He he, I'm referring to a translation into norskie, which is some kind of redneck rebel spoken backasswardedly.....
the picture data : 1/1000 sec @ f:22 which I think is a damn lie, no bullet would be caught mid-air at 1/1000th, only an electronic flash would do that, and it would be nearly pointless to use such a short speed in conjuction with a flash, impossible if it was a Leica or an Exacta, since flash synced around 1/20th back in those days.... its an impressive picture nontheless.
All this in norwegian, but I have HW's book on color photo in german language though...
Was Edgerton's name in there somwhere? I think that was about when he began using strobes....
And 1/1000th for being the STROBE speed: The bullet is stopped in mid-air. I have a pistol like that. The bullet moves at at least 900 feet per second. At 1/1000th would move close to a foot (0,9 feet) and be virtually invisible.
Even at 1/10000th it would be 3 times longer than it is here. Amazing aint it?
Sure it does! If it was a Leica (Hans Windisch's favorite camera) or a Exakta as I wrote, you SHOULD know they both hafe foical plane shutters, ever tried to sync an old FP shutter at 1/1000th?
)
And 1/1000th for being the STROBE speed: The bullet is stopped in mid-air. I have a pistol like that. The bullet moves at at least 900 feet per second. At 1/1000th would move close to a foot (0,9 feet) and be virtually invisible.
Even at 1/10000th it would be 3 times longer than it is here. Amazing aint it?
Wouldn't the hat/hand combination constitute a "shutter type"?
Even so,
The flash has to fire during a specified time window during the sutter action or faults appear.
Yes, I was thinking 1/1000 sounded rather long.
If your math is correct, at 900 fps, what do you calculate the maximum flash duration could have been, to get the image you see/saw?
One third of 1/10,000?
---
BTW?
How do you say "Silver halide emulsion" in Norwegian? ?
They are cool images for sure.
No, it does not.
A fast flash in a dim room will determine the exposure duration. You could use a hat and not have a shutter at all and do this.
Only with a central shutter, NEVER with a focal plane shutter, where the whole point is a partial covering of the neagtive at fast speeds, this is the very nature of shutters like that.
[...]
You might as well give up, because you fail to acknowledge what I described as a probable scenario IF mr. windis did shoot that picture, a camera with a FOCAL PLANE SHUTTER, the rest is just the usual net chatter.
If it was a FP shutter, it would partially covewr most of the negative while a slit slowly passed beore the film (at 1/1000th of a second) the travel time would still be 1/20th of a second, this means the travel time is 50 times longer than the effective exposure, in other words only about 1/50th of the frame length is exposed at any time, and that means only 1/50 of 36 millimeter negative length will "see" the electronic flash.
You most definitely will need some type of apparatus that leaves a totally exposed film frame to make a picture like that.
Boy, has this one strayed a bit or what?
Sure thing somebody is debating an unseen picture!
Acetic acid can of course be used to stop anything mechanical dead in its tracks!
But it is not universally advocated by the suppliers, some say you can use it, or not, its up to you!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?