08-15-2015, 12:58 PM
That is the wrong test. Our eyes are useless at determining spectrum which is what matters here. The best test would be to take the same photo with and without a known effective UV/IR block filter. My argument is that you wouldn't see a difference, whereas if you are right, you would.
Alternatively you could try using a "clean" light source so there is no UV or IR to detect. Apart from direct sunlight, I don't think there are any significant sources of UV in normal lighting. So using artificial lighting for example as a substitute may eliminate that, but there may still be an IR component depending on the light source. Ever tried IR photography? For practical purposes, of lighting you're likely to encounter in a domestic environment, only incandescent bulbs really put out much photographic IR. Fluorescent and LEDs are pretty clean there.
Alternatively you could try using a "clean" light source so there is no UV or IR to detect. Apart from direct sunlight, I don't think there are any significant sources of UV in normal lighting. So using artificial lighting for example as a substitute may eliminate that, but there may still be an IR component depending on the light source. Ever tried IR photography? For practical purposes, of lighting you're likely to encounter in a domestic environment, only incandescent bulbs really put out much photographic IR. Fluorescent and LEDs are pretty clean there.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.