«

I have been fiddling around with forcing one parameter, and letting the
camera make up for it with the rest. What is a good shutter speed for
sports-type shots, dancers, kids creating resonant modes on a slinky,
that sort of thing?

--
"Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."

On Sep 18, 9:15*am, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> I have been fiddling around with forcing one parameter, and letting the
> camera make up for it with the rest. *What is a good shutter speed for
> sports-type shots, dancers, kids creating resonant modes on a slinky,
> that sort of thing?
>

You will need to experiment to see what you like.

For volleyball, 1/1000 will freeze the ball and body. But I actually
like the motion blur you get with the hands and ball at 1/200 or
1/100.

On 9/18/2012 10:15 AM, Paul Ciszek wrote:
> I have been fiddling around with forcing one parameter, and letting the
> camera make up for it with the rest. What is a good shutter speed for
> sports-type shots, dancers, kids creating resonant modes on a slinky,
> that sort of thing?
>

It depends:
1/2500 should be fast enough. Slower, ff you want a touch of blur,
There is no set formula.


--
Peter

(Paul Ciszek) writes:

> I have been fiddling around with forcing one parameter, and letting the
> camera make up for it with the rest. What is a good shutter speed for
> sports-type shots, dancers, kids creating resonant modes on a slinky,
> that sort of thing?

Varies a lot. You'll almost certainly need 1/250. If you've got
someone running *across* the frame fairly close, you'll need a LOT more
if you want to freeze them.

Remember that freezing them isn't always the best photo. Leaving blur
in the moving arms and legs and getting the face sharp can be wonderful
sometimes, for exmaple. And panning with the subject, to leave the
background streaked but the key parts of the subject sharp, is also nice
sometimes.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

In article <>,
David Dyer-Bennet <dd-> wrote:
>
>Remember that freezing them isn't always the best photo. Leaving blur
>in the moving arms and legs and getting the face sharp can be wonderful
>sometimes, for exmaple.

You mean, like this?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/3585314...8820/lightbox/

>And panning with the subject, to leave the
>background streaked but the key parts of the subject sharp, is also nice
>sometimes.

That sounds extremely difficult to do, though I can see why it would look
awesome if you succeeded.

--
"Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."

(Paul Ciszek) writes:

> In article <>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-> wrote:
>>
>>Remember that freezing them isn't always the best photo. Leaving blur
>>in the moving arms and legs and getting the face sharp can be wonderful
>>sometimes, for exmaple.
>
> You mean, like this?
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/3585314...8820/lightbox/

Yep, that kind of thing. Often much more interesting if you see a clear
indication of the motion.

>>And panning with the subject, to leave the
>>background streaked but the key parts of the subject sharp, is also nice
>>sometimes.
>
> That sounds extremely difficult to do, though I can see why it would look
> awesome if you succeeded.

It takes a critically-judged shutter speed. This is an area where
digital makes it tremendously easier -- often you have time to determine
that shutter speed by trial and error, whereas a film photographer
simply had to know in advance (and it depends on the distance and focal
length, angle to the lens view the subject is moving, etc.) And panning
smoothly with the subject also takes some practice.

These of mine <http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2011/11050-pan/>
are not very good examples; they were practice shots. But note in *-008
for example that the face is quite sharp, the background is streaked,
and not just the wheels but the feet on the pedals are blurred.

--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:

> On 2012-09-18 19:13:04 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-> said:
>
>> (Paul Ciszek) writes:
>>
>>> In article <>,
>>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Remember that freezing them isn't always the best photo. Leaving blur
>>>> in the moving arms and legs and getting the face sharp can be wonderful
>>>> sometimes, for exmaple.
>>>
>>> You mean, like this?
>>>
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/3585314...8820/lightbox/
>
> Yep,
>>>
>> that kind of thing. Often much more interesting if you see a clear
>> indication of the motion.
>>
>>>> And panning with the subject, to leave the
>>>> background streaked but the key parts of the subject sharp, is also nice
>>>> sometimes.
>>>
>>> That sounds extremely difficult to do, though I can see why it would look
>>> awesome if you succeeded.
>>
>> It takes a critically-judged shutter speed. This is an area where
>> digital makes it tremendously easier -- often you have time to determine
>> that shutter speed by trial and error, whereas a film photographer
>> simply had to know in advance (and it depends on the distance and focal
>> length, angle to the lens view the subject is moving, etc.) And panning
>> smoothly with the subject also takes some practice.
>>
>> These of mine <http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2011/11050-pan/>
>> are not very good examples; they were practice shots. But note in *-008
>> for example that the face is quite sharp, the background is streaked,
>> and not just the wheels but the feet on the pedals are blurred.
>
> Here are two examples of my automotive motion shots, one panning, and
> one @1/800 sec.
> < http://db.tt/jw8yChbw >

That's an absolutely classic pan. The fact that he was probably going
faster than my test subjects helps give you a much more streaked
background.

> < http://db.tt/cqweMEc3 >

That's actually a great example of just how static a really frozen shot
can look.

I had this discussion down in Nashville about helicopter blades at one
point; same thing, if you really freeze it, it looks kind of wrong, and
if you blur it so much you don't see the blades at all it looks REALLY
wrong.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 11:29:30 AM UTC+1, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
>
>
>
> > On 2012-09-18 19:13:04 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-> said:
>
> >
>
> >> (Paul Ciszek) writes:
>
> >>
>
> >>> In article <>,
>
> >>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-> wrote:
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Remember that freezing them isn't always the best photo. Leaving blur
>
> >>>> in the moving arms and legs and getting the face sharp can be wonderful
>
> >>>> sometimes, for exmaple.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> You mean, like this?
>
> >>>
>
> >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/3585314...8820/lightbox/
>
> >
>
> > Yep,
>
> >>>
>
> >> that kind of thing. Often much more interesting if you see a clear
>
> >> indication of the motion.
>
> >>
>
> >>>> And panning with the subject, to leave the
>
> >>>> background streaked but the key parts of the subject sharp, is also nice
>
> >>>> sometimes.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> That sounds extremely difficult to do, though I can see why it would look
>
> >>> awesome if you succeeded.
>
> >>
>
> >> It takes a critically-judged shutter speed. This is an area where
>
> >> digital makes it tremendously easier -- often you have time to determine
>
> >> that shutter speed by trial and error, whereas a film photographer
>
> >> simply had to know in advance (and it depends on the distance and focal
>
> >> length, angle to the lens view the subject is moving, etc.) And panning
>
> >> smoothly with the subject also takes some practice.
>
> >>
>
> >> These of mine <http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2011/11050-pan/>
>
> >> are not very good examples; they were practice shots. But note in *-008
>
> >> for example that the face is quite sharp, the background is streaked,
>
> >> and not just the wheels but the feet on the pedals are blurred.
>
> >
>
> > Here are two examples of my automotive motion shots, one panning, and
>
> > one @1/800 sec.
>
> > < http://db.tt/jw8yChbw >
>
>
>
> That's an absolutely classic pan. The fact that he was probably going
>
> faster than my test subjects helps give you a much more streaked
>
> background.
>
>
>
> > < http://db.tt/cqweMEc3 >
>
>
>
> That's actually a great example of just how static a really frozen shot
>
> can look.
>
>
>
> I had this discussion down in Nashville about helicopter blades at one
>
> point; same thing, if you really freeze it, it looks kind of wrong, and
>
> if you blur it so much you don't see the blades at all it looks REALLY
>
> wrong.
>

I remmeber back in the 70s discussions on the effects of vertical and horizontal shutters and how they can make wheels look oval at certain speeds.
I've seen a few odd photos of fan blades or aircraft props that look strange do to a effect of the way the camera caught them.

