For the second test, I managed to get a Winter Jasmine as the test subject. This was a more controlled test shoot, with my camera and the flash mounted on two different tripods (sorry but I did not take a photo of the setup). I basically tested the output of the AD200 vs the Quantum T5DR. Settings of the camera remained the same for both.
First is the image taken with the Baader U + AD200 at full power. Again the images except the last are unprocessed except to convert RAW to JPEG.
The image shot with the Quantum T5DR appears to be slightly more yellow than the one shot with the AD200. But the output is fairly similar.
Next are the images shot with the 330AF20 filter. This is where I noticed that the AD200 image was slightly brighter than that of the Quantum T5DR – although in the images below it does not seem to show up very well. But it is clear that both flash do produce a good amount of lower UV, and are at least comparable. Again I used a larger aperture for these images.
Below is the TTL image shot with the AD200 and the Baader U – unprocessed. Again it appears dark but as you can see in the processed image, it can be made to look much better.
Processed image below of the TTL shot.
In conclusion, it does look like the AD200 flash is suitable for UV-imaging, albeit with a slightly different output spectrum compared to the Quantum T5DR. But it does appear to emit a good amount of lower UV. I am now able to do TTL UV-imaging, which I have always wanted to do, with the hope of minimising the UV hot-spots that some flowers with higher UV-reflectance exhibit.
Back to Page 1