>>3691633I've been all over that forum. The problem is that removing the filter will expose people to dangerous wavelengths (sub-300nm). Really, anything in the UV with enough wattage isn't great. That's why I wear goggles, use LEDs (which are great in that they naturally have a narrow range of emittance) that emit only a smidge below the visible range, cycle through models frequently, and only have them open their eyes for the exposure.
If I was photographing flowers and wearing safety goggles, running something that's generating light below 300nm wouldn't be the worst. That is what all those old farts on the ultravioletphotography forum do, like the accursed Dr. Klaus Schmidt, boomer hoarder of interesting lenses.
>>3691734Yes, this generates harsh shadows which sometimes obscure detail. I developed some photos last night and will include a preview pic I took to demonstrate.
As for this strobe that can use a UV filter, after taking a second look at it, it's probably very unlikely that it is generating very much UV at all. It wouldn't pass the regulatory safety inspections if it was blasting people with a lot of UV. It's also not cost-effective for me in the least. For the same price I could buy Western-made LEDs and build and array that would generate the extra couple stops I'd need to be able to diffuse it with more conventional means (a softbox setup).
