[pure-silver] Re: UV vs IR photography
- From: "John Black" <jblack@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 16:36:53 -0400
Need input as I am unfamiliar with studio lighting.
<modest snip>
doing this is
that strobe lights generate a lot of UV radiation
This statement is a half truth as strobes are xenon tubes and at discharge,
generate a respectable amount of short wave UV, second only to mercury
discharge for amount. It may be true that photographic xenon tubes are
coated with a UV inhibitor but I promise you that a lot gets out. It is
easily filtered out though with lens filters or a warm gel on the light.
This guy's full of beans and, like a lot of conventional wisdom on the
internet, it is baloney flavored with a pinch of truth.
The xenon discharge is quite blue though and will tend to mimic the effect
of either a mild blue filter or ortho film where ruddy cheeks and blemishes
(read pimples) will tend to be accentuated.
In practice, no such effect is seen.
JB
.
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
- References:
- [pure-silver] UV vs IR photography
- From: Koch, Gerald
Other related posts:
- » [pure-silver] UV vs IR photography
- » [pure-silver] Re: UV vs IR photography
- » [pure-silver] Re: UV vs IR photography
- » [pure-silver] Re: UV vs IR photography
- » [pure-silver] Re: UV vs IR photography
- » [pure-silver] Re: UV vs IR photography
- » [pure-silver] Re: UV vs IR photography
- [pure-silver] UV vs IR photography
- From: Koch, Gerald