# Shutter speed above 1/4000



## hamlet (Jun 10, 2014)

I'm wondering if someone ever really needs a shutter speed faster than 1/4000? Say your camera can go up to 1/8000, what would you shoot with this that you couldn't with 1/4000?


----------



## jaomul (Jun 10, 2014)

50mm f1.4 wide open on a very sunny day


----------



## hamlet (Jun 10, 2014)

To put the question more specifically: is there anything that a shutter speed beyond 1/4000 can freeze that a shutter speed of 1/4000 cannot?


----------



## gsgary (Jun 10, 2014)

2 of my best cameras only go to 1/1000 and it has never been a problem


----------



## hamlet (Jun 10, 2014)

jaomul said:


> 50mm f1.4 wide open on a very sunny day



That's me for half of the shots i take and i would like to go to f0.7.


----------



## jaomul (Jun 10, 2014)

As gsgary states more often than not 1/1000 is enough for most. But faster is required by some. The Canon 1d could do 1/16000th sec. Bullets need fast shutter speeds to freeze &#55357;&#56836;


----------



## bribrius (Jun 10, 2014)

hamlet said:


> To put the question more specifically: is there anything that a shutter speed beyond 1/4000 can freeze that a shutter speed of 1/4000 cannot?


some insects, maybe....


I think it is primarily for too much light, fast lenses and shallow dofs. only so low the iso can go, shutter speed has to go up unless you have a filter.
I hardly ever go over a thousand personally. Probably count on one hand the times I have been over two thousand. I wouldn't need 8 but I don't shoot a lot of higher end fast lenses either I am shooting on glaring bright days or situations..


----------



## hamlet (Jun 10, 2014)

jaomul said:


> As gsgary states more often than not 1/1000 is enough for most. But faster is required by some. The Canon 1d could do 1/16000th sec. Bullets need fast shutter speeds to freeze &#55357;&#56836;



I've thought about panning very rapidly and spraying at 1/8000 a second to freeze a bullet. Not sure if that can work. :mrgreen:


----------



## hamlet (Jun 10, 2014)

bribrius said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > To put the question more specifically: is there anything that a shutter speed beyond 1/4000 can freeze that a shutter speed of 1/4000 cannot?
> ...



I always underexpose by two stops if i have to go beyond a certain iso amount. To me that is a good tactic to get some extra shutter speed, or at least that is my impression.


----------



## Patriot (Jun 10, 2014)

It would have to be a combination of factors that would warrant that speed in my opinion. 

A large aperture, bright light, and a fast moving subject. 

Maybe if you wanted to capture a bullet leaving a gun while a guy stands with the sun behind him.


----------



## Usul (Jun 10, 2014)

hamlet said:


> To put the question more specifically: is there anything that a shutter speed beyond 1/4000 can freeze that a shutter speed of 1/4000 cannot?



Paintball. The ball has speed about 100 m per second for 1/4000 it goes 0,025 m with the diameter 17 mm = 0,017 m it will blury on a photo. With 1/8000 it won't be round anyway but from a proper angle one can get almost sharp ball on a picture. If one can solve the problem jaomul noticed with ND filter but 1/8000 could be usefull for some high speed sports.


----------



## jaomul (Jun 10, 2014)

hamlet said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > hamlet said:
> ...



I'm fairly sure in digital photography underexposing and rectifying in post is one of the best possible ways to degrade your image quality. It seems to me you are contradicting yourself by your own very question. You ask when 1/4000 isn't fast enough yet talk about underexposing when you can't get a speed fast enough. Maybe I am misunderstanding you

(Edit- on 're reading I see you are now talking about iso and gaining speed which is a completely different topic that has zero to do with initial question)


----------



## hamlet (Jun 10, 2014)

jaomul said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



This topic is purely about shutter speeds and doing anything and everything to get the speed you need. If there are strong shadows then i will only go down one stop, if there are soft shadows i will push to two stops, and if there are nearly no shadows, i will push it to tree stops underexposed.


