This sounds like a "Darwin" episode. Remember firecrackers are black powder - an explosive. More fun would be to video the flame from a small amount of smokeless powder - looks like a rocket engine. OUTSIDE !!!
SonyDoug wrote:
Just for fun... I want to get a shot of a firecracker exploding. Actually, it's my grandson who wants to try this.
The setup will be in my basement workshop in the after dark hours. We'll cover the window as much as possible so for practical purposes it'll be totally dark.
The firecracker will be ignited by an electric igniter like used used by the model rocket folks.
Camera will be focused on firecracker, lights turned off, shutter in bulb mode. Assuming there is a flash with small firecrackers we should get an image. BTW: the fire cracker is small enough to not cause damage to camera from a 5 to 10 foot distance.
Any thoughts?? Suggestions... Dangers other than the obvious from playing with fireworks..?
Just for fun... I want to get a shot of a firecra... (
show quote)
I would follow all the safety advice for starters. As far as a trigger, I would try a light dependent trigger. Adjust the sensitivity as needed. Just my thoughts.
Use a mirror, focus thru it to protect your lens and camera. you might be surprised at how intense the light is from a small fire cracker. At one time in my career I worked in the test area for thiokol Corp. our job was to photograph small scale rocket motors that were intentionally blown up. we had to stop down our lens and increase thew shutter speed a lot to get any thing visible. Good luck and have fun.
I suspect the challenges will be similar to shooting water bombs:
balloon 4a by
Mike Kanssen, on Flickr
One of my friends at this shoot had a Olympus shooting at 60fps three consecitive shots all showed very different views.
The rest of us with more pedestrian cameras ended up with lots of near misses.
The action will be very fast, using bulb mode will give a long exposure like composite even if the light only lasts for 1/20s (easiest & possibly quite effective). To freeze the action you'll need your fastest possible shutter speed & lots of tries.
I think it's very unlikely normal camera video will be anywhere near fast enough, you might get some excellent examples of rolling shutter trying.
My son, now deceased, sent me this photo taken in 2005 from Iraq.
sb
Loc: Florida's East Coast
DirtFarmer wrote:
I would think an external activation would be too slow to be effective. You would get a photo of the end of the explosion.
On the other hand, having sound activate a speedlight might give you some pieces flying away from the explosion. Camera on bulb, speedlight triggered by sound and aimed at the center of action. Would probably require several tries.
And I agree with doing this outdoors. Less debris for the wife to clean up. Less smelly fumes to annoy the wife. Sound bouncing off interior walls can be pretty loud. Just find a box to block outside lights and put the firecracker inside that with an open side toward the camera.
I would think an external activation would be too ... (
show quote)
Moving the sound actuator closer and further from the firecracker will give different effects - capturing the explosion at different stages. With and without a speedlight will be interesting. Fifty years ago in college I took a class from Doc Edgerton and this type of setup was common for capturing images with a high-speed flash. We also would set up the flash on one side of the firecracker and a sheet of film opposite - this would capture shadows of the flying debris and the shock waves trailing behind the debris. Likewise with a bullet, a bullet going through an apple, etc. Of course, for those shots we had a bullet trap and he was very strict about when those were done and there was always a grad student supervising when the rifle was used.
I would go outside. Bulb is good and have enough firecrackers so you can adjust the exposure, focus probably. Remote trigger, camera on tripod. Please teach your little one probably handling of fireworks so you both have fun and not burned bodies parts. Sorry but as a mom I had some dumb experience because “guys are so much tougher”
6th grade… Darrell Collier, in exchange for some gopher traps, asked me to concoct for him a science experiment: I made a paper mache’ volcano. I’d previously discovered burning old typewriter ribbon made no flame but lots of smoke and knew baking soda mixed with vinegar quickly produced a pressurized environment. I divided a plastic cube by casting a thin panel of candle wax in which were placed several strands of bare #12 copper wire. The wire strands gathered at the top, in and amongst the tangle of typewriter ribbon and trailed through a stiff stopper wad of paper. My theory was that heat from the burning typewriter ribbon would transfer to the copper wire which would, in a sorta/kinda controlled manner, melt the wax divider separating ‘bout half a pound mixture of baking soda and cherry and orange Jello from a quart of vinegar (lots of room in a volcano) causing the soda/vinegar gas to pressurize the volcano and blow out the paper stopper, followed by colorful magma Jello oozing over the top and dribbling down the side. What I hadn’t planned on was the venturi effect of sudden high pressure gas forced through a constricted opening. In the voice of Rod Serling… “Imagine, if you will, a dimension where Jello foam drips from a red stained ceiling on students with smoke filled eyes … “
If you are still able to do so after the firecracker experiment, please post the result.
I used a sound trigger with a flash set to it's shortest duration, about 1/40,000 second. The result was a cloud of smoke, with very little detail. The flash unit did not have a short enough duration. I used a DSLR with a 100mm f2.8 macro lens.
Here are a quick couple test shots using a cap from a hair spray can, it bounced nicely. Captur Pro shutter trigger in sound activated mode with zero delay.
Done strictly in automatic camera mode, no attempt to fine tune camera settings of shutter or aperture.
The bounce is the after first contact with table top, not a second bounce since the object went out of camera view onto the floor.
Looks promising.... my concern was how quickly the camera could react to the sound trigger. I suppose if I thought hard enough I could remember my physics and determine time after contact.
One shot shows the object being focused on and the other bounced.
SonyDoug wrote:
Here are a quick couple test shots using a cap from a hair spray can, it bounced nicely. Captur Pro shutter trigger in sound activated mode with zero delay.
Done strictly in automatic camera mode, no attempt to fine tune camera settings of shutter or aperture.
The bounce is the after first contact with table top, not a second bounce since the object went out of camera view onto the floor.
Looks promising.... my concern was how quickly the camera could react to the sound trigger. I suppose if I thought hard enough I could remember my physics and determine time after contact.
One shot shows the object being focused on and the other bounced.
Here are a quick couple test shots using a cap fro... (
show quote)
Switch to manual focus and exposure. Response should be faster. It would be interesting to see how much so.
We call those "Ladyfingers".
...had one go off in my hand; fortunately, I had on some heavy leather gloves.
Here's another with 1/400 shutter in manual camera mode. No motion blur to speak of.
It appears closer to the table top implying faster response.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.