Shooting question {Literally}

Bokeh_Hunter

@Bokeh_Hunter: For me it is not Photoshop or in camera. And it has nothing to do with beeing more pure.

But even I know that if you get things right in camera you save a lot of time in front of the computer. I assume that the top dollor shooter knows how to get things right in camera and the use of Photoshop is to get better results than the average shooter.

Making stupid mistakes and fixing them after the fact is a bad strategy IMO. Knowing more gives you better pictures - at least that is what I think.

I use to believe that "good photographers" get it right too, but I have learned it all depends on the type of work they do. Some people are better at PS than cameras and lighting and get images they know they can edit later. I have one friend that does this. She spends hours editing every image.

Me? I'm like you, I want it as close as I can in the camera so I don't spend needless hours editing. I suppose it is what one is more comfortable with.

One way isn't better than another - just different. Just like if someone prefers rangefinders, or primes over zooms, continuous light over flashes or strobes. All have advantages and disadvantages - but the disadvantages mount if the person isn't comfortable with something.

henrik1963

@TriShoter and Bokeh_Hunter: At one level you are right that being good at postwork can make a less that stellar picture look better and maybe even good. But I will still claim that being good at getting optimal data in camera and being good at manipulating that data in something like Photoshop will give you even better results.

I get a nice happy feeling when I discover new ways to improve my photos - be that in camera or in LR.

Getting better gives me more options - more ways of solving a problem. For me that leads to better pictures.

heartyfisher

I did my research on photographing a bullet some time ago.. the easiest way is to audio trigger the flashes at minimum power(shortest duration). There is no way a shutter can trigger fast enough to capture a bullet after its shot and manually doing it is just about impossible.

henrik1963

@Heartyfisher: Audio might work. Just remember that even a normal 9mm is moving at supersonic speed.

Try to google "Camera axe". That trigger might get the job done. Still not sure about what flash will work.

henrik1963

As for flash. Try to google "air gap high-speed camera flash". The price is so ............. well you need to really want to photograph a flying bullet :-)

heartyfisher

@Heartyfisher: Audio might work. Just remember that even a normal 9mm is moving at supersonic speed.

Yes but the signal over the wire is close to light speed. You would put the mic close to the sound source. have a test shot with a wide angle to see how far the bullet went then zoom in for the actual shot.

spraynpray

This is bizarre. All this tech and it seems we can't do something that was clearly and easily do-able donkeys years ago!

When I was a lad I bought a copy of the American magazine Guns & Ammo which featured a picture of Elmer Keith shooting his favourite .45 Auto at a gallon paint can and the impact of the bullet was enough to dislodge the lid and send a load of the contents upwards and the camera used was able to not only freeze all the coloured paint on its upward trip, but also froze the bullet too. The slide was still back and the muzzle about 45 degrees up. This was done in the open air, not a lab. If memory serves me he was shooting GI hardball which was around 900fps. I wasn't interested in the techniques back then, but it happened.

Ironheart

It's relatively easy to catch the photo you suggest. The discussion was shooting a bullet from the side. From the backside the blur of the forward motion wouldn't be very noticeable.