[clackers]

I like it a lot, Cybertaff - very colourful too, I'd like to see some more!


But it's not a good example of what you're trying to say.


For this sort of shot, the shutter speed has little to do except control the ambient light level - and that's already black.


The milk or whatever has been frozen in motion by the flash speed, not shutter speed.


At full power, this is about 1/1000s, so the time your sensor is exposed is irrelevant.


If you want to decrease motion blur, what you do is progressively reduce your flash power. At 1/64, this results in the splash being lit for only 1/30,000 s.


The following tutorial was done at 1/125s.


The game is not to use the shutter but your flash duration:


Water drop photography: make a splash with high-speed flash | Digital Camera World

[cybertaff]

I like it a lot, Cybertaff - very colourful too, I'd like to see some more!


But it's not a good example of what you're trying to say.


For this sort of shot, the shutter speed has little to do except control the ambient light level - and that's already black.


The milk or whatever has been frozen in motion by the flash speed, not shutter speed.


At full power, this is about 1/1000s, so the time your sensor is exposed is irrelevant.


If you want to decrease motion blur, what you do is progressively reduce your flash power. At 1/64, this results in the splash being lit for only 1/30,000 s.


The following tutorial was done at 1/125s.


The game is not to use the shutter but your flash duration:


Water drop photography: make a splash with high-speed flash | Digital Camera World

understand all that the flashes were all set to 1/32 for this shot anything over 1/64 is useless lol fir more stuff with fluids a link to my da folder. Documents my learning curve with this
Drops and splashy things by cybertaff on deviantART

[clackers]

They are fantastic, Cybertaff!


Bishop of the Things should run for Parliament.

[normhead]

Yes I understand all this truly I do my point is that small difference means a lot when taking a pic of a fast moving object, I take stills of things that move , a good example would be this pic , if it was taken at 1/250 instead of 1/180 the fringing from the flash lag would not of been apparent, in every other way I would agree wholeheartedly with everything said above

Is this a testable theory?

I never really buy into what "would" have been. It's more like, "OK if you say so, whatever."

[Oldbayrunner]

Yes I understand all this truly I do my point is that small difference means a lot when taking a pic of a fast moving object, I take stills of things that move , a good example would be this pic , if it was taken at 1/250 instead of 1/180 the fringing from the flash lag would not of been apparent, in every other way I would agree wholeheartedly with everything said above

Oh really, the fringing from the flash lag? Prey tell can you please provide us with anything written on this phenomenon, I think what you are talking about is Ghosting.

The freezing of motion using a flash has more to do with duration of light than it does with the speed of shutter. Normally with a flash, the shutter speed has only an insignificant effect on exposure because the flash pulse is so short and so bright relative to the ambient light. If your flash pulse lasts for lets say 1/10000th of a second, it doesn't matter if the shutter is open for 1/30th or 1/180th or even 1/250th of a second around that pulse, only the flash duration will have any noticeable effect unless the ambient light is extremely strong. So to control this effect you need to control the flash duration output, not by the shutter speed. In reality the only exposure setting that mostly affects the flash is the aperture, the rest mostly is all about controlling flash power, distance, light fall off and direction of light. The shutter comes into play mainly to control the ambient light in conjunction with the aperture, coupled with Iso at times.

[cybertaff]

They are fantastic, Cybertaff!


Bishop of the Things should run for Parliament.

Ty