posted
That is a really hard trick to pull off. I use a lot of fluorescent paint and getting some decent pictures can be tough. The easy answer is that I've had the best luck with digital cameras. Although I can't explain why they work so much better, they just do. It shows up great on video too. But 35mm film cameras take a lot of work. The best result I have managed on film so far was done in a relatively dark room with UV lights (blacklight)hung above the work, but out of the frame. I used 400 speed film and 1000 speed. 400 seemed to work best. I tried different manual shutter speeds leaving the shutter open for 3 or 4 seconds at a time on a tripod. They came out OK, but the digital camera had much better results. The key is to light it up as much as possible with UV lights and never use a flash. I borrowed a friends Sony Mavica digital camera once and it gave me the best results of all by far. I plan to get on of those myself. I guess you get what you pay for because those things are 1000 bucks. I won't be getting one tomorrow though.
posted
JT, I'm just guessing here, but I think digital camera does a better job because it sees color much like we do. Film-based cameras have a smaller color gamut.
I'm hoping to get a Kodak 3.1 megapixel camera next week. It would make for a very interesting experiment.
posted
I was gonna say I've photographed fluorescents with a digital camera in broad daylight with excellent results, then again the sunlight here in AZ is much brighter than most places.. you'd be insane to walk outside without a pair of sunglasses!
I'll try to dig out the pics I took but Im not sure where they are.. At one point I had fluorescents in my truck signage.. it really stood out.
-------------------- "If I share all my wisdom I won't have any left for myself."
Mike Pipes stickerpimp.com Lake Havasu, AZ mike@stickerpimp.com Posts: 8746 | From: Lake Havasu, AZ USA | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good point, Glenn. I bet that has something to do with it. I'm interested in hearing how an experament like that would turn out for someone else. I've tried almost everything. Before you get the camera, check out the Sony. The coolest thing about it is that it uses a CD-RW for "film" and holds 750mgs. You just pop it right in your computer tray. It also takes mpegs. I gotta have one.
posted
Thanx for the replys my photography is fairly decent but I was not getting the results I wanted. I was thinking the same thing about the digital camera I'll try to get someone to post the pictures for me when I get done with the race car I don't do many stock cars but I would like to see what others charge for these they are alot of fun to do but ya can't make a living having fun.Or can ya?
-------------------- Scott Moyer Canadensis, Pennsylvania 570-595-0310 Posts: 111 | From: Canadensis PA. USA | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanx for the replys my photography is fairly decent but I was not getting the results I wanted. I was thinking the same thing about the digital camera I'll try to get someone to post the pictures for me when I get done with the race car I don't do many stock cars but I would like to see what others charge for these they are alot of fun to do but ya can't make a living having fun.Or can ya?
-------------------- Scott Moyer Canadensis, Pennsylvania 570-595-0310 Posts: 111 | From: Canadensis PA. USA | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the digital theory is correct...I've noticed a more true to how I see itcolor with my digital camera than previously with film. . And for actual flouresant colors in prints, as far as I know, flouresant pigments, are not in use in film developing.
Since they are a natural pigment they have a high rate of fading, they would not do well for prints of camera film.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic