HOME | DD

alexiuss In reply to PeacefulSoul [2009-09-12 17:56:25 +0000 UTC]

water effects are done by several assistants throwing water from 3 sides

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PeacefulSoul In reply to alexiuss [2009-09-12 18:03:42 +0000 UTC]

Whereas that is hard to believe without editation, I guess it's plausible to be possible. I'm guessing it took quite a few times to get right, not including trying to snap the picture right in time, AND making sure none of their hands or buckets of water show.

Yeah, a little tough to believe, but if true, that's amazing!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

pangalangadoo In reply to PeacefulSoul [2009-09-14 02:02:37 +0000 UTC]

if you look, the shutter was open for 4 seconds... an image is determined not by how long the shutter is open but by how light reacts to the "film".

If the room is completely black, then it doesn't matter how long the shutter stays open, the film will appear black. Unless light is applied.

Now, light can be a tricky thing. It doesn't matter how long the light is on for, if it hits, say a person and some water in mid air, even for a split, of a split, of a split second, then with the shutter being open for 4 whole seconds, reacts the "film".

In the original image, the artist states that the shutter speed is 1/10,000 of a second, which is impossible. What he/she means that that LIGHT was reacting the "film" for that short, infintessible amount of time. now, remember, if the room is completely black, it doesn't matter how long the shutter is open for, if the light happens for that short of a time, anywhere in the gap of 4 seconds, then it reacts the film and creates an image such as this.

Hope that clears some things up. It was confusing to me too. But once you see if from the stance of the light being the main thing here instead of the speed of the shutter, it makes a LOT more sense.

Rock on
://Thomas.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PeacefulSoul In reply to pangalangadoo [2009-09-14 03:14:17 +0000 UTC]

Allot of this I knew already, however, what I didn't know is that she was in a dark space, etc. Even though she didn't (because now I know), she could have simply put herself on a black background using a program.

Again, however, that's not the case and everything you said makes perfect sense. It's an interesting concept to do to get this shot (one I haven't seen used in a while), and at first I didn't think out of ALL concepts she used the one you speak of.

Anyway, thanks for clearing some stuff up like you said.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

pangalangadoo In reply to PeacefulSoul [2009-09-14 20:32:24 +0000 UTC]

Hey, no problem.

I just hate (and I am not saying you said this....) when other people can't believe a picture and they automatically assume that it has to be photoshopped...which pisses me off because they just need to open their minds to the endless possibilities of photography out there.

Well, you're awesome and I wish you the best!

Rock on
://Thomas.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PeacefulSoul In reply to pangalangadoo [2009-09-15 00:01:59 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, as you can see from my original post, I was forgiving in the sense you speak, per se, I didn't entirely NOT believe it was a non-editted photo but I was rather iffy about it -- like a 50% leaning more toward a 60% deal, you know? It's really a mindblowing photo, I love it!

Anyway, take care man, see you around!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0