B+W 77mm UV/IR Cut (486M) MRC Filter
I must thank someone on this list that suggested purchasing the B+W 77mm UV/IR Cut (486M) MRC Filter for issues I had with reproducing a particular piece of original art. It was around June 15, 2012. I purchased a B+W 67mm UV/IR Cut (486M) MRC Filter as well. These filters are always on the shooting lens. I don't remember who it was. I have been asked who it was. If you are out there, please respond. Warm Regards, David David B Miller, Pharm. D. member Millers' Photography L.L.C. dba Spinnaker Photo Imaging Center Bellingham, WA www.spinnakerphotoimagingcenter.com 360 739 2826
Does it help? The right place for filtering u.v. is at the light source. Once the artwork is fluorescing from u.v. light you can't filter the problem out at the camera. More IR filtration at the camera can help with some art, especially if you're using hot lights on a subject having colorants prone to metameric failure but it's still better to use lights that emit less IR in the first place. -----Original Message----- From: Millers' Photography L.L.C. Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:55 AM To: colorsync-users@lists.apple.com List Subject: B+W 77mm UV/IR Cut (486M) MRC Filter I must thank someone on this list that suggested purchasing the B+W 77mm UV/IR Cut (486M) MRC Filter for issues I had with reproducing a particular piece of original art. It was around June 15, 2012. I purchased a B+W 67mm UV/IR Cut (486M) MRC Filter as well. These filters are always on the shooting lens. I don't remember who it was. I have been asked who it was. If you are out there, please respond. Warm Regards, David David B Miller, Pharm. D. member Millers' Photography L.L.C. dba Spinnaker Photo Imaging Center Bellingham, WA www.spinnakerphotoimagingcenter.com 360 739 2826 _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/jc%40technicalphoto.... This email sent to jc@technicalphoto.com ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3343 / Virus Database: 3184/6356 - Release Date: 05/25/13
OK John, I'll bite - which type of studio lighting emits the least IR? (LED?) But what about UV, isn't that more important to reduce at the light source? And if so, what type of lights produce the least UV? Hal On May 26, 2013, at 2:00 AM, John Castronovo <jc@technicalphoto.com> wrote:
Does it help? The right place for filtering u.v. is at the light source. Once the artwork is fluorescing from u.v. light you can't filter the problem out at the camera. More IR filtration at the camera can help with some art, especially if you're using hot lights on a subject having colorants prone to metameric failure but it's still better to use lights that emit less IR in the first place.
-----Original Message----- From: Millers' Photography L.L.C. Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:55 AM To: colorsync-users@lists.apple.com List Subject: B+W 77mm UV/IR Cut (486M) MRC Filter
I must thank someone on this list that suggested purchasing the B+W 77mm UV/IR Cut (486M) MRC Filter for issues I had with reproducing a particular piece of original art. It was around June 15, 2012. I purchased a B+W 67mm UV/IR Cut (486M) MRC Filter as well. These filters are always on the shooting lens.
I don't remember who it was. I have been asked who it was. If you are out there, please respond.
Warm Regards,
David
David B Miller, Pharm. D. member Millers' Photography L.L.C. dba Spinnaker Photo Imaging Center Bellingham, WA www.spinnakerphotoimagingcenter.com 360 739 2826
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/jc%40technicalphoto....
This email sent to jc@technicalphoto.com
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3343 / Virus Database: 3184/6356 - Release Date: 05/25/13 _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/hal%40halhinderliter...
This email sent to hal@halhinderliter.com
I don't really know what's best to be honest. Some of the new LED units are looking pretty good while many continue to use HID and full spectrum fluorescents. For hot lights, Solux lamps are supposed to be very well filtered at both ends of the spectrum but you'd need a lot of them to light a large piece of art. Plastic sheeting used to filter U.V. is available cheaply in large rolls so it's easy to use it over any light source, but good IR filtration isn't so I use Schott glass IR filters behind the camera lens. I think LED and wide spectrum fluorescent are much better choices than quartz when it comes to IR, but as in the case with Solux which is internally filtered, each lamp is different so it's hard to generalize without comparing the manufacturer's data. -----Original Message----- From: Hal Hinderliter Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 10:25 AM To: John Castronovo Cc: Millers' Photography L.L.C. ; colorsync-users@lists.apple.com Subject: Re: B+W 77mm UV/IR Cut (486M) MRC Filter OK John, I'll bite - which type of studio lighting emits the least IR? (LED?) But what about UV, isn't that more important to reduce at the light source? And if so, what type of lights produce the least UV? Hal On May 26, 2013, at 2:00 AM, John Castronovo <jc@technicalphoto.com> wrote:
Does it help? The right place for filtering u.v. is at the light source. Once the artwork is fluorescing from u.v. light you can't filter the problem out at the camera. More IR filtration at the camera can help with some art, especially if you're using hot lights on a subject having colorants prone to metameric failure but it's still better to use lights that emit less IR in the first place.
-----Original Message----- From: Millers' Photography L.L.C. Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:55 AM To: colorsync-users@lists.apple.com List Subject: B+W 77mm UV/IR Cut (486M) MRC Filter
I must thank someone on this list that suggested purchasing the B+W 77mm UV/IR Cut (486M) MRC Filter for issues I had with reproducing a particular piece of original art. It was around June 15, 2012. I purchased a B+W 67mm UV/IR Cut (486M) MRC Filter as well. These filters are always on the shooting lens.
I don't remember who it was. I have been asked who it was. If you are out there, please respond.
Warm Regards,
David
David B Miller, Pharm. D. member Millers' Photography L.L.C. dba Spinnaker Photo Imaging Center Bellingham, WA www.spinnakerphotoimagingcenter.com 360 739 2826
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/jc%40technicalphoto....
This email sent to jc@technicalphoto.com
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3343 / Virus Database: 3184/6356 - Release Date: 05/25/13 _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/hal%40halhinderliter...
This email sent to hal@halhinderliter.com
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3343 / Virus Database: 3184/6359 - Release Date: 05/26/13
One needs an IR filter if a beam from IR remote control makes a purple spot on the shot, or if a black plastic or wool turns purplish. Digital sensors have very low UV sensitivity. On May 26, 2013, at 10:57 AM, John Castronovo wrote:
I don't really know what's best to be honest. Some of the new LED units are looking pretty good while many continue to use HID and full spectrum fluorescents. For hot lights, Solux lamps are supposed to be very well filtered at both ends of the spectrum but you'd need a lot of them to light a large piece of art. Plastic sheeting used to filter U.V. is available cheaply in large rolls so it's easy to use it over any light source, but good IR filtration isn't so I use Schott glass IR filters behind the camera lens. I think LED and wide spectrum fluorescent are much better choices than quartz when it comes to IR, but as in the case with Solux which is internally filtered, each lamp is different so it's hard to generalize without comparing the manufacturer's data.
-----Original Message----- From: Hal Hinderliter Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 10:25 AM To: John Castronovo Cc: Millers' Photography L.L.C. ; colorsync-users@lists.apple.com Subject: Re: B+W 77mm UV/IR Cut (486M) MRC Filter
OK John, I'll bite - which type of studio lighting emits the least IR? (LED?) But what about UV, isn't that more important to reduce at the light source? And if so, what type of lights produce the least UV?
Hal
On May 26, 2013, at 2:00 AM, John Castronovo <jc@technicalphoto.com> wrote:
Does it help? The right place for filtering u.v. is at the light source. Once the artwork is fluorescing from u.v. light you can't filter the problem out at the camera. More IR filtration at the camera can help with some art, especially if you're using hot lights on a subject having colorants prone to metameric failure but it's still better to use lights that emit less IR in the first place.
-----Original Message----- From: Millers' Photography L.L.C. Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:55 AM To: colorsync-users@lists.apple.com List Subject: B+W 77mm UV/IR Cut (486M) MRC Filter
I must thank someone on this list that suggested purchasing the B+W 77mm UV/IR Cut (486M) MRC Filter for issues I had with reproducing a particular piece of original art. It was around June 15, 2012. I purchased a B+W 67mm UV/IR Cut (486M) MRC Filter as well. These filters are always on the shooting lens.
I don't remember who it was. I have been asked who it was. If you are out there, please respond.
Warm Regards,
David
David B Miller, Pharm. D. member Millers' Photography L.L.C. dba Spinnaker Photo Imaging Center Bellingham, WA www.spinnakerphotoimagingcenter.com 360 739 2826
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/jc%40technicalphoto....
This email sent to jc@technicalphoto.com
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3343 / Virus Database: 3184/6356 - Release Date: 05/25/13 _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/hal%40halhinderliter...
This email sent to hal@halhinderliter.com
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3343 / Virus Database: 3184/6359 - Release Date: 05/26/13
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/iliah.i.borg%40gmail...
This email sent to iliah.i.borg@gmail.com
-- Best regards, Iliah Borg
On May 26, 2013, at 7:25 AM, Hal Hinderliter <hal@halhinderliter.com> wrote:
which type of studio lighting emits the least IR? (LED?) But what about UV, isn't that more important to reduce at the light source?
