Is there a way to know how much time of our lives is captured in a single picture? It seems to be that time is infinitely divisible, therefore the time that is captured in a frame will always be dependant on how fast the camera is. Modern cameras are much faster than previous generation photography equipment. However, is there a physical limit beyond which cameras cannot capture movement?
Hi there Jorge, nice photo. There a video posted by Alex Cooke on fstopper just a few hours ago that you might want to watch.....hosted by Karl Taylor.
I have been capturing images since the 70's and I can honestly say this. Most of the images I have taken does not exceed 1/500 of sec. Shutter speed in excess of 1/2000 of a sec is a small percentage of my work.
Having said this, come back in a hundred years time.....and I am willing to bet....someone will still be asking the same question.
Perhaps, since photography is about light, and light has a known speed, we might never be able to capture the edge of a light ray.
Before we travel into physics, as I understand....photography is at its best when we manage that light source, and this include artificial light source that does not travel at super high speed ....candle light is a good example.
I once read that since a photograph is made as the shutter opens and closes, it does not capture just one portion of time, but a sequence of time. That means that the part of a picture where the shutter opens first is older than the parts where the shutter is closing.
Second curtain, long 30 sec exposures are good example.
Hi there Jorge, Just a though with this image and a suggestion....take another image, same pose but plain or different background....this time get closer.
Best wishes
Elan
Does candle light travel slower?
I wish I had an answer for that!
Try shooting at 1/8000 sec with a candle light. It will give you a good photographic answer and look up "inverse square law"..
I deliberately stayed away from physics. If you read again, I was referring to artificial light source in photography, candle light being one of them.
Of course you are most welcome to calculate the speed of light from any given source. Good luck.
So candle light does not travel slower?
Go and do some thoughtful research and calculation man.....it is not my job to provide answers.
You are keen to espouse ideas, but not answer questions on the?
No offence Chris, but I am not sure I can answer a complex question in a concise manner here. Whether I use natural (sunlight) or artificial light (speedlite, strobes, candles light etc) I document the results so that when the situation arise again, I can adjust my camera settings with a clear mind. So....set up a scene with a candle light, test run a few shots with different settings, load them up and check the results. Best Wishes, Elan
Thank you. Very clear.
The short answer is all photons produced by light sources , candles, strobes etc will travel at the same speed.....the speed of light, barring obstacles......glass, air molecules etc
The speed of light in a vacuum is constant and does not depend on characteristics of the wave.
Since humans rarely conduct photography in a vacuum this discussion defeats me.
By the way, red light travels faster than blue in glass, apparently.......
Good luck with the rest of the discussion.
Light all travels at the same speed. A photon does not know or care of it came from a candle or a supernova.
actually, it's been done, or near enough.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EtsXgODHMWk
Thanks for the link. That is something I didn't know could be done. It's always good to learn something every day.
Like to go back to my communication to you on the 13th. "Before we travel into physics, as I understand....photography is at its best when we manage that light source, and this include artificial light source."
You have a far better chance of managing a light source from a candle than a supernova.
Good luck.