We have been exploring the possibility of creating new lighting effects by using daylight-balanced and UV light sources simultaneously. The two light sources produce inherently different effects, which can conflict with each other and detract from the overall image. At the same time, new possibilities are opened by breaking the conventional rules of thumb. Often, these new approaches are discovered by playful experimenting on the set, rather than by pre-planning the shoot.
Here is my recent blog post about this for The Black Light Magazine.
—
UV light photography is typically done in a dark studio and, until recently, with a relatively long shutter speed to maximize the intensity of the fluorescent light. As a result, “black light” photographs have a distinct look that features high tonal and colour contrast, a black background and a distinct bluish-purple colour cast produced by the visible portion of the LED or strobe lights.
First, when daylight-balanced light is used in conjunction with a source that is strongly biased towards the violet and ultra-violet side of the spectrum, managing the resulting colour cast, i.e. setting the white point correctly, becomes a challenge not only in the camera settings, but also in post-processing. This technical issue can be overcome relatively easily by using coloured gels on top of the UV-filtered strobes. The only drawback of this approach is that the gels further limit the intensity of the light, which has already been greatly reduced by the UV filters.
The second issue with mixing the UV and visible light is more conceptual, and it has to do with the type of image that can be created. Considering a portrait of a model with fluorescent makeup, for example, we quickly discovered that as we made the relative contrition of conventional, daylight-balanced strobes more prominent, the portrait became more and more, well.., conventional. This happened because the distinct colours and contrast of the fluorescent makeup became less prominent and significant in the overall image.
In order to maintain the impart of the fluorescent makeup, we found that it is effective to break the conventional rules of lighting the model. Specifically, instead of diffusing the incident light, we used a small, directed light source that created harsh shadows on the model’s face, i.e. sharp transitions between the light and the dark areas. This way, the fluorescent makeup, which was located in the deep shadows, was not affected by the white light and was very prominent in the resulting image.
In conventional portrait photography, particularly in “beauty” portraits, harsh light is avoided as being unflattering to the model. However, when the creative process features unconventional techniques like UV light and fluorescent paints, the solution to arising conceptual problems often lies at the extremes, or even is the exact opposite, of established guidelines. In this respect, the creative process is similar to scientific discovery, where researchers are advised to look for new insights at the fringes of the explored areas.
During a recent underwater photoshoot, which involved a marathon body-painting session by three artists working simultaneously on two models and a diver sitting on the bottom of the pool with the gear that is typically used for photographing marine creatures, we came across a rather unique challenge. Our objective was to show the models in fluorescent makeup swimming underwater, while simultaneously showing their environment, i.e. the reflections of the free surface and the colour of the water itself.
In most cases, if at all possible, it is better to remove the glasses and take a portrait without them.
or 
, for example) for 
is the size of the modifiers. Generally for portraits, the larger the modifiers, the better. The main function of soft boxes and umbrellas is to change a small light source into a large one. This creates soft, gradual transitions between the light and dark areas on the subject, which is aesthetically pleasing for most portraits (or course, there are situations, when the rules are broken intentionally to create impact, but that is another story). In my opinion, the more the light source resembles 
There is not a huge difference between brand name and generic soft boxes and umbrellas in terms of the quality of light, so I think it is safe to use cheaper modifiers without sacrificing the quality of the resulting photo.
, preferably off-camera, triggered by a 
.
lens on a 
body. I shot at f/2.8 and auto ISO, varying the shutter speed between 1/200 sec and 1/800 sec, depending on how fast the children (3-5 year old girls) moved.
was able to capture some details in the shadows.
lens. I usually just let the camera expose correctly for the subject and not worry about the background, which will come out either over-exposed (if it is still twilight) or under-exposed, if it is already dark. In either case, it can be ignored if it does not contain anything of interest.
, this can be done using a local adjustment brush, which is what I did for this image. In 
, this can be done using adjustment layers 
on the flash. A 
), which is quite a bit less expensive. (By the way, these are just recommendations based on my experience, and although the links are affiliated by Amazon, they are not sponsored in any other way). In fact, compactness would be a very good reason to choose a cell phone over a pro camera – after all, it is a dinner first and a photo opportunity second. Having said this, I shot this photo with a 
, to photograph a fluorescent helium jet seeded with acetone in near darkness in our lab at UVic. But that hardly qualifies as a common photography situation, so it’s a subject for another story.
.