----------



## jaomul (Jun 10, 2014)

You do what you need to do. I find your threads go kind of tangental and don't always make sense to me so I think I'll bow out now. Ciao


----------



## hamlet (Jun 10, 2014)

jaomul said:


> You do what you need to do. I find your threads go kind of tangental and don't always make sense to me so I think I'll bow out now. Ciao



It could the the language barrier, i don't always understand what you are saying.


----------



## jaomul (Jun 10, 2014)

hamlet said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> > You do what you need to do. I find your threads go kind of tangental and don't always make sense to me so I think I'll bow out now. Ciao
> ...



That's a fair point. Sorry about that. Your English is far better than my Flemish or French


----------



## nzmacro (Jun 10, 2014)

Ever tried stopping the wings in flight of a Sparrow, Finch. Kingfisher, Swallow, etc, etc. My main shutter speed for small birds in flight is 1/4000 ........ because I don't have 1/8000  On a fine day I could hit 1/8000, F/4.5, ISO 400 - 800. I can already hit 1/4000, F/4.5 at ISO 200, it would be very useful to have 1/8000. 

So while 1/4000 is great, 1/8000 could stop wing movement more easily. For BIF's, there is no such thing as too fast on a small bird. 

Danny.


----------



## Braineack (Jun 10, 2014)

hamlet said:


> Say your camera can go up to 1/8000, what would you shoot with this that you couldn't with 1/4000?



A stop less of light.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 10, 2014)

hamlet said:


> This topic is purely about shutter speeds and doing anything and everything to get the speed you need. If there are strong shadows then i will only go down one stop, if there are soft shadows i will push to two stops, and if there are nearly no shadows, i will push it to tree stops underexposed.



You can always pull out shadows in post .. since you have LightRoom and PhotoShop it is really easy.


----------



## hamlet (Jun 10, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > This topic is purely about shutter speeds and doing anything and everything to get the speed you need. If there are strong shadows then i will only go down one stop, if there are soft shadows i will push to two stops, and if there are nearly no shadows, i will push it to tree stops underexposed.
> ...



Sure, but if the shadows are too strong you could lose an eye or two.


----------



## hamlet (Jun 10, 2014)

nzmacro said:


> Ever tried stopping the wings in flight of a Sparrow, Finch. Kingfisher, Swallow, etc, etc. My main shutter speed for small birds in flight is 1/4000 ........ because I don't have 1/8000  On a fine day I could hit 1/8000, F/4.5, ISO 400 - 800. I can already hit 1/4000, F/4.5 at ISO 200, it would be very useful to have 1/8000.
> 
> So while 1/4000 is great, 1/8000 could stop wing movement more easily. For BIF's, there is no such thing as too fast on a small bird.
> 
> Danny.



The d7x00 can already achieve 1/8000 of a second, that camera is a steal.


----------



## Braineack (Jun 10, 2014)

This thread makes me lose my mind...


----------



## colnago1331 (Jun 10, 2014)

I think a faster shutter speed can also be useful for subjects moving toward or away from the photographer. The relative speed in those situations is much faster than in across-the-frame movement shots.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 10, 2014)

hamlet said:


> nzmacro said:
> 
> 
> > Ever tried stopping the wings in flight of a Sparrow, Finch. Kingfisher, Swallow, etc, etc. My main shutter speed for small birds in flight is 1/4000 ........ because I don't have 1/8000  On a fine day I could hit 1/8000, F/4.5, ISO 400 - 800. I can already hit 1/4000, F/4.5 at ISO 200, it would be very useful to have 1/8000.
> ...


I have one but I don't find it to be such a steal and read above on how often I go to high shutter speeds. Granted, I have some lens investment to do before I really get full benefits of that camera.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 10, 2014)

In bright sunshine for kids sports I've used 1/8000 @ ISO 100  on my d7000
the other day on my d600 I had to go to 1/4000 and ISO 80 or 50 to get a normal exposure during a really bright stretch.


----------



## Braineack (Jun 10, 2014)

I shot this at 1/4000 with f/2.8 last week. 1/8000 might have helped bring down the exposure had 1/4000 been over-exposed--actually it was slightly, but I'm lucky to have so much recovery in RAW.




