I have taken a few pictures with fire in them but was not recording
exposures. However, as you alluded to, I'd in general follow the same rule
of thumb I do with a waterfall. You don't start seeing too much blur until
you get around 1/8 sec. I'd expect, I could be wrong, that 1/60 and above
would pretty much freeze the flames.
Tom C.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Meyers-Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: Fire photography
>
> Hey Folks,
>
> Thanks for the comments on fire photography.
>
> Let me clarify my question....fire is a rapidly moving, flickering subject
> and, like a waterfall, I expect the appearance of it in a photograph
> depends heavily on the exposure used. I was wondering if there was some
> canonical rule, like "slower than 1/125th, and fire looks like a smear
> but faster than 1/500 and it looks like something funky".
>
> The fires that I'll be on will be lit during the daylight hours. I guess
> I'll just shoot and see what happens!
>
> Cheers
>
> Barry
>
> ---------------------
> Dr. Barry Meyers-Rice
> Associate Scientist
> Wildland Invasive Species Program
> The Nature Conservancy
> 530-754-8891, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu
>
>
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
