Average shutter speed: One of my key interests that drew me to photography is time. It is the essence of much of my work. The time a shutter is often so infinitesimally small that it...

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

One of my key interests that drew me to photography is time. It is the essence of much of my work. The time a shutter is often so infinitesimally small that it boggles the mind when thinking about much light and time is actually recorded.

I'm curious what is the common length/ duration of photographs for most people.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

It is the same per camera...

The shutter speed is constant. What is not is the delay before the first opens and second shutter closes. A sliver of light then travels the sensor. This is why sync is relatively low to 1/250s in most cameras. This explains the use of front/rear flash trigger as it changes the stop motion.

Note that lens that have a lens shutter sync at all speeds and so far have a maximal of 1/2000s (and sync at all speeds).

If you are seeking an average when shooting... IT DEPENDS.

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

It varies from shot to shot. Taking shots of sports, use a fast shutter speed. Take a shot of a waterfall to look silky smooth, a slow speed. Don't think there's a common speed that most people use.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

Rongnongno wrote:

It is the same per camera...

The shutter speed is constant. What is not is the delay before the first opens and second shutter closes. A sliver of light then travels the sensor. This is why sync is relatively low to 1/250s in most cameras.

Note that lens that have a lens shutter sync at all speeds and so far have a maximal of 1/2000s

That is not the question. The question has nothing to do with cameras. It has to do with the shutter speed chosen by the user.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Darkroom317 wrote:

One of my key interests that drew me to photography is time. It is the essence of much of my work. The time a shutter is often so infinitesimally small that it boggles the mind when thinking about much light and time is actually recorded.

I'm curious what is the common length/ duration of photographs for most people.

It really depends on what I am shooting and the lens that I am using, it is really hard to understand the purpose of your question. There are so many reasons including creative reasons to use both slow and fast shutter speeds.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

Also, I am not looking for help, rather this is a philosophical/ conceptual question.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Darkroom317 wrote:

Also, I am not looking for help, rather this is a philosophical/ conceptual question.

Perhaps if you considered values for each of mean, mode and median you would get more useful information, you are asking an interesting question, but I doubt that most people have the data readily available unless something like Lightroom can spit it out, and for those with a dominant style of photography it would be good to know that as well.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Darkroom317 wrote:

One of my key interests that drew me to photography is time. It is the essence of much of my work. The time a shutter is often so infinitesimally small that it boggles the mind when thinking about much light and time is actually recorded.

I'm curious what is the common length/ duration of photographs for most people.

It depends on how I want to show or freeze motion in my photographs, lighting conditions, and lens choice permitting .
For general photography no unwanted camera or subject motion (travel - family etc) around 1/125 second or even shorter..
For motor car racing I want to show blurred wheels at the bare minimum, otherwise you may just be shooting parked cars.
For panning shots at motor sport events someting around 1/125 second is a good start.
For birds in flight usually very short shutter speeds - say 1/1000 second.
For blurred water in 'scapes at least 1/2 second to seconds.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

Peterff wrote:

Perhaps if you considered values for each of mean, mode and median you would get more useful information, you are asking an interesting question, but I doubt that most people have the data readily available unless something like Lightroom can spit it out, and for those with a dominant style of photography it would be good to know that as well.

No need for absolute data, though it would be interesting.

In my work involving time I have begun to consider my photographs as a slice of time rather than an object.

For instance, if I were to print and display 125 photographs on a wall that were shot at 1/125 of a second, the entire wall would portray only 1 second of time.

This line of thinking was primarily influenced by Hiroshi Sugimoto's Theaters and Andy Warhol's Screen Tests.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Darkroom317 wrote:

One of my key interests that drew me to photography is time. It is the essence of much of my work. The time a shutter is often so infinitesimally small that it boggles the mind when thinking about much light and time is actually recorded.

I'm curious what is the common length/ duration of photographs for most people.

No such thing, it all depends on the lens, lighting and subject (still, moving/speed)

1. To maximize sharpness most take the length of the lens and make it a fraction so a 100 mm, use 1/100 as a minimum (good stabilization in the lens or body can allow slower, sometimes.
2. Better light you can use faster SS or a smaller aperture or a combo of both.
3. A still life, a sitting portrait, landscape (unless wind is tossing trees etc), stationary subject can be done with slower SS. But moving subjects require higher SS, races/sports action, moving cars or planes, BIF (if it is a hummingbird/bee then speed must be even higher to get anything but a blur for wings-1/1000 min, 1/2000 or higher if you want the wing motion stopped).

A tripod, monopod, good brace or panning with a moving subject can also change your SS. And don't forget ISO and rather or not your camera body can handle high ISO.

So, it depends on your gear, your technique, circumstances and subject. Modified by how you want the subject to look-sharp-blurred etc.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Darkroom317 wrote:

I'm curious what is the common length/ duration of photographs for most people.

1/200th, since a lot of the landscapes and exterior shots I do are based on Basic Daylight Exposure.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Darkroom317 wrote:

One of my key interests that drew me to photography is time. It is the essence of much of my work. The time a shutter is often so infinitesimally small that it boggles the mind when thinking about much light and time is actually recorded.

I'm curious what is the common length/ duration of photographs for most people.

Rephase your question using ISO and you will somewhat get a better answer albeit from a different angle.

A low ISO means lower speed and greater aperture and fast ISO the reverse. (note that you a have monkey wrench in the middle of that if one exploits an invariant sensor capabilities).

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

quote=Darkroom317]No need for absolute data, though it would be interesting.

In my work involving time I have begun to consider my photographs as a slice of time rather than an object.

For instance, if I were to print and display 125 photographs on a wall that were shot at 1/125 of a second, the entire wall would portray only 1 second of time.

I disagree, it may be 1 second total time but it is still 125 slices of reality each 1/125 second long. Even if all the photos were of the same subject done in a burst. The time represented would be 125 divided by the burst rate = total time in seconds. So say a Canon 7DII @ 10 fps it would take 12.5 seconds to do the 125 photos. The 1 second of total time in the shots would be separated by gaps totaling 11.5 seconds

This line of thinking was primarily influenced by Hiroshi Sugimoto's Theaters and Andy Warhol's Screen Tests.[/quote

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

Darkroom317 wrote:

Also, I am not looking for help, rather this is a philosophical/ conceptual question.

I'm trying to understand how does a photographer get philosophical about a photograph which is a slice of time? The slice of time varies with each shot if you want it to look good. Interesting question though.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

robertjerl wrote:

I disagree, it may be 1 second total time but it is still 125 slices of reality each 1/125 second long. Even if all the photos were of the same subject done in a burst. The time represented would be 125 divided by the burst rate = total time in seconds. So say a Canon 7DII @ 10 fps it would take 12.5 seconds to do the 125 photos. The 1 second of total time in the shots would be separated by gaps totaling 11.5 seconds

Total/ absolute time is the interest. Again it is a conceptual matter. It has nothing to do with a continuous burst nor a specific camera.