Ultraviolet Photography

As a dermatologist, I would like to photograph certain sub-dermal

skin lesions (i.e. under the surface of the skin, not yet having

broken through the uppermost layer of skin) that are typically

visible only under a Woods Lamp (blacklight). However, I do not

wish to shine a blacklight on my patients as many of these lesions

are near the eyes or are in patients being treated for skin cancers,

burns, or other conditions for whom UV light may be a significant

irritant. Other than using UV Lamps, is anyone aware of a technique

(using filters, camera settings, photo software, special techniques,

etc.) I may use? I have a dedicated photo studio in my office for

photographing patients and only use digital cameras (Leica D-Lux 2

and a recently purchased Nikon D200).

.

 

UV ultra violet interchangeable (quartz) lenses ARE available for the Nikon, new and used. Note, glass itself usually filters UV, so traditional glass lenses won't help. See:

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=nikon+uv+lens

 

You may have to rig up a flash with a filter for non-UV to help, and also filter IR infrared.

 

I do not know of any D200 camera reports for UV recording. You may want to speak directly with Nikon to get their input on UV and digital in the D200.

 

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?goingto=dtc_home

 

and

 

http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikonusa.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php?p_sid=jLlmotXh&p_lva=573

 

and

 

http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikonusa.cfg/php/enduser/std_alp.php?p_prods=19%2C217&p_pv=2.217&p_cats=~any~&p_cv=1.~any~

 

Please report back and let us know what you find.

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

I recall years ago, with fluorescence in minerals, that you could get short-wave lamps and long-wave UV lamps. The long-wave UV are the commonly-available black lights. The short-wave took a special filter, were much more expensive. More importantly, the short-wave UV did require precautions relative to skin and eye exposure, the long-wave did not. Now, I'm not familiar with a Woods Lamp. But are you sure that a regular black-light would actually irritate anything?

 

Keep in mind that you can buy incandescent black-lights, which are nothing more than a regular light bulb with most of the visible light filtered out- if the black light irritates, then so will a standard light bulb.

 

You COULD use a UV-only filter on your lens- but this assumes that ambient light contains enough UV to work- in which case irritation would be the same as using a UV light source.

This site link may help...lots of Nikon/UV/digital info...

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

A UV lamp is commonly used in medicine and science not because things are more <B>visible</B> at UV wavelengths, but because they exhibit </B>fluorescence</B> under exposure to UV. I don't know which is the case in your clinical work, but if it's the latter then a UV camera won't help you, since fluorescence requires exposure to UV. (come to think of it, even a UV camera would require a source of UV, just as a visible-light camera requires a source of visible light).<P>

 

What kind of subdermal lesions are these and what is the actual mechanism by which they are more visible under UV?

Sean, I have been doing reflected UV photography for a few years now.

 

Couple of key tools:

 

1. a DSLR (assuming you do not want anything to do with film) that is UV sensitive. The D70 (as is) has how UV sensitivity. I hear that the D200 has several layers of coatings on its low pass filter and will not let in any significant UV to reach the sensor. Buy a D70.

 

2. a proper lens. If you have the funds (ie., upwards of $3000) and patience, look for an used UV-Nikkor 105/4.5 lens. One of the finest UV lenses made.

 

(More on this, see: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009ndo)

Filters, lighting etc are other factors that are important. I recommend the use of a powerful flash such as Vivitar 283 without its yellow plastic on the front. This gives out enough UV for most purposes. Buy some good Hoya filters (U-340 being the best due to the highest UV transmission).

 

Google and check out the two sites with most information on reflected UV photography.

Unlike what Peter said, sadly, the UV-Nikkor 105/4.5 is not available for some years now. There is an equivalent lens made by coastal optics which is current and supposedly can be bought new for $6,500.

 

There is one other French company that makes UV lenses of 3 different focal lengths in Nikon mount. Prices are upwards of 6000 Euros each.

The 5:28pm post, "The D70 (as is) has how UV sensitivity." should read,

 

The D70 (as is) has HIGH UV sensitivity.

