Using Nikkor enlarger lenses for LF UV photography

[senderoaburrido]

I see all over the net that these were once considered good budget options for UV photography. Since the X-ray film I use to keep shooting costs down is orthochromatic, I'm wondering if it also insensitive to infra-red. With those two things in mind, could I not grab a U330 filter and an EL-Nikkor lens with wide enough an image circle, and shoot stuff?

[Dan Fromm]

http://www.savazzi.net/download/manuals/El-Nikkor_enlarging_lenses_3.pdf

look at "correction wavelength range"

Also go to http://www.savazzi.net/photography/default.htm and scroll down to "Lenses for UV Photography"

[senderoaburrido]

Is that 20nm wavelength range enough to get a decent result? I am a complete rhube in terms of physics education, but I would figure you get a more "full" exposure from panchromatic and even orthochromatic film by way of catching all sorts of wavelengths. Would the picture look unexcitingly flat? I'm speaking tonally/detail-wise here. "Would the results be interesting enough to warrant the attempt?" Is what I am asking, I think.

Someone please correct me if I just passed into moron territory with my assumptions and question.

[senderoaburrido]

http://www.savazzi.net/download/manuals/El-Nikkor_enlarging_lenses_3.pdf

look at "correction wavelength range"

Also go to http://www.savazzi.net/photography/default.htm and scroll down to "Lenses for UV Photography"

I went and read Enrico's test page on the subject, where he compared a bunch of EL-Nikkor lenses. May I ask some more specific questions, now that I've read a bit more? I'm guessing by your response that perhaps you have a little experience here.

So most of these filters I've looked at, from UG11, UG1, U330, etc. peak at far shorter wavelengths than 380nm. UG11 exemplifies my concerns, here: http://www.uqgoptics.com/materials_filters_schott_uvTransmitting_UG11.aspx . At 380nm, the very floor of most of these lenses, we're looking at 0.44 transmittance. That doesn't sound too bad. However only 10nm up from that we're down to 0.11. Would this not make my exposures take a ridiculous amount of time? And how do I meter for it? The UV photography forum, at least from a skim, doesn't seem to have a lot of film advice.

[Drew Wiley]

True high-transmission UV lenses existed, and still are made in fixed aperture. They generally use optical quartz, not glass. Hope you are rich. But you'd also need
special neg carrier glass, along with special diffusion, if this concept were taken to its logical endpoint. Probably overkill, but depends on your specific process.

[Dan Fromm]

Is that 20nm wavelength range enough to get a decent result? I am a complete rhube in terms of physics education, but I would figure you get a more "full" exposure from panchromatic and even orthochromatic film by way of catching all sorts of wavelengths. Would the picture look unexcitingly flat? I'm speaking tonally/detail-wise here. "Would the results be interesting enough to warrant the attempt?" Is what I am asking, I think.

Someone please correct me if I just passed into moron territory with my assumptions and question.

You shouldn't even hint that you're a moron. Its against forum rules.

I don't understand your question, sorry. If you have the film, ask it. When in doubt about what will happen if you do something, design and run an experiment. Then you'll know.

There are web sites dedicated to photographing the invisible. Books, too. Look for books. Your apparently simple questions want book length answers that you'll never get on a bulletin board.

In your original post you asked whether orthochromatic film, which can't see red, can see infrared. What can't see long wavelengths can't see longer ones. In a word, it can't.

Good luck looking for informative sites and books. I can't direct you to any of either because I tend to ignore what I can't see.

[Dan Fromm]

True high-transmission UV lenses existed, and still are made in fixed aperture. They generally use optical quartz, not glass. Hope you are rich. But you'd also need
special neg carrier glass, along with special diffusion, if this concept were taken to its logical endpoint. Probably overkill, but depends on your specific process.

Interesting. Have you seen these:

http://www.jenoptik-inc.com/coastalopt-standard-lenses/uv-vis-nir-60mm-slr-lens-mainmenu-155.html

http://www.jenoptik-inc.com/coastalopt-standard-lenses/uv-vis-105mm-slr-lens-mainmenu-40.html

Pricey, seem to have apertures. But absolutely positively not for large format.