is what you want to use, UV light? Wouldn't you rather need a filter that blocks all visible wavelengths except UV? Just like IR filters, that filter all visible light except IR wavelengths, is used for IR photography? But UV filters are supposed to *block* UV light, not help it go through.

Hi Gabriel, thank you for the comment. I guess I've been using the term "UV filter" for so long that I didn't consider the confusion, thank you for pointing it out.

UV filter in this sense can also be understood as UV bandpass filter. Those that I mentioned, B+W 403 (Schott UG-1), Hoya U360, U330, etc. are all UV bandpass filter. These filters will block visible light but allow UV to pass. They will also pass IR to a certain degree. With films, that's not a big issue as most are not sensitive to IR apart from some Kodak, Macophot and Konica offerings; but with digital, UV bandpass filters are normally used in conjuction with a IR-blocking filter like a Schott BG-38, BG-40, etc...
 
One could try using older optics. Post-war optical cement is supposed to block much of the UV spectrum. Multi-coating is very good at blocking UV too. A good use for those old LTM lenses? Not just collectable!
Tom
 
PaulN said:
I wonder how the Epson R-D1 would handle this. It has the same sensor as the D100. I'm not sure if Epson choose the same AA filter as Nikon though. If the filters were a bit cheaper, I'd hold one up in front of my Summar and take some shots.

-Paul

Hi Paul, if the AA filter is the same, then there is a high possiblity!!! 🙂 Do let us know if you ever try it, I would most interested to know the result and it would be a plus for RF-UV setup!!!
 
regit said:
If you’re interested in UV photography, here's what you need to get started:

1) UV filter - There are many different type of UV filters to cater for different UV
OK, so this is why I got confused. We need to get the terminology straight here. UV filters are one thing, and U-x transmission filters are another thing.

So it's not a "UV filter", it's a "U-330" or "U-340", "U-360", etc. UV-transmitting visible absorbing filter.
 
regit said:
Those that I mentioned, B+W 403 (Schott UG-1), Hoya U360, U330, etc. are all UV bandpass filter. <snip>...
I just saw that. The replies are so long it's hard to see the replies to the replies. All straightened away! 😀
 
waterlenz said:
One could try using older optics. Post-war optical cement is supposed to block much of the UV spectrum. Multi-coating is very good at blocking UV too. A good use for those old LTM lenses? Not just collectable!
Tom

Hi Tom, with Paul's and your remarks, I may give that Summar a go 🙂 Experimentation (as part of the fun) is the key for finding a lens for UV. While cemented group and multi-coating is known to blocked UV, you may get lucky sometimes 🙂 I was skeptical about the Tessar (4 in 3) and Biotar (6 in 4), but the results I got from the modern Nikkor 45p is better than the ones I got from a fully uncoated (including inner elements) E-Series 35/2.5; and those done in film in this post are with the Biotar... curious to say the least 🙂
 
Very nice post Regit.

I never make this type of photos. The color photos have an appearance like Infrared film...

You obtain a great postproccesing photos. What scan do you use it?

Thanks 🙂
 
Beniliam said:
Very nice post Regit.

I never make this type of photos. The color photos have an appearance like Infrared film...

You obtain a great postproccesing photos. What scan do you use it?

Thanks 🙂

Hi Charles, these are negative scans through a Nikon Coolscan V.
 
Back
Top Bottom