Have u ever use tanning lamps for photos?

[Sylwia]

Have u ever use tanning lamps for photos?
I have a canon rebel and I would like to do some shoots in tanning salon with the lamps do anybody know how my camera will react to it?
I tried to do some research on that subject but could not find any info.
Please let me know yours experience. Thanks.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Jim G]

Try doing a custom white balance or shoot in RAW and adjust the white balance after the fact... I'm not aware of any particular characteristic of tanning lamps which would affect anything else..

[Sylwia]

So, the final results will be the same as for the regular light?
Should I use any filters?
Does anybody know any links or photos as references?

Thanks

[DocFrankenstein]

Do you want to have the same results as for regular light?

I'd imagine you'll get IR "contamination" and lots of color shifts. Also UV glare, depending on the lens you're using.

[Sylwia]

results let start by regular ones.
get IR "contamination" what do u mean by that?
UV glare what is that?
is any filter will help?

[redbutt]

results let start by regular ones.
get IR "contamination" what do u mean by that?
UV glare what is that?
is any filter will help?

The lights in a tanning salon are at a specific wavelength in the UV spectrum to essentially "Bake" your skin. UV light can cause a glare or fog in pictures. UV filters are available to help with that...there's tons of them out there...just go to your favorite photo supply dealer. I'm a bit confused by the IR contamination comment too. As far as I'm aware the tanning lights are not using the IR spectrum, so that shouldn't be an issue...but I may be missing something. I'd be interested to see the results.

[LisaLA]

Hi
I recently saw an image of Kiera Knightly published in the Guardian Newspaper (UK newspaper )using UV - the result was stunning. Have a go!

[DocFrankenstein]

I'm a bit confused by the IR contamination comment too. As far as I'm aware the tanning lights are not using the IR spectrum, so that shouldn't be an issue...but I may be missing something. I'd be interested to see the results.
I've never concerend myself with tanning lamps and I have no facts.

But it's the IR that causes the tanning of the skin. No UV light - no tan. In tanning salons they just control how much UV you get so that you don't burn.

So you have a light source which consists of probably 90% UV and 10% visible spectrum.

[Curtis N]

But it's the IR that causes the tanning of the skin. No UV light - no tan."IR" is a common abbreviation for infra-red. Infra-red light rays have a longer wavelength than the visible spectrum. "UV" is a common abbreviation for ultra-violet. Ultra-violet light rays have a shorter wavelength than the visible spectrum. Since IR and UV are completely different, your comment confuses me.

I'm no expert on tanning lights, but my understanding is that they are a specialized type of fluorescent tube. Photography under such lights will be subject to the limitations of fluorescent lighting. Shutter speed will be important (see this thread). (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=100091)

I think a custom white balance might be a good idea, but I would also suggest shooting RAW to make it easier to adjust the white balance in post.

[DocFrankenstein]

"IR" is a common abbreviation for infra-red. Infra-red light rays have a longer wavelength than the visible spectrum. "UV" is a common abbreviation for ultra-violet. Ultra-violet light rays have a shorter wavelength than the visible spectrum. Since IR and UV are completely different, your comment confuses me.
So sorry. Typo :confused:

I just kept typing IR for some reason. I meant UV all along.

[MiG82]

Normal incandescent lights will put out more IR than UV lights. I don't think IR would be a problem in this case.

[Rob612]

I've never concerend myself with tanning lamps and I have no facts.

But it's the IR that causes the tanning of the skin. No UV light - no tan. In tanning salons they just control how much UV you get so that you don't burn.

So you have a light source which consists of probably 90% UV and 10% visible spectrum.

I may be wrong but I always knew the opposite. IR burns your skin, while UV tans.

Anybody has a more precise information ?

[DocFrankenstein]

I may be wrong but I always knew the opposite. IR burns your skin, while UV tans.

Anybody has a more precise information ?
IR does nothing. UV burns and/or tans depending on the amounts.

[lostdoggy]

Isn't IR use for heat lamps like the ones use over french (freedom) fries???

[MiG82]

A high power of any radiation that you absorb will burn you. That's what IR does. It's very easy to generate powerful rays of IR, just use plain incandescent lights.
However UV has the additional property of being ionising radiation. It screws up molecules without having to heat them. That is how you get "burnt". It's quite different to the mere heating that you get from IR and other wavelengths of radiation longer than UV (TV, radio, microwave, light). UV, X-rays and gamma rays are bad mmmkay?

[Double Negative]

IR feels hot NOW. UV will feel hot later. ;)