A good profile made in the same light with a good target that's been measured with a good spectrophotometer will take care of the IR. Even if your camera is sensitive to IR (and anything you'd be likely to buy today already has good IR filtration), the profile should take care of pushing the luminosity of those super deep reds where they belong -- which is outside of your printer's gamut anyway (besides being invisible to humans). If UV is a problem, filtration is useless. That's because, if the artwork you're photographing is fluorescent, you're screwed; you can't print it, and the original is going to look significantly different in whatever light it's being viewed in -- it's the ultimate form of metamerism (though with different physics at play). There're similar problems with metallic and iridescent paints; there's just nothing you can do. If it's for a commercial giclee job, tell the artist about the problem up front (or as soon as you realize that the work is fluorescing, which you should probably be checking with a black light at the time you accept the piece). Discuss what can be done...which is basically pretending the problem doesn't exist at your end at first and hoping for the best, doing some Photoshop adjustment to make the color come out to some agreed-upon compromise in the print if that's not good enough, and having the artist (or an assistant or whomever) hand-apply the original pigments over those portions of the print. Note that the light used for comparison when the artist comes to review is critical; be sure to show the two side-by-side not just in your normal viewing conditions, but under regular (cheap) tungsten and actual outdoors sunlight as well. If the print is to be displayed in certain lighting conditions, if you can photograph the art in those conditions *and* get a measurement of them with a spectrophotometer, you can make a pretty good match...but it'll be a bad match in any other conditions. If it's for conservation purposes...ship it somewhere that they do multispectral imaging with a spectroradiometer that reaches into UV. Nothing else is going to work. See Dr. Berns at art-si.org for more. (If the artwork isn't fluorescing, UV is irrelevant. Not only is it invisible to humans, your profile, if made in the same light, etc., will take care of it, just the same as it will with IR.) Cheers, b&
On May 26, 2013, at 7:25 AM, Hal Hinderliter <hal@halhinderliter.com> wrote:
which type of studio lighting emits the least IR?
On the separate question of lighting recommendations, I personally can't recommend Paul C. Buff Einsteins highly enough. I get great results with them; there's nothing I wish of them that they don't provide; they're very affordable; and PCB customer service is unbelievable -- everything you ever wished of a company and more. I'm sure there're better lights out there in an absolute sense, but they're not going to be significantly better...and they'll be a hell of a lot more expensive. For those on an especially tight budget, PCB AlienBees are the only lights to consider. They lack in features, not quality, and one can work around the lack of features. If whatever you're doing is so critical that you can't, then you can afford the Einsteins instead. Cheers, b&
UV light should always be filtered out at the source not just to control fluorescence, but more importantly to eliminate damage to the subject. UV is high energy light that breaks molecular bonds, altering the artwork. It can easily fade more fugitive colors, degrade optical brighteners, can cause chemical changes, and much more. The issue of fluorescent colorants is not solved by eliminating UV illumination because these pigments are excited by UV AND visible light. Eliminate the UV, there will still be the visible light induced fluorescence. As for which lights produce the least UV, LED illumination is very good. Tungsten lights still produce UV, including Solux lamps, although at lower levels than other technologies. All the mercury based lights produce UV, that is fluorescent, HMI, HID, CDM, etcetera. Flash units also produce lots of UV. Since UV can be blocked easily with filters such as UF-3, OP-3, UF-4 and others, when shooting artwork I recommend always placing a UV blocking filter in front of the lights, for any light source. There are also big issues with flash units in their exposure and color variability. It is more by luck than design that some may be acceptable for fine art imaging, most are not, and I do not recommend their use. For my artwork imaging I use North Light Copy Lights, which use CDM lamps. These lighting units are shipped with a UV blocking filter installed. IR filtration at the camera may be needed, depending on the camera's optical system. Electronic sensors are extremely sensitive to IR light, and many pigments, and most dyes, reflect large amount of IR light. If your camera insufficiently blocks IR light, there will be color shifts in the image. Some of the visible effects include blues turning purple, blues turning pink, greens appearing gray, blacks becoming pink, and more. There is a paper at http://rmimaging.com/information/color_accurate_photography.pdf which describes the science behind these color changes. Using lights with high IR emission exacerbates these observer metamerism failures. This is one reason I do not recommend using tungsten or tungsten-halogen lights for fine art imaging. Additionally, the high IR output cooks the subject potentially damaging it. Of all the light technologies, LED holds the most promise, but it is not good enough for all fine art imaging, yet. Their spectral output, while low in UV and IR, is often deficient in red and cyan wavelengths. This can make some colors hard to reproduce. There are LED lighting fixtures that are adequate for small artworks, but not yet for large ones. Not mentioned is the issue of cross-polarization, which is sometimes necessary. For that you will need about 8 times more light than an unpolarized exposure. LED and tungsten lighting do not work well, if at all, under these demands. Robin Myers rmimaging.com On May 26, 2013, at 7:25 AM, Hal Hinderliter wrote:
OK John, I'll bite - which type of studio lighting emits the least IR? (LED?) But what about UV, isn't that more important to reduce at the light source? And if so, what type of lights produce the least UV?
