Switch to English Language Passer en langue franšaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,773   Posts: 1,516,610   Online: 1121
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26
  1. #1
    Contrastique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Maastricht, The Netherlands
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    176
    Images
    68

    Anyone Ever Experienced With BlackLight & B&W-Film??

    I'm trying to make a photo using blacklight, fluorescent make-up and a black-and-white film in studio.
    I first made polaroids with a DSLR to see how the aprox time would be, how the paint (and if) would react to the light and so on.
    I finally got it about right and made the final shot with my Rolleiflex and developed the film. And that's when I got a little surprised...

    The body (naked) came out WAYYYY lighter than on the polaroid and the text appeared to be more black then illuminated....
    It seems to be reacting totally opposite of what I got before and I haven't got a clue of what to try next... maybe I should use an uv-filter or something...?

    Anyone any advice or thoughts you might feel like sharing?

  2. #2
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,247
    What is a `polaroid with a DSLR┤ ??


    Seemingly your DSLR is less sensitive to UV radiation than your Rolleiflex with pan film. And then in the visible range both cameras seem to react different too. But bear in mind that you related both exposures via the result of your metering.
    Last edited by AgX; 03-16-2009 at 06:07 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #3
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,247
    I just was told that the UV-transmission of modern lenses is much less than that of older lenses. Especially modern optical cement is said to be of influence here.
    Another source says that is modern coating which is optimized to reduce UV-transmission.
    Last edited by AgX; 03-16-2009 at 11:39 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,789
    Images
    2
    Digital chips have extended sensitivity into the IR and little in the UV. Film usually has sensitivity in the UV but it's a lot harder to get it into the IR. That's why early films were just blue sensitive, then blue+green, and finally pan.

    The lenses could certainly factor in here, but I would imagine film is going to be more UV sensitive than your DSLR.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Hamilton, Ont, Canada
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    991
    Won't the reflected light off the subject figures that you see be regular film sensitive wavelengths?
    "There are a great many things I am in doubt about at the moment, and I should consider myself favoured if you would kindly enlighten me. Signed, Doubtful, off to Canada." (BJP 1914).

    Regards
    Bill

  6. #6
    Contrastique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Maastricht, The Netherlands
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    176
    Images
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by cowanw View Post
    Won't the reflected light off the subject figures that you see be regular film sensitive wavelengths?
    If it were to be normal wavelengths I doubt the differ of the two media would be so big. I've used the DSLR for quite some time for "polaroids-sake" and never had that big of a difference besides the "obvious" ones.

    Think you for your responses. I also think it has to do with the blocking of UV a DSLR has built in and most likely the better coating of the new lenses as well.
    Film is more sensitive to UV as it turns out to be quite a bit lighter when being confronted with it.

    Here are 2 examples of the differ so you have a view on what really went wrong. The light version is a quick scan from a quick testprint from the negative which was even exposed a full stop darker than the digital version, so don't shoot me because of the lousy qual; you'll get my point.

    Kodak Tri-X 320:


    Nikon D200:


    I will redo the shot tonight with two changes. One film will be taken with a skylight filter which is supposed to reduce UV-haze.
    One will be taken with a green-filter to darken skin tones and lighten up the paint as it's a little yellow-greenish.
    I am not sure if the latter will work but the experiment will be interesting nonetheless. I can find lot's of info using slide film with blacklight but nothing with black & white film.

  7. #7
    Akki14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    London, UK
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,872
    Images
    210
    From the lighter (film) version, I can see shadows above the chains. What other light sources (absolutely anything) in the room was there? Specifically something at your feet pointing up? I suspect the film took longer to expose than the digi shot which means other sources of light besides the black light might be lighting up the subject? unless the blacklight is the light at the bottom.
    ~Heather
    oooh shiny!
    http://www.stargazy.org/

  8. #8
    Contrastique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Maastricht, The Netherlands
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    176
    Images
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Akki14 View Post
    From the lighter (film) version, I can see shadows above the chains. What other light sources (absolutely anything) in the room was there? Specifically something at your feet pointing up? I suspect the film took longer to expose than the digi shot which means other sources of light besides the black light might be lighting up the subject? unless the blacklight is the light at the bottom.
    The blacklight is the light at the bottom. No other light being used besides the one at the floor behind the tv lighting up the background.

  9. #9
    ath
    ath is offline
    ath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    890
    Looks like you have to get rid of the UV sensitivity of the film. UV filter, yellow filter, orange filter, red filter might help. Depending on the colour of the flourescending letters these are affected too.
    Regards,
    Andreas

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Hamilton, Ont, Canada
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    991
    This is very interesting.
    I am still of the opinion that the lighting of the body in the film image is not only uv lighting. The lighting must emit visible wavelengths. Indeed the image looks distinctly not blacklight and Quite ordinarily lit.
    I will be most interested in your further results
    "There are a great many things I am in doubt about at the moment, and I should consider myself favoured if you would kindly enlighten me. Signed, Doubtful, off to Canada." (BJP 1914).

    Regards
    Bill

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  Ś   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin