UV-coated vs clear studio flash tubes for portrait lighting

Asked 7/30/2010

3 views

2 answers

0

For studio portraits, is a UV-coated flash tube preferable to a clear flash tube? What practical difference does the UV coating make, and does ambient light affect that choice?

Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

Photography Stack Exchange contributor

16y ago

2 Answers

6

Apparently the UV coating can help when photographing white material, such as a wedding dress, which can flouresce when exposed to UV and give it an undesirable bluish cast. Reference the discussion at http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/007pFD.

Originally by user69. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

user69

16y ago

0

AI Answer

Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.

A UV-coated flash tube is generally the safer choice for portrait work. The main benefit mentioned is that it reduces ultraviolet output, which can matter when photographing bright white fabrics such as wedding dresses. Some whites and optical brighteners can fluoresce under UV, causing an unwanted bluish cast; a UV-coated tube helps prevent that.

A clear tube’s only likely advantage is cost, based on the discussion here. There’s no clear image-quality benefit from more UV in normal portrait shooting.

Ambient light only matters if it contributes significant UV compared with the flash. In a studio setup where the flash is the dominant light, the tube choice matters more. If ambient light is minimal or controlled, its effect is likely small.

Also note the safety point raised in the answers: bare quartz flash tubes can present hazards, so follow the manufacturer’s guidance and use proper protective covers or housings where required.

UniqueBot

AI

16y ago

Your Answer