Hal
On May 26, 2013, at 2:00 AM, John Castronovo <jc@technicalphoto.com> wrote:
Does it help? The right place for filtering u.v. is at the light source. Once the artwork is fluorescing from u.v. light you can't filter the problem out at the camera. More IR filtration at the camera can help with some art, especially if you're using hot lights on a subject having colorants prone to metameric failure but it's still better to use lights that emit less IR in the first place.
On May 26, 2013, at 10:23 AM, Robin Myers <robin@rmimaging.com> wrote:
UV light should always be filtered out at the source not just to control fluorescence, but more importantly to eliminate damage to the subject. UV is high energy light that breaks molecular bonds, altering the artwork. It can easily fade more fugitive colors, degrade optical brighteners, can cause chemical changes, and much more.
Without disputing any of that, outside perhaps of very rare instances in preservation of very fragile objects, I don't see it being a practical concern in reproduction work. If the work is carried uncovered from the parking lot, it's going to get more UV exposure than in the imaging process. Unless a minute or two of direct exposure to the Sun is going to damage the work, nothing you'll reasonably do to it in the studio will, either. (Of course, there are unreasonable and even stupid things you could do in the studio, like set a hot lamp inches away from the art and leave it on while you go to lunch....) Where the UV content of the light becomes a concern for damaging art is in display conditions. If there's nothing fluorescent in the art, you don't want any UV light on it to prevent just the type of damage you describe. But, if there *are* fluorescent pigments in the art, and especially if the fluorescent pigments are a prominent feature of the art...well, you'll want to display the art under light with plenty of UV in it in order to best showcase it, but you'll also want to consider ways of limiting the exposure. For example, you could significantly dim the ambient conditions and use a directional UV-rich source to illuminate the art (which won't have to be as absolutely bright), and you can only turn on the UV-rich light when the work is actively being viewed. But you also have to acknowledge that the work has a limited lifespan, no matter what you do, and that all you can do is prolong its life.
There are also big issues with flash units in their exposure and color variability. It is more by luck than design that some may be acceptable for fine art imaging, most are not, and I do not recommend their use.
That's one reason why I recommend the Einsteins. Their color and output constancy was *exactly* the driving factor in their design. They offer two modes: a ``constant color'' mode and an ``action'' mode. In constant color mode, the color temperature is held constant at 5600K +/- 50K over the entire power range. Even in action mode, the color temperature only varies from 5600K to 6300K over the range. And, in practice, I can't spot any deficiencies in their operation. Not only are they extremely stable, they're extremely consistent between units (no more than 1/10 stop variation, and that may well be due to light placement / aiming). They're also very linear; if I set up the lights in a copy stand configuration and adjust them all by 1/10 stop, the resulting exposure changes by 1/10 stop. Cheers, b&
Hello: "2013/5/26 Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com> Not only are they extremely stable, they're extremely consistent between units (no more than 1/10 stop variation, and that may well be due to light placement / aiming). They're also very linear; if I set up the lights in a copy stand configuration and adjust them all by 1/10 stop, the resulting exposure changes by 1/10 stop." But if you measure your working area with your photometer/flash meter with 1/10 stop accuracy and test with Imatest you will note that isn't enought accuracy. There is a different scale for precision from film to digital. On the other hand, UV radiation is cumulative for human tissues, emulsions, pigments, etc. And you can evaluate your light sources graphically through SPD and test CRI (and CQS) with SpectraShop. And if you want, you can make use of those measurements in combination with inCamera (Photoshop plug-in) and ColorChecker SG for profiling. UV cut filter in i1Pro and i1Pro2, no comments. Salud Jose Bueno
On May 26, 2013, at 2:14 PM, José Ángel Bueno García <jbueno61@gmail.com> wrote:
But if you measure your working area with your photometer/flash meter with 1/10 stop accuracy and test with Imatest you will note that isn't enought accuracy.
