Ultraviolet Portrait

WOW. Radically different from the IR shot. I can see why nobody does UV portraits.

Yep, I think you have to be an infant to look good in UV! Skin defects show up as big blotches in UV, hence the diagnostic use in dermatology. Deeper UV might be interesting, though; I think one could get caucasian skin to go completely black if the filter cutoff is low enough.

I think it's really cracking. It looks like he's got a deep tan. If I'd not seen the IR picture this is what I'd have assumed. I prefer this to the IR shot.

Very interesting difference, as Scott says, "Wow".

I have some of this film which I acquired some years back, I might give it a bash with my G Claron 150. As a matter of interest having used G Clarons and Rodenstock equivilants over some years in the graphic arts area, they seem to work best stopped down about 1 1/2 stops, although the differences were/are quite minor. All I need now is a filter that fits.

Mick.

i like the effect a lot - it almost looks like the way wet plate type pics render skin.

Thanks for the comments. Leon, I see what you mean about the wet plate aesthetic, that was my thought when I did this test shot. (apologies for the motion blur in the face, she was a reluctant subject when I told her that her makeup would look blotchy in UV!)

I suppose the spectral sensitivity and exposures are similar to wet plate. Next I will do shorter exposures and just push the film a few stops, there's no grain to speak of anyway.

Incidentally type 55 might actually be a bit better than ortho + for this purpose, at a glance, the sensitivity looks like it might go a bit further into the UV. I need to do some deeper UV shots to sort that out.

Another curiosity, when I do these things with type 55, the usual ISO 80/20 pos/neg exposure rule doesn't seem correct anymore, it seems more even.

Sensitivity curves...

http://www.silverprint.co.uk/PDF/ortho_plus_web.pdf
http://www.polaroid.com/service/filmdatasheets/4_5/55fds.pdf