Glow in the Dark

[grungyartist]

http://www.spankwire.com/articles/11803 ... Tease.html

I am surprised to have never seen anything like this out there before.

[Lizzie_Claymore]

That does seem to be a genuinely new idea (which is pretty rare these days after a number of years of internet delights!).

However, I'd want to know a lot more about the chemicals involved! Even if it's just fluorescent die in methycellulose, that might in itself be somewhat hazardous and there would be exposure to UV to make it glow. (The case of the girl last week who got 80% burns after just 16 minutes on a sunbed does highlight how careful one must be with such things.) If it was the chemical reacting version of luminescence then there's no way I'd want that near my skin - that's nasty stuff. (I think it was the former, actually.)

Having said all that, it is a really fantastic image!

[BillShipton]

Rob Blaine did a shoot using fluorescent paint in the Cyberspace video shot with UV light about 10 years ago, so not THAT new....

[splosherrob]

The UV light used in theatrical lighting like this is a different frequency to that used in sunbeds - much closer to the visual spectrum and lower-penetrating, so no risk to the skin. The fluorescent dye would be the same stuff used in fluorescent bodypaint which I believe is, as you say, harmless methylcellulose. Great scene, shame about the blurring!

[trollsb]

Inspired I found a fluro powder supplier near where i live, they make a few colours. now to get my blacklight back from my brother....

[Lizzie_Claymore]

Rob Blaine did a shoot using fluorescent paint in the Cyberspace video shot with UV light about 10 years ago, so not THAT new....

Ah - didn't know about that one ... so is is true that there's really nothing new under the sun!

The UV light used in theatrical lighting like this is a different frequency to that used in sunbeds - much closer to the visual spectrum and lower-penetrating, so no risk to the skin.

Not strictly true, I'm afraid. The tubes are actually the same - the difference is that those used for 'blacklight' purposes merely have a filter that reduces visible light output applied to the outside but it still allows the UV through. (You may have noticed that you can see pinpricks of light where the coating gets scratched.) They both run at either 350nm (lead-doped barium silicate) or 370nm (europium-doped strontium fluoroborate), each being used in both the tanning and 'club light' environments, so you do need to show them some respect, dependent on distance and power output, of course. Also, it's not just the effect on the skin - the eye can be damaged if facing it without protective goggles, again depending on the exposure levels. Although UV-A (315-400nm) is the least likely to produce this sort of problem, it is the most likely waveband to produce cataracts.

I would guess that it should be ok so long as you take the same precautions you would if exposed to other UV power sources. The most obvious is to ensure that the visible background light is low, ensuring that you don't need high power levels for the UV light, thus minimising the risk.

Incidentally, there is new legislation coming in from next April (in the UK, this is) over controlling exposure to such emissions as there continue to be numerous injuries created by it.

[Chris_is_Here]

I would think that it could be done with normal slime then digitally altered afterward. I know that's not 100% authentic but it's a cool idea

[sauceman]

well I've always loved that clip, forgot about it so good to see it. Not sure how long old it is but it always comes around from time to time.
Thanks