1/10 stop works out to about 2 DE in the midtones, roughly. Significant, yes, but only barely. The thing is, even the best lenses have much more than 1/10 stop differential across the frame. 1/10 stop is more than plenty for the capture phase of things. You'll of course, no matter what, want to take a picture of a white field in the exact same setup and use that to take care of any and all residual unevenness in illumination. But trying to get your lighting more even than even a third of a stop is probably a waste of time, as even that's better than your lens. If it's inter-shot repeatability you're worried about, my experience with the Einsteins is that, shot-to-shot, there's less than 1/100 stop variability. No human is going to be able to spot the difference...but, if you're still worried, you can take multiple exposures and blend them in a stack in Photoshop with the blend mode set to median. It'll reduce noise, too...not that noise is a factor with proper exposures on modern cameras in studio settings. But it'll also protect you against one of the units not getting the signal to fire, which does happen every few hundred shots or so (depending on how noisy your RF environment is). Still, considering how cheap it is to fire off a few shots instead of a single one, it's good insurance. Cheers, b&
I'm sure that my old Minolta IV with its accuracy of 1/10 will stay with me for years, but what kind of instrument you make use of to obtain 1/100?, And what about 2dE asociated to a difference of 1/10 stop?. Jose Bueno 2013/5/27 Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com>
On May 26, 2013, at 2:14 PM, José Ángel Bueno García <jbueno61@gmail.com> wrote:
But if you measure your working area with your photometer/flash meter with 1/10 stop accuracy and test with Imatest you will note that isn't enought accuracy.
1/10 stop works out to about 2 DE in the midtones, roughly. Significant, yes, but only barely.
The thing is, even the best lenses have much more than 1/10 stop differential across the frame.
1/10 stop is more than plenty for the capture phase of things. You'll of course, no matter what, want to take a picture of a white field in the exact same setup and use that to take care of any and all residual unevenness in illumination. But trying to get your lighting more even than even a third of a stop is probably a waste of time, as even that's better than your lens.
If it's inter-shot repeatability you're worried about, my experience with the Einsteins is that, shot-to-shot, there's less than 1/100 stop variability. No human is going to be able to spot the difference...but, if you're still worried, you can take multiple exposures and blend them in a stack in Photoshop with the blend mode set to median. It'll reduce noise, too...not that noise is a factor with proper exposures on modern cameras in studio settings. But it'll also protect you against one of the units not getting the signal to fire, which does happen every few hundred shots or so (depending on how noisy your RF environment is). Still, considering how cheap it is to fire off a few shots instead of a single one, it's good insurance.
Cheers,
b&
On May 26, 2013, at 3:47 PM, José Ángel Bueno García <jbueno61@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm sure that my old Minolta IV with its accuracy of 1/10 will stay with me for years, but what kind of instrument you make use of to obtain 1/100?
I'm getting those numbers by shooting a chart, developing it as a linear 1.0 gamma UNIWB TIFF, building a profile from that, doing a reverse lookup of L*=100 a*=0 b*=0, and comparing the resulting RGB values across multiple frames. This is all wrapped up in a Perl script, of course. It generates numbers (in EV units, or stops) that I then feed to Raw Photo Processor to simultaneously normalize exposure and set white balance. This is typical: _06C3301: R = 1.20476442084827 G = 0.112331028392598 B = 0.72696339739706 _06C3302: R = 1.20242543114168 G = 0.109944528198645 B = 0.722810030669048 _06C3303: R = 1.20551595895193 G = 0.111145831718312 B = 0.723527251434194 I think most will agree that a difference of 0.003 EV is entirely academic -- at least, in this context....
And what about 2dE asociated to a difference of 1/10 stop?.
Open an image in Adobe Camera Raw (or the like). Find something neutral -- use it as the white balance reference if need be. Adjust the exposure slider until it's a midtone. Now, change the exposure slider by 1/10 stop. You'll see a difference of about 4 RGB units, which works out to about 2 L* units (check with the color picker) -- or, roughly, 2 DE. You could calculate it more precisely, I'm sure, but we're discussing rough approximations in the first place. Cheers, b&
Gentlemen, Put D into A1, calculate L in B1 like =116*IF(1/10^A1> 0.008856452, (1/10^A1)^(1/3), 7.787037 *1/10^A1 + 16/116)-16 Now apply deltaE formula. -- Best regards, Iliah Borg
participants (7)
-
Ben Goren
-
Hal Hinderliter
-
Iliah Borg
-
John Castronovo
-
José Ángel Bueno García
-
Millers' Photography L.L.C.
-
Robin Myers