You might try Coastal Optics, they have a lens specifically designed to replace the UV-Nikkor, but I have never personally tried them and thus cannot reccomend them directly, although it probably wouldn't hurt to call them.

UV Lens: http://www.coastalopt.com/stan_02.asp

Main Page: http://www.coastalopt.com/default.asp

What Peter N said. This is not UV photography, rather it is visible light fluorescence

photography, and a good ISO 400-800 color film should be adequate. In other words

you need to run some tests with your Woods lamp - a low level UV and short wave

visible fluorescent lamp - films of your choice and a test subject. You don't need

anything special interms of UV optics etc. Your biggest

concern is probably going to be relatively long exposure duration and not patient

sensitivity. If ocular exposure is still an issue have the patient close h/er eyes or get

UV blocking glasses for them to wear.

A flash rigged to emit UV (like the de-lensed 283 mentioned already) is probably your

safest (least patient UV exposure) way to do this. (Just a filter/software/settings etc. won't

work, you need the UV to be there before you try to photograph it.) But I'm not sure how

short a wavelength you can generate this way. Assuming the flash tube is standard glass,

that creates a hard limit on the wavelength.

 

Many modern sensors and modern lenses have a decent amount of UV cut built in. If you

can't afford the gonzo quartz UV-special lenses a good bet would be something single

coated--think 60's third-party glass. I had a Bushnell 28 for my manual Minolta system

that was easily 1-2 stops faster in UV than my modern glass. Ditto my Mamiya Press

lenses. There's a pretty good selection of coating-impaired old glass for the Nikon system,

although it'll mostly need a cheap modification (getting it "AI'd") to work with the modern

mount.

 

The expensive quartz lenses are only relevant if you need wavelengths beyond what

standard glass can pass. If you can use glass-penetrating wavelengths, do. In fact since

nearly all DSLRs have a glass AA filter in front of the sensor, I'm not sure the quartz lenses

would offer ANY advantage on a DSLR. Maybe on the Kodak 14n (which I don't think has an

AA, but may have protective glass over the sensor anyway.)

Ignore the posts on fluorescence because that is not what you are talking about. The topic is reflected ultraviolet photography and no fluorescence.

 

Check this fabulous site for a lot of information on techniques, equipment (all apply to digital as well) and applications with actual examples.

 

http://msp.rmit.edu.au/Article_01/index.html

<i>Ignore the posts on fluorescence because that is not what you are talking about.</i><br>

Vivek, are you sure? Sean, how are you seeing these sub-dermal lesions? If Sean is lighting them with the blacklight and seeing them with his eyes rather than some special recording device, isn't he seeing results in the Visible spectrum, Not in the UV spectrum?

Stephen Gandy at www.cameraquest.com states that he has 6 Nikkor UV lenses on this page (scroll down a bit):

 

http://www.cameraquest.com/frames/4salecollect.htm

 

It might be worth emailing him.

 

Regards, Ross

<p>It seems like Peter got it right: if the 'lesions are ... visible only under a .. blacklight' as you said, they are visible to your eye; i.e. the UV light gets absorbed by the skin lesions and emitted <i>as visible light</i>.

</p>

<p>

This is called fluorescence and to get the best picture quality you will want try to <i>avoid</i> the UV light from hitting the photo sensor, with a decent UV filter, to increase the contrast of the visible non-UV fluorescencent light.

</p>

<p>

The modified flash sounds like a decent idea but you might want to double check on the exposure levels before you do that (this flash bulb or a fluorescent lamp uses this same phenonomenon of fluorescence to generate visible light from a UV light source that's internal to the lamp). Flash exposures are typically so short in duration, though, that they're probably safe.

</p>

Brian,

 

The link I supplied above has this section:

http://msp.rmit.edu.au/Article_01/14.html

 

The gallery has illustration (figs 63-80):http://msp.rmit.edu.au/Article_01/14_gallery.html

 

Steve Gandy wants $6,500 for EACH UV-Nikkor.