Whisky-dave <> writes:

> On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 11:29:30 AM UTC+1, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 2012-09-18 19:13:04 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-> said:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> (Paul Ciszek) writes:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>> In article <>,
>>
>> >>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>
>>
>> >>>> Remember that freezing them isn't always the best photo. Leaving blur
>>
>> >>>> in the moving arms and legs and getting the face sharp can be wonderful
>>
>> >>>> sometimes, for exmaple.
>>
>> >>>
>>
>> >>> You mean, like this?
>>
>> >>>
>>
>> >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/3585314...8820/lightbox/
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Yep,
>>
>> >>>
>>
>> >> that kind of thing. Often much more interesting if you see a clear
>>
>> >> indication of the motion.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>>> And panning with the subject, to leave the
>>
>> >>>> background streaked but the key parts of the subject sharp, is also nice
>>
>> >>>> sometimes.
>>
>> >>>
>>
>> >>> That sounds extremely difficult to do, though I can see why it would look
>>
>> >>> awesome if you succeeded.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> It takes a critically-judged shutter speed. This is an area where
>>
>> >> digital makes it tremendously easier -- often you have time to determine
>>
>> >> that shutter speed by trial and error, whereas a film photographer
>>
>> >> simply had to know in advance (and it depends on the distance and focal
>>
>> >> length, angle to the lens view the subject is moving, etc.) And panning
>>
>> >> smoothly with the subject also takes some practice.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> These of mine <http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2011/11050-pan/>
>>
>> >> are not very good examples; they were practice shots. But note in *-008
>>
>> >> for example that the face is quite sharp, the background is streaked,
>>
>> >> and not just the wheels but the feet on the pedals are blurred.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Here are two examples of my automotive motion shots, one panning, and
>>
>> > one @1/800 sec.
>>
>> > < http://db.tt/jw8yChbw >
>>
>>
>>
>> That's an absolutely classic pan. The fact that he was probably going
>>
>> faster than my test subjects helps give you a much more streaked
>>
>> background.
>>
>>
>>
>> > < http://db.tt/cqweMEc3 >
>>
>>
>>
>> That's actually a great example of just how static a really frozen shot
>>
>> can look.
>>
>>
>>
>> I had this discussion down in Nashville about helicopter blades at one
>>
>> point; same thing, if you really freeze it, it looks kind of wrong, and
>>
>> if you blur it so much you don't see the blades at all it looks REALLY
>>
>> wrong.
>>
>
> I remmeber back in the 70s discussions on the effects of vertical and horizontal shutters and how they can make wheels look oval at certain speeds.

Yes, large, slow, focal-plane shutters (this cartoon convention in fact
originated with the Speed Graphic camera of 1912, which had a 1/1000
second top speed on its focal-plane shutter, and a 4x5 inch focal
plane). The shutter didn't move that fast, it just had a narrow slit,
so the different parts of the car were exposed a significantly different
times, giving rise to the canted wheel effect as the most noticeable
artifact. This was picked up by cartoonists and is still in use today,
even though our shutters now move so fast we can't actually produce the
effect with modern cameras.

> I've seen a few odd photos of fan blades or aircraft props that look
> strange do to a effect of the way the camera caught them.

That's electronic readouts, that do things like read two or more regions
of the chip out in parallel.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On 9/18/2012 10:13 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> (Paul Ciszek) writes:
>
>> In article <>,
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-> wrote:
>>>
>>> Remember that freezing them isn't always the best photo. Leaving blur
>>> in the moving arms and legs and getting the face sharp can be wonderful
>>> sometimes, for exmaple.
>>
>> You mean, like this?
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/3585314...8820/lightbox/
>
> Yep, that kind of thing. Often much more interesting if you see a clear
> indication of the motion.
>
>>> And panning with the subject, to leave the
>>> background streaked but the key parts of the subject sharp, is also nice
>>> sometimes.
>>
>> That sounds extremely difficult to do, though I can see why it would look
>> awesome if you succeeded.
>
> It takes a critically-judged shutter speed. This is an area where
> digital makes it tremendously easier -- often you have time to determine
> that shutter speed by trial and error, whereas a film photographer
> simply had to know in advance (and it depends on the distance and focal
> length, angle to the lens view the subject is moving, etc.) And panning
> smoothly with the subject also takes some practice.
>
> These of mine <http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2011/11050-pan/>
> are not very good examples; they were practice shots. But note in *-008
> for example that the face is quite sharp, the background is streaked,
> and not just the wheels but the feet on the pedals are blurred.
>

Here's one that I entered in the SI
The face is almost sharp, but the figure has enough motion blur, that
you can tell what's happening.

<http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/133702219>

--
Peter