Giraffe by The Braineack, on Flickr

That shutter speed was a must because I shot it at 800 ISO because I had the ISO set for a darker area, just prior, using A mode, and didn't have a chance to set it back to 50/80/100 once I was back in direct noon sunlight.  Can you even tell? The hardon for low ISO is annoying.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 10, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> In bright sunshine for kids sports I've used 1/8000 @ ISO 100 on my d7000
> the other day on my d600 I had to go to 1/4000 and ISO 80 or 50 to get a normal exposure during a really bright stretch.


no way!!!!!! 1/8000 for soccer!! 
what lens?


----------



## hamlet (Jun 10, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> In bright sunshine for kids sports I've used 1/8000 @ ISO 100  on my d7000
> the other day on my d600 I had to go to 1/4000 and ISO 80 or 50 to get a normal exposure during a really bright stretch.



Oh yeah, sometimes there are barely enough buckets to carry all the light in.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 10, 2014)

I seldom ever shoot at 1/8000 second. The last time I DID was in the evening along the Oregon Coast back when my 85mm f/1.8 was a brand new lens and I wanted to see how well it could shoot right into the low, direct evening sun over open ocean water from beach level: one of THE toughest tests for any lens. The water and low angle makes a very efficient reflector and the sunlight was almost blinding in its intensity as I looked toward the setting sun. I shot at f/2.2 with NO lens hood on the lens!! 1/8000 second with AUTO ISO giving me ISO 140.







[    _D3X8857_1400_screen-2.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com    ]

1/8000 second was fast enough to freeze even the smallest water drops. I used Auto ISO because I wanted the fast speed, but could not make adjustments as he went from blinding, overexposing backlight, to just "normal" evening sun backlight on each skim board run. This is an example of where shooting in a "manual" model will give absolute sh!+ results because you cannot adjust the camera's setting fast enough for the 3-second bursts, and you need automatic adjustments to make the roughly, oh, I'd guess 10-stop adjustment range needed.


----------



## kundalini (Jun 10, 2014)

hamlet said:


> Say your camera can go up to 1/8000, what would you shoot with this that you couldn't with 1/4000?


Freezing bumblebee wings with only ambient light against a white wall in the mid-day sun, possibly?


----------



## hamlet (Jun 10, 2014)

kundalini said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > Say your camera can go up to 1/8000, what would you shoot with this that you couldn't with 1/4000?
> ...



The little fella looks like its disobeying the laws of gravity . Nice!


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 10, 2014)

kundalini said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > Say your camera can go up to 1/8000, what would you shoot with this that you couldn't with 1/4000?
> ...



didn't we just discuss animals butts in another thread ?
where the BLOCK button   lol


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 10, 2014)

bribrius said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > In bright sunshine for kids sports I've used 1/8000 @ ISO 100 on my d7000
> ...



It was super bright out ... NIkon 80-200/2.8  @2.8


----------



## gsgary (Jun 10, 2014)

hamlet said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> > As gsgary states more often than not 1/1000 is enough for most. But faster is required by some. The Canon 1d could do 1/16000th sec. Bullets need fast shutter speeds to freeze &#128516;
> ...



I only spay bullets when i'm a bit constipated


----------



## Derrel (Jun 10, 2014)

Nikon premiered the FM-2 with a print advertising campaign showing a pretty well-stopped bullet in motion. Turns out it was a rather low-powered .38 Special round moving at a veryyyyy slow 385 feet per second, which is almost a squib round...but hey...it WAS an actual bullet, and the then industry-leading top shutter speed of 1/4000 second was able to freeze it pretty well. But again...385 fps is a slooooow bullet...from a low-velocity handgun round. Even common, garden variety .22 Long Rifle bullets are moving at over double the 385 feet per second speed. The TYPICAL, average .22 LR muzzle velocity is about 1,050 feet per second... 22 Rimfire Ballistics Table


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 10, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > astroNikon said:
> ...