 

The D70 sensor has LOT more UV sensitivity than most old Nikon glass in F mount would transmit.

 

The benefit of an UV-Nikkor 105/4.5 are two fold-

 

1. Excellent transmission (wavelength wise and the quantity of transmission)

 

2. It is one of the sharpest Nikkors ever made and easily the sharpest of ALL micro nikkors (some were sold as UV-Micro Nikkors as well).

 

Folks, if you have no clue about ultraviolet photography (not fluorescence) please go through the links I posted above. Very informative.

Vivek, would you see similar results to what you posted viewing with the naked eye and illuminating with blacklight, just due to the abundance of near-UV you'd be seeing opposed to full white light? I think that's where some confusion lies.

Okie doke, a quick google search confirms that a Woods lamp is a black light, and is used, for example, to detect ringworm, of which some varieties fluoresce. So fluorescence is the topic of the day, not UV photography.

 

First off, you want a dark room. If the Woods lamp is normally used in regular room light or in subdued lighting, then you can probably use a UV light source of much lower intensity in a completely dark room.

 

Secondly, you want a good UV filter (IE, one that filters out UV, just lets visible light through). Try a search on this site, I believe they had some info posted showing that some so-called UV filters don't actually filter much of anything out, while others do.

 

Thirdly, try some experimentation. My obvservation from fluorescent minerals is that because they emit the glow themselves, they tend to have very low contrast, so you don't have the shadows that normally bring out detail in a subject. UV lamps are cheap, UV filters are cheap, you have the camera. Find a blob of something around the office or house that fluoresces similar to the lesion in question and try photographing it. A typical macro lens should work fine for this.

 

FYI, fluorescent items work by absorbing higher-energy light (UV) and re-emitting visible light. But, there are also substances that absorb visible light and re-emit infrared. This principle is used in forensics. Don't know if it could have any application to your work- surely somebody has tried it. This requires shooting through an opaque IR filter, which will cost $100 or so, but the illumination could then be room light. Some substances fluoresce under one light source and not the other, or vice versa.

Brian, The short answer is, No. <br>

 

If i have the vision like some of the fish species (UV sensitive retinal receptors) and if i am wearing visible light blocking filters,<br> I would be able to see something like this. <br>

<center><img src="http://www.photo.net/general-comments/attachment/1766154/_DSC3490s.jpg"></center> <br>Under visible light

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2619464-lg.jpg"></center> <br>Under UV (with a visible light blocking filter on the taking lens) <br> The colors (false color) were due to how the D70's RBG sensor processes information. <br>

White areas represent the reflected portion of UV.

" FYI, fluorescent items work by absorbing higher-energy light (UV) and re-emitting visible light. But, there are also substances that absorb visible light and re-emit infrared. This principle is used in forensics. Don't know if it could have any application to your work- surely somebody has tried it. This requires shooting through an opaque IR filter, which will cost $100 or so, but the illumination could then be room light. Some substances fluoresce under one light source and not the other, or vice versa."

 

Stephen, Give it a rest. It does not make any sense and none of the UV-Visible blocking and IR transmitting filters have anything to do with reflected UV or UV fluorescence photography.

Brian: <i>Vivek, would you see similar results to what you posted viewing with the naked eye and illuminating with blacklight, just due to the abundance of near-UV you'd be seeing opposed to full white light?</i><br>

Vivek: <i>The short answer is, No.</i><br>

<br>

Vivek, I think your reply merely confirms what a lot of us are wondering. If Sean is seeing the results with his naked eye using a blacklight, then he's seeing Visible light. Before assuming that we are "folks [who] have no clue about ultraviolet photography" as you so tactfully state, let's get the facts from Sean about what exactly he is currently seeing, what tools (if any) he's seeing it with, and then make an informed recommendation. Sean, are the lesions visible with the naked eye with a blacklight? If your eye can record it, I think the general consensus is that your camera should be able to record it as well without special lenses, etc.

