Average shutter speed
Dec 27, 2017 20:08:42 #
Darkroom317 wrote:
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.
Now you know Rondumbdumb don’t care what the stinkin’ question is. He dances to his own drummer.
Dec 27, 2017 20:09:40 #
I don't know about my average. I use shutter speed from 1/1000 to 10 sec. I don't use shutter speed above 1/1000 and I can't recall when I used shutter speed longer than 10 sec. I most often use shutter speed of 1/125.
Dec 27, 2017 20:13:15 #
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.
I'm curious what is the common length/ duration of photographs for most people.
Common length? 1/100 sec @ ISO 100 @ f16 (Sunny 16) unless I have a reason to change it.
Dec 27, 2017 20:15:34 #
Darkroom317 wrote:
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.
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.
I understand your question a little better now, thank you. It is interesting. In the way that I understand your question, in terms of time slices, then aperture or ISO aren't really relevant - clearly necessary for an acceptable exposure, but the choice of shutter speed will be influenced by both subject and and lens choice. Is this in line with your thinking?
Dec 27, 2017 20:18:59 #
Peterff wrote:
I understand your question a little better now, thank you. It is interesting. In the way that I understand your question, in terms of time slices, then aperture or ISO aren't really relevant - clearly necessary for an acceptable exposure, but the choice of shutter speed will be influenced by both subject and and lens choice. Is this in line with your thinking?
Yes, aperture and ISO are irrelevant in this case, as is camera model, burst rates etc...
Dec 27, 2017 20:22:20 #
Interesting question, one I never seen before. Just curious and not trying to be funny but....are you trying to build a time machine?
Dec 27, 2017 20:24:10 #
Ched49 wrote:
Interesting question, one I never seen before. Just curious...are you trying to build a time machine?
Thanks,
According to Sugimoto, the photograph a time machine
"Photography is like a found object. A photographer never makes an actual subject; they just steal the image from the world...Photography is a system of saving memories. It's a time machine, in a way, to preserve the memory, to preserve time."
Dec 27, 2017 20:24:38 #
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.
I'm curious what is the common length/ duration of photographs for most people.
A thought provoking comment! Even though we understand the concept of shutter speed the actual formation of an image is a wonder. That it happens so incredibly fast is even more amazing!
Dec 27, 2017 20:28:24 #
Cwilson341 wrote:
A thought provoking comment! Even though we understand the concept of shutter speed the actual formation of an image is a wonder. That it happens so incredibly fast is even more amazing!
Thanks. I have been thinking a lot about this while I working on my grad school/ MFA applications, primarily while re-working my artist statement for this series. It is a major part of the main point of the work.
http://www.kristofferjohnsonfoto.com/work/#/vanished-expressions/
Dec 27, 2017 20:31:26 #
Dec 27, 2017 20:35:02 #
Actually my initial answer is the most correct. Think about it....
The shutter never changes its speed regardless of capture speed used . This is why there are limitations on burst rates. From the moment it triggers to the moment it rests times has been used. Not to understand this is rather weird as every image taken depends on the mechanism, not of the shutter setting. 11fps maximal burst rate by example means an average of 1/18s for the mechanism regardless of being set at above 1/18s. If the speed is lower then all the intervals between capture are changed to +1/09s (guess)...
The 1/4000s allows for infinitesimal motion within the capture so not a true indication of time passed. The next image on the other hand would show the 1/18s lapse between shots.
The end result is that the real CONTINUOUS exposure is the maximal sync time. Usually 1/250s in modern cameras.
But never-mind that, hey?
The shutter never changes its speed regardless of capture speed used . This is why there are limitations on burst rates. From the moment it triggers to the moment it rests times has been used. Not to understand this is rather weird as every image taken depends on the mechanism, not of the shutter setting. 11fps maximal burst rate by example means an average of 1/18s for the mechanism regardless of being set at above 1/18s. If the speed is lower then all the intervals between capture are changed to +1/09s (guess)...
The 1/4000s allows for infinitesimal motion within the capture so not a true indication of time passed. The next image on the other hand would show the 1/18s lapse between shots.
The end result is that the real CONTINUOUS exposure is the maximal sync time. Usually 1/250s in modern cameras.
But never-mind that, hey?
Dec 27, 2017 20:38:13 #
Darkroom317 wrote:
I agree. When I look over old black & white photo's, I always refer to the camera as a time machine. That's why I ask the question. Stealing a slice of time from back in the day...I like the way you think.Thanks,
According to Sugimoto, the photograph a time machine
"Photography is like a found object. A photographer never makes an actual subject; they just steal the image from the world...Photography is a system of saving memories. It's a time machine, in a way, to preserve the memory, to preserve time."
According to Sugimoto, the photograph a time machine
"Photography is like a found object. A photographer never makes an actual subject; they just steal the image from the world...Photography is a system of saving memories. It's a time machine, in a way, to preserve the memory, to preserve time."
Dec 27, 2017 20:38:27 #
Dec 27, 2017 20:41:09 #
Forgot to mention Anton Giulio Bragaglia and Photodynamism which are essential to this discussion
https://www.moma.org/interactives/objectphoto/artists/16790.html
http://391.org/manifestos/1913-futurist-photodynamism-anton-giulio-bragaglia.html
https://www.moma.org/interactives/objectphoto/artists/16790.html
http://391.org/manifestos/1913-futurist-photodynamism-anton-giulio-bragaglia.html
Dec 27, 2017 21:00:27 #
BebuLamar wrote:
Yes but you'll run the risk of blurring the photo.So I think I should make longer exposures so that my photographs represent more time.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.