I can't find the right pics, or even the right game.  But this game my Shutter was going up to 5000 @ 2.8 ISO 100
https://www.flickr.com/photos/100677477@N08/10519336183/in/set-72157637016643053/

At the beginning of the game it looks like 800 was used ... then it was slowly creeping up faster and faster.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 10, 2014)

hamlet said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> > As gsgary states more often than not 1/1000 is enough for most. But faster is required by some. The Canon 1d could do 1/16000th sec. Bullets need fast shutter speeds to freeze &#55357;&#56836;
> ...



It wouldn't.  Even a weapon with relatively low muzzle velocity - well first it would take an incredibly high rate of fire to even begin to have a decent chance of capturing it, and you'd be looking at the bullet travelling roughly about an inch and a half to two full inches in 1/8000 of a second.  So all you'd end up with would be a blur even if you were lucky enough to capture it.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 10, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > jaomul said:
> ...



Easy solution.  Just shoot towards the camera lens.  Then you'll have a better chance of capturing the photo shot .. or just the ballistic shot.  :mrgreen:


----------



## Derrel (Jun 10, 2014)

High-speed triggering devices for cameras have been around for decades. Any industrial photographer worth his salt has access to numerous types of triggers which can EASILY "catch" almost any moving subject at a specific place where the camera is pre-focused. There is no need for a high frame rate; the key is a triggering device that is configured properly, and then a camera that makes the exposure at the exact, right time, as determined to within milliseconds.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 10, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Nikon premiered the FM-2 with a print advertising campaign showing a pretty well-stopped bullet in motion. Turns out it was a rather low-powered .38 Special round moving at a veryyyyy slow 385 feet per second, which is almost a squib round...but hey...it WAS an actual bullet, and the then industry-leading top shutter speed of 1/4000 second was able to freeze it pretty well. But again...385 fps is a slooooow bullet...from a low-velocity handgun round. Even common, garden variety .22 Long Rifle bullets are moving at over double the 385 feet per second speed. The TYPICAL, average .22 LR muzzle velocity is about 1,050 feet per second... 22 Rimfire Ballistics Table



one of my rifles is still 3000 ft per second at 300 yards and that isn't even on a handload. wonder what shutter speed that would take...


----------



## Overread (Jun 10, 2014)

You don't take pictures of bullets at 1/8000sec. 

You  take them in bulb mode. Yes Bulb mode. 

Because instead of using the shutter, you use flash with his significantly faster; put out a high powered burst of light right at the right moment (typically you'd use a sound or laser trip or spend AGEs trying to time it).


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 10, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > hamlet said:
> ...



Well unfortunately that correspondence course I took on catching bullets with my teeth didn't really work out so well.  Almost as bad as the correspondence course I took on table dancing.  I mean seriously, you'd think they'd put something on page one about how a lot of tables have a weight limit.  But Nooooo....

Lol


----------



## bribrius (Jun 10, 2014)

Overread said:


> You don't take pictures of bullets at 1/8000sec.
> 
> You take them in bulb mode. Yes Bulb mode.
> 
> Because instead of using the shutter, you use flash with his significantly faster; put out a high powered burst of light right at the right moment (typically you'd use a sound or laser trip or spend AGEs trying to time it).



well, you couldn't use sound because the round is faster than the speed of sound. By the time you hear it the round is already gone.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 10, 2014)

Derrel said:


> High-speed triggering devices for cameras have been around for decades. Any industrial photographer worth his salt has access to numerous types of triggers which can EASILY "catch" almost any moving subject at a specific place where the camera is pre-focused. There is no need for a high frame rate; the key is a triggering device that is configured properly, and then a camera that makes the exposure at the exact, right time, as determined to within milliseconds.



Well the way I interpreted Hamlet's post is that he would be trying this without the benefit of purchasing a lot of extra, specialized equipment.  But yup, it is doable - people have been taking pictures like that for years.  I wouldn't call it easy though, and you really do need the right equipment to pull it off with any degree of success.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 10, 2014)

bribrius said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > You don't take pictures of bullets at 1/8000sec.
> ...



Well the original explosion will cause a sound wave to propogate out from the source at roughly 750 mph or 1100 feet per second.  At that same instant the bullet inside the chamber will begin to accelerate down the barrel until it reaches it's maximum muzzle velocity as it exits the end of the barrel.  So with the correct distances you should be able to pull it off, you just couldn't set the camera too far away from the end of the muzzle or you'd end up with a situation where the bullet would overtake and pass the sound wave and the trigger wouldn't activate until after the bullet had already passed.  I'd have to do math to be absolutely certain, and since i'm not getting paid for it.. well, I'm not doing math.. lol.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 10, 2014)

I dunno. i'm still on the ballistics thing since derrel brought it up. If a pro with the setup for it wanted to try this I am game. sounds fun. Just be good at it because i'm not doing hand loading right now and ammo runs me near $50 a box so there cant be a ton of retakes..  I think it would be pretty amazing a capture at that speed I have doubts it could even ever be done though.

edit. muzzle velocity is over the 4000 mark. it would be one hell of a shoot I would love to see that.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 10, 2014)

High-speed photography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you seem to be right on using a microphone trigger. Just not sure how fast or to what extent that has been achieved in high speed photography. Fascinating really. (well to me it is I might be a little odd)


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 10, 2014)

bribrius said:


> I dunno. i'm still on the ballistics thing since derrel brought it up. If a pro with the setup for it wanted to try this I am game. sounds fun. Just be good at it because i'm not doing hand loading right now and ammo runs me near $50 a box so there cant be a ton of retakes..  I think it would be pretty amazing a capture at that speed I have doubts it could even ever be done though.
> 
> edit. muzzle velocity is over the 4000 mark. it would be one hell of a shoot I would love to see that.



Well with a sound trigger at that sort of muzzle velocity perhaps not, again I'd have to do math and I don't do math for free - but just off the top of my head you'd be pushing the envelope pretty hard at those speeds even given the additional time it takes for the bullet to accelerate down the barrel and reach maximum velocity.  Most likely you'd need an IR based trigger for something that fast, again just a guess because it's not the sort of thing I've been doing in my spare time.. lol.


----------



## KmH (Jun 10, 2014)

1/8000 is only 1 stop faster than 1/4000, so it's not a big jump.

Buy the same token why would anyone use a very small lens aperture when diffraction causes loss of image sharpness.

The answer is - so that the camera or lens can be used for those rare situations that involve extreme lighting conditions.

Note too that cameras having a 1/8000 shutter usually have a flash x-sync speed of 1/250, while cameras having a 1/4000 shutter usually have a flash x-sync speed of only 1/200.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 10, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > I dunno. i'm still on the ballistics thing since derrel brought it up. If a pro with the setup for it wanted to try this I am game. sounds fun. Just be good at it because i'm not doing hand loading right now and ammo runs me near $50 a box so there cant be a ton of retakes..  I think it would be pretty amazing a capture at that speed I have doubts it could even ever be done though.
> ...



and to think I had you up on a pedestal. My vision of you as the science photography king is crushed forever.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 10, 2014)

bribrius said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



Lol.. well would it help to know that what I have been doing in my spare time involves traveling faster than the speed of light.  Oh, and peanut butter?


----------



## nzmacro (Jun 10, 2014)

Home made sound trigger my brother made for me in the 1980's. The microphone is placed next to the gun, the millisecond dial does the work depending on the distance from the gun which was held in a vice. So it takes quite a few shots to work out the millisecond variance. Turn the lights out and let the flash do its thing set on bulb. Poor quality old shot taken years ago







All the best.

Danny.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 10, 2014)

nzmacro said:


> Home made sound trigger my brother made for me in the 1980's. The microphone is placed next to the gun, the millisecond dial does the work depending on the distance from the gun which was held in a vice. So it takes quite a few shots to work out the millisecond variance. Turn the lights out and let the flash do its thing set on bulb. Poor quality old shot taken years ago
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All Hail King Danny, King of the Photography Sciency Stuff.  Long may he reign!