Brian, The UV exposure and the resultant reflected UV light would give more information on the subject Sean is referring to (again, please see the Williams' site and information). I have not personally used my UV set up (not my current interest) for this but I have friends who use similar set ups for that purpose. Also, I am very familiar with the sub dermal lesions, etc that Sean refers to.

Firstly, thank you to everyone for taking such interest in my question. I have looked over a few of the recommended websites and will try some of your suggestions. With any luck, I'll report back what works and what does not.

 

In response to Brian Y (Dec 20, 2005, 11:40 AM), I am able to see the sub-dermal lesions clearly with the naked eye, under blacklight. I need no other equipment or devices to see the lesions. It is somewhat akin to having your hand stamped with a special ink (as is sometimes done to gain re-entry to certain amusement parks, tourist attractions, nightclubs, etc.) and the image is visible when the hand is placed under a blacklight.

 

The lesions in question are often acne (before erupting through the skin), infected sebaceous glands, infected plugs of the pilo-sebaceous unit (i.e. where the root of the hair (bulb) and the sweat glands lay), occasionally pre-cancerous cells (especially melanoma), certain worms (including ringworm, as Stephen H (Dec 19, 2005, 11:34 PM) correctly notes), and certain cosmetic tattoo inks. Why some melanomas shine under blacklight and most do not, I cannot say -- but, that's what I have experienced. (Some dermatologists believe it may have to do with certain genetic sub-types of the melanoma, but the jury is still out -- and that discussion is best left for a different forum).

 

Obviously, my concerns are to visualize the sub-dermal landscape as accurately as possible to treat a lesion, waiting to erupt, as early as I can.

 

Although it is true that for most people under normal circumstances, blacklight should not dramatically irritate the skin, many of my patients are prescribed medications which make them extraordinarily photosensitive, especially to UV light. (In fact, a very effective way of treating acne vulgaris (a severe form of acne) is by applying a photosensitizing cream (ALA) and exposing the patient to certain pure wavelenths of phototherapy (660nm). However, special precautions, including a very high sunblock (SPF > 50) must be used for a few days after such treatment and the patient is advised to avoid light exposure as much as possible -- UVA and UVB will cause severe burning of the skin). Shining a blacklight on such patients is often quite irritating to their skin. Some antibiotics are also very photosensitizing. Hence, my dilemma.

 

I look forward to everyone's continued input. Thank you, again.

While reflected UV photography seems to have some diagnostic relevance to

dermatology, it doesn't seem relevant to Seans needs which involves, by definition,

visible light since he can see it (assuming Sean is not extra sensitive to UV due to

cataract surgery...!). This is good as it potentially saves you alot of money.

Presumably what you are observing usually involves fluorescence like

that of ringworm (a fungus not a worm).

 

Regarding your patients, you as the physician are ultimately responsible for some

thing you do that might harm them and asking a bunch of photographers who can't

decide whether you are talking about fluorescence vs UV photography might not get

you the answers you want! What criteria do your colleagues use in making such

decisions?

 

That said if you are only using the Woods lamp for localization of lesions you might

not need a photographic record in all patients. You could screen out any patients

who you think are at most risk for reactions for example and mark the lesions

location on the skin when determined visually with the Woods lamp with a surgical

marker if needed. Do you really need a photographic record of each patient or are

you using the Woods lamp to screen patients for further tests etc?

I am sorry to have ventured in to something that clearly is not what I thought concerned ultraviolet region of light.

 

From what I understand now, this thread has a misleading title (Ultraviolet Photography) while it excludes anything to do with Ultraviolet radiation (except patients after certain treatment- see below- would be sensitive to UV).

 

As unclear or irrelevent as Stephen' post was (about IR filters), I think he was nothing but prophetic in this case!

 

If 660nm radiation (as the excitation source!) is considered as UV by someone, what Stephen said is correct. One needs IR filters to record IR fluorescence!

 

Here is an article on 5-Aminoleuvinic acid (5-ALA with spectra data) and its use in photodynamic therapy.

 

www.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/research/borl/pdf/2000Scott.pdf

 

If cataract removal would enhance my UV vision, I want cataracts now :)