>>3028549I don't have a website. That's something I'm working on. Been some snapshit producing loser since I was 14, and now, more than 10 years later, I still have nowhere to show my work. Figured it's not worth it unless I'm producing something marvelous.This might be the time to do it. For once I'm doing something apparently untreaded in the modern day (UV LF).
I have a very vague memory of looking at the UV/IR photography forum, and seeing folks talking shit about wood's glass. unfortunately that was months ago and I can't recall what the reasoning was. A quick google (
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.komar.org%2Ffaq%2Fcolorado-cataract-surgery-crystalens%2Fultra-violet-color-glow%2FWoods-Glass-Spectrum-Transmission.jpg&f=1) shows me why. It transmits a slightly problematic amount of visible light, and only peaks in the very high UV-A.
If you've been avoiding blowing cash on it, you should go on Alibaba and get some Chinese U330 or something similar for mad cheap prices. I was thinking of that a little while ago and then gave up for the 403 because I'm a lazy retard.
I looked around and can't find any transmission graphs or data for the Domiplan. Are you like me, feeling around in the dark with a lens that has been confirmed or suspected but not thoroughly tested? A cursory search shows that people know it transmits at least some UV. I can't find any major work with it, though. Can you post some examples?
Your stop information is very helpful! This is something I really wanted to know going in, so I could avoid wasting film, regardless of how cheap X-ray is. It does occur to me, though, that since we are using different lenses, I may require more or less overexposure. Good to have a ballpark anyways.
Film sensitivity is something I hadn't really thought of yet. I suppose I'll probably start with more sensitive stuff then. When I get at it with the Nikon FE2, I'll use some Delta 3200. I don't think it comes in 4x5.