Whew.. of the hook now.  thanks Danny!


----------



## bribrius (Jun 10, 2014)

nzmacro said:


> Home made sound trigger my brother made for me in the 1980's. The microphone is placed next to the gun, the millisecond dial does the work depending on the distance from the gun which was held in a vice. So it takes quite a few shots to work out the millisecond variance. Turn the lights out and let the flash do its thing set on bulb. Poor quality old shot taken years ago
> 
> 
> 
> ...


AWESOME!!  How fast did you manage to record? i'm not really knowledgeable about high speed photography or even how this all works but I am REALLY curious.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 10, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> nzmacro said:
> 
> 
> > Home made sound trigger my brother made for me in the 1980's. The microphone is placed next to the gun, the millisecond dial does the work depending on the distance from the gun which was held in a vice. So it takes quite a few shots to work out the millisecond variance. Turn the lights out and let the flash do its thing set on bulb. Poor quality old shot taken years ago
> ...


you cant be off the hook yet. Too begin with, you are one of the few here that could make one of them probably. And secondly you are probably one of the few here that know where I live. so... when you coming ova?  :lmao:


----------



## nzmacro (Jun 10, 2014)

I've got a scanned shot from slide film I'll sort out after work. The Sunpak AZ 3600 I had set at 1/16,000 off memory. A long time ago before digital and film cost a fortune ...... and so did the eggs  Digital makes those sorts of shots fairly easy now days.

Danny.


----------



## kundalini (Jun 10, 2014)

bribrius said:


> you seem to be right on using a microphone trigger. Just not sure how fast or to what extent that has been achieved in high speed photography. Fascinating really. (well to me it is I might be a little odd)


Desmond was on TPF for a little while but mostly active over on the Camel.  He's pretty good with high speed photography and pretty good with DIY, for a Kiwi.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 10, 2014)

bribrius said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > nzmacro said:
> ...



Lol.. well I haven't built a custom box like that in a long, long time.  Not since I was living in a dinky little apartment in California and the RC craze was just getting big, we had about 3 or 4 apartments down at the end of the hallway where the guys had bought those big, expensive, gas powered remote controlled vehicles and they would be running them up and down the hallway at all hours of the  night.  I tried asking them to stop but it didn't seem to work, they'd stop for a week or two and then sure enough have some friends over and forget and start doing it again.  A lot of people on my floor complained but the manager never really did anything about it either, so finally got irritated enough that I went down to the local electronics place, picked up a few odds and ends and built a device that would transmit a powerful signal at the same frequency used by the RC remotes.  It would more or less overwhelm anything that might also be broadcasting in that frequency range, at least anything handheld and battery powered - they just don't put out much of a signal when compared to a base station that is running on AC.

So when if they boneheads down the hall decided to start running those things up and down the hallway at 2 am, I'd just flip the switch and suddenly their remotes wouldn't work anymore - the cars couldn't receive any signals - everything in that signal range was being jammed.  They never really did figure out what was happening - they took their cars in and had them looked at, the whole nine yards.  One guy even tried buying two or three replacement remotes, etc.  

Sold the unit after I left the apartment - to the guy that lived across the hall.. lol.  Made a pretty decent profit, and I caught up on a lot of sleep.  Worked out well all the way around.  But haven't really picked up a soldering iron since, other than for the odd repair or two here and there.


----------



## hamlet (Jun 10, 2014)

KmH said:


> 1/8000 is only 1 stop faster than 1/4000, so it's not a big jump.



Unless i'm mistaken, the shutter is open half as long each full stop, so isn't that kind of a big advantage?


----------



## ruifo (Jun 10, 2014)

The difference between 1/4000 and 1/8000 is a stop. It will allow you to use a low f/stop number in bright day light to get shallower results.


----------



## Braineack (Jun 10, 2014)

hamlet said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > 1/8000 is only 1 stop faster than 1/4000, so it's not a big jump.
> ...



same with every stop...


----------



## manaheim (Jun 10, 2014)

Folks...

I have a very low tolerance for nonsense these days. Be nice or I'll lock the thread and hand out infractions/bans/whatever is necessary.


----------



## Overread (Jun 10, 2014)

Thread cleaned - guys seriously some of you are just sporting for a fight and you know it, quit picking fights with each other and if you really can't stand someone put them on ignore if it drives you that crazy seeing them posting on the site.


----------



## snerd (Jun 10, 2014)

I'm just reading along, enjoying the heck out of this thread, then POW! The last 2 posts made so sense! I guess I don't want to know LOL!!


----------



## hamlet (Jun 10, 2014)

Braineack said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > KmH said:
> ...



I don't know how to convay what i'm thinking in a coherent fashion, so i'm just going to talk for myself. To me photography is a lot like surgery, each stop provides you with a different tool so you can do your job correctly. And to be clear: i'm not saying that 1/8000 is something everyone needs or needs to use in the majority of their work, it is a creative decision that is up to the individual photographer.


----------



## nzmacro (Jun 11, 2014)

nzmacro said:


> Home made sound trigger my brother made for me in the 1980's. The microphone is placed next to the gun, the millisecond dial does the work depending on the distance from the gun which was held in a vice. So it takes quite a few shots to work out the millisecond variance. Turn the lights out and let the flash do its thing set on bulb. Poor quality old shot taken years ago
> 
> 
> 
> ...




How come I always miss the good stuff you folks throw at each other   Come home and already a few have been tichy with each other. Heck we all love photography so just enjoy it IMO and each other. 

Anyway, going back to the flash sound trigger and an old slide (K25 or it could have been Fujichrome 50)

So I missed what I was after and that was the bullet. Back then you need to remember that slide film cost decent money and I was budgeted for 2 rolls of 36 frames per month, how neat is digital . So you take the shots, wait ten days and look at the slides, darn missed it and it also cost a dozen eggs, Jan was not that happy. LOL. 

To work it out you need to wind up or down the millisecond knob slowly and one frame you will get it. Digital and reviewing the shot these days would be fairly easy.

Anyway, not great but about as close as I got at the time, money put a stop to it for sure and it was before high speed shots became popular. I should have tried more I guess. Maybe another day with digital. Thinking about it and pretty sure I would have used the flash at 1/32,000, not 1/16,000. I used 1/32,000 on drops at the time.






So nothing great and if I had worked from further back with a wider angle lens, maybe it would have worked better. 

All the best folks.

Danny.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 11, 2014)

still cool. Thanks


----------



## nzmacro (Jun 11, 2014)

Derrel said:


>



Doesn't matter what speed was used when you see a shot like this !! The best of timing and just love that lighting and tones. Superb IMO.

All the best Derrel, 12 out of 10 

Danny.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 11, 2014)

Thanks Danny, I appreciate the kind words. Skim boarding is just sort of catching on here with the local high school kids from Newport; it was done back in the 1980's for a while, but kinda' died out...apparently now, like so many things from the rocking eighties, is coming back! ;-) 

I thought the same image also made a good B&W image. This is by the way, a crop. I shot this as a "tall", to get his reflection on the sand and water at the bottom, but ended up throwing half the frame away.






Skim Boarding, Moolack Beach, 2013  [    _D3X8857_1400_screen-3.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com    ]


----------



## hamlet (Jun 11, 2014)

Derrel said:


> I thought the same image also made a good B&W image. This is by the way, a crop. I shot this as a "tall", to get his reflection on the sand and water at the bottom, but ended up throwing half the frame away.



The full image with the reflection would work as a big poster size picture. I'd be proud to put this up in a canvas.


----------



## epatsellis (Jun 26, 2014)

two reasons why my D1x is still in play here:

1. 1/16000 shutter speed, with a 55 1.2 in broad daylight, near wide open is quite doable @ ISO 125

2. Flash sync and any speed up to the duration of the flash. 

Yes, better than 1/4000 of a second can come in handy, until you have the capability and the need for it, you never realize how useful it can be.

erie


----------

