Now, this seriously has me beaten, suggestions as to what is happening here please?

Diapositivo · Aug 28, 2012

Steve Smith said:
Is shutter bounce a known reality or is it just a bit of mythology?

I can't really see how a leaf shutter could open again before closing.

Steve.

Imagine two cars going at very high speed against each other frontally. When they crash, at least one of those will bounce backward. A physician, which I am not, could maybe say that they bounce when the kinetic energy they have is superior to the one which can be absorbed by the deformation of the other car.

In the case of the shutter it could be a bit like a window which is banged by an air current against the frame. Although the energy is impressed only in one direction, toward the frame, the window will "bounce" on the frame.

Now imagine a spring impressing a motion on the window. The window will reach a certain speed, bang on the frame, and if the spring (in extended position) is not strong enough, the window will bounce back, immediately after the spring will push it again against the frame.

Another example would be a marble ball "bouncing" over a marble floor although marble is not elastic.

JBrunner · Aug 28, 2012

Note to self- Photograph trains while stopped.

ic-racer · Aug 28, 2012

Shutter bounce. The 'nose' under the numbers shows a faint double image also, demonstrating that it is not only the number plate showing the effect. It is true that the number plate was not present on the locomotive in 2003, but I suspect it would have fallen off by now if not bolted down tight

Here is an example of shutter bounce. You can see how this second shutter opening would make the second faint image of the numbers:

Read more about it here Dead Link Removed

Paul Goutiere · Aug 28, 2012

Steve Smith said:
Is shutter bounce a known reality or is it just a bit of mythology?

I can't really see how a leaf shutter could open again before closing.

Steve.

I don't see how either. A focal plane shutter yes, but I've never heard of a leaf shutter with this problem.

Someone enlighten me.

johnielvis · Sep 3, 2012

Something's moving and it ain't the train--it's the film. I've had this happen to me doing multiple pops of flash...film will move when it adjusts to the atmosphere--particularly when the atmosphere changes rapidly like when pulling a darkslide--larger film can pop and bubble in some places and be constrained in others from the back of the film holder.

so you do have something very light (the film) with a comparatively large force acting on it--thermal stress...or suddenly unbalanced gravity forces---all of these must reach equilibrium before the film stops moving--sometimes the film shifts and pops in certain places very quickly--you opened the shutter while the film was in mid pop---this happens ALL THE TIME when enlarging negatives. The bigger the film, the bigger the forces and the longer it takes for film to settle. You'll see this a lot more often with bigger formats--it's almost nonexistent with 4x5 and impossible with pressure plate roll films.

so you had exposure beginning--film in unstable position and not moving but unstable....exposure progresses part way and film suddenly pops (thermal stress? pressures front and back suddenly becoming balanced? nudge from shutter vibration?--whatever) film moves quickly and again becomes still in another position for the remainder of the exposure. If the train were moving you would not have a clear double image like that and it would be smear image all over for everything on the train...it would look like a classic shutter speed being too slow to freeze the action.

double image indicates exposure in one position--negligibly quick motion to another position, and then exposure in a second position.

Ed Bray · Sep 3, 2012

johnielvis said:
Something's moving and it ain't the train--it's the film. I've had this happen to me doing multiple pops of flash...film will move when it adjusts to the atmosphere--particularly when the atmosphere changes rapidly like when pulling a darkslide--larger film can pop and bubble in some places and be constrained in others from the back of the film holder.

so you do have something very light (the film) with a comparatively large force acting on it--thermal stress...or suddenly unbalanced gravity forces---all of these must reach equilibrium before the film stops moving--sometimes the film shifts and pops in certain places very quickly--you opened the shutter while the film was in mid pop---this happens ALL THE TIME when enlarging negatives. The bigger the film, the bigger the forces and the longer it takes for film to settle. You'll see this a lot more often with bigger formats--it's almost nonexistent with 4x5 and impossible with pressure plate roll films.

so you had exposure beginning--film in unstable position and not moving but unstable....exposure progresses part way and film suddenly pops (thermal stress? pressures front and back suddenly becoming balanced? nudge from shutter vibration?--whatever) film moves quickly and again becomes still in another position for the remainder of the exposure. If the train were moving you would not have a clear double image like that and it would be smear image all over for everything on the train...it would look like a classic shutter speed being too slow to freeze the action.

double image indicates exposure in one position--negligibly quick motion to another position, and then exposure in a second position.

Thanks for the reply but that is the one thing I know didn't happen as once I had set the camera up where I wanted it and focused I had inserted the film holder and then removed the darkslide and waited for the next train to arrive which was some 30 minutes later. During this time and also during the exposure my blackjacket was draped over the camera with the shiny side up to reflect any sun that might fall on it, not that there was much around that day.

johnielvis · Sep 3, 2012

I disagree--it's the only thing that explains the double image in certain places and no in-between blur. just because the film was sitting in one place under the same conditions does not mean it wasn't done settling and ready to pop or buckle in a place. I'm totally convinced that's what happened--the evidence points to it.

you know--there's NO way you could guarantee that the film didn't move--just because you took some precautions doesn't mean that it didn't happen. You really can't know the film didn't move unless you were looking at the film, you know--even then such a slight movement would not be noticeable unless it was somehow recorded to be observed by a magnifying device--and it was and there you have it.

It's happened to me after taking precautions to prevent film movement too. there's built up stresses in films and sometimes the film is stable like a marble sitting at the bottom of the bowl and sometimes the film is stable like a marble balanced on top of a thimble....it's a crapshoot how the film lands. Every blur caused by a constant velocity subject is a smear--not a double image--a double image blur happens from exposure, very quick movement, then another exposure--I'm convinced that the only thing that could have moved that quickly is the film popping.

however you claim to know that the film didn't move during the exposure.

Whatever happened, the evidence is IN the picture...send it to ncis crime busters!

Diapositivo · Sep 4, 2012

The train vibration might have caused the film to change "state". The "film pop" explanation seems valid to me.

zsas · Sep 4, 2012

jeffreyg said:
Was the number that was painted on the plate repainted but not in the same registration?

I am late to the party, but I believe the below picture that I found on Flickr dispels the repainted off registration theory...however the photo below was taken 9/17/11, possible, but seems implausible to me:

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6214/6234482358_da2c616d48_z.jpg

Now, this seriously has me beaten, suggestions as to what is happening here please?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency