View Full Version : is this the best ever shot with a kit lens?
I have just returned from my garage where I did some high-speed photography. No fancy backgrounds - just bullet, flash and gun action. This is real hardcore stuff. Don't try this at home kids!
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3349/3639738573_3868b422a0.jpg
Top that one, guys!
XT, 18-55 (non-IS)
580EX2 on 1/128th manual
Quaketronics set for audio
f5.6, 8 seconds.
i'm sure a punch line is on its way soon...
but yes, it is a well timed shot.
Mark_48
06-19-2009, 07:29 AM
While the technical aspect of getting a shot like that is interesting and you and your gear did well at "capturing the moment", I guess getting pictures of blowing up or otherwise destroying stuff just doesn't appeal to me.
High speed photography like the link below has more of a "Wow, that's cool!!" factor that I could get into.......
http://www.rpphoto.com/howto/hummer/humguide1.asp
C'mon guys, you know you're jealous :p
One of the major problems I had was that some of my selected targets just refused to die. I had some ugly figurines from Goodwil and the bullets just bounced off them. I got hit by ricochets several times.
AdamW
06-19-2009, 08:08 AM
Nope.
Next question?
Mark_48
06-19-2009, 08:26 AM
C'mon guys, you know you're jealous :p
One of the major problems I had was that some of my selected targets just refused to die. I had some ugly figurines from Goodwil and the bullets just bounced off them. I got hit by ricochets several times.
Probably using a wanky little pellet rifle aren't ya? Use something that has some punch to it. This might raise the bar on the "Wow" factor also.
:D
Yes. I'm using a .177 air pistol. I really need a faster flash if I'm going to take photos of faster projectiles. Even on 1/128th, the 580EX is still giving me a lengthy exposure of 1/35,000 seconds. There are flashes giving exposure times of 1/3,000,000th of a second and I'm chasing after these now.
FLiPMaRC
06-19-2009, 08:52 AM
:cool: Nice one Rhys
And here's a shot that bounced off my target...
faisal
06-19-2009, 09:21 AM
Do I see dead pixels in that shot^^^^^
No. You see dust and a couple of noisy pixels. Remember it's an 8 second exposure.
Mark_48
06-19-2009, 09:27 AM
And here's a shot that bounced off my target...
Can we have a picture of you dodging the ricochets that bounced back at you? :)
FLiPMaRC
06-19-2009, 10:17 AM
Can we have a picture of you dodging the ricochets that bounced back at you? :)
Matrix style? LOL! :p :D
Can we have a picture of you dodging the ricochets that bounced back at you? :)
Lol. I said it was not something that should be attempted at home, didn't I?
Seriously, anybody that attempts to copy my ballistics photography really seriously needs to think about safety and thus I suggest people leave it to professionals like me.
Rhys, wow...theres so much humbleness in this thread :p
Cool shot though, too bad You chose such a crapy background.
TheWengler
06-19-2009, 02:24 PM
I don't really see how this could be the best shot ever from a kit lens. Sure it's a nice technical achievement, but the actual shot isn't all that interesting.
D Thompson
06-19-2009, 03:14 PM
Nope.
Next question?
What Adam said works for me too.
Can we have a picture of you dodging the ricochets that bounced back at you?Lol. I said it was not something that should be attempted at home, didn't I?
Seriously, anybody that attempts to copy my ballistics photography really seriously needs to think about safety and thus I suggest people leave it to professionals like me.
The contradiction in this is brilliant ! Have ye not watched any Mythbusters? Safety is always important, if you're getting hit by ricochets, your safety is seriously lacking.
I can understand how exciting this could be, to be able to capture such a moment, the potential is exciting for you, but you'll need to find more interesting subjects to showoff, maybe something squishier with better backgrounds ?
cdifoto
06-19-2009, 04:37 PM
Professionalism isn't defined by the willingness to accept injury.
Mark_48
06-19-2009, 05:03 PM
Lol. I said it was not something that should be attempted at home, didn't I?
Seriously, anybody that attempts to copy my ballistics photography really seriously needs to think about safety and thus I suggest people leave it to professionals like me.
And as a "professional" such as yourself, the resulting image should have been a representation of said professionalism, rather than a simple snapshot recording of technical achievement. A little effort in the setup might have made a huge difference. As mentioned the background was crap. I can't really identify for sure what the object was that is shattering because of the clutter in the background. A plain background would have helped immensely in making this become a standout image and would have taken little effort to do so.
When you title a thread, "Is this the best shot ever with a kit lens", I have expectations of viewing an image that is carefully composed and reflects an effort by the photographer to be his best work. This image did not deliver that. Had you titled the thread something as, "First try at HS Photography with the new Trigger", I could accept it for what it is.
I don't know how your inventory is of disposable subjects to blow up, but since you only have one shot that will count per item, I would think you would want to ensure the resulting image will be the best you can get for what might be a one time opportunity.
Im sure it was just a joke.
You guys are grilling him quite hard, goes to show the expectations you have of him :)
Nickcanada
06-19-2009, 06:07 PM
Im sure it was just a joke.
You guys are grilling him quite hard, goes to show the expectations you have of him :)
No it wasn't a joke. ;) Well maybe it is a joke but he posts stuff like this because he knows what kind of reaction it will have. Don't feel bad for him, he knows what he's doing.
Mark_48
06-19-2009, 06:55 PM
Im sure it was just a joke.
You guys are grilling him quite hard, goes to show the expectations you have of him :)
Sometimes critiques can be harsh and unforgiving (hang around POTN much?), but there are always hopes that it may lead to improvements in ones endevours and they are, in most cases intended to be constructive in nature. :)
cdifoto
06-19-2009, 07:15 PM
You guys are grilling him quite hard, goes to show the expectations you have of him :)
Actually, we've learned to not have expectations.
D Thompson
06-19-2009, 09:19 PM
Actually, we've learned to not have expectations.
Not even low ones??:rolleyes:
Guys... It was a first go at high-speed photography.
I have plans for more, better images. I think if I extend the zoom on the flash head, I can drop the ISO a few stops. I shot all that with the head set for 24mm. Thus I was using ISO 800. Having said that grain is not so important when it's such an unusual subject.
I will be using a background next time. I have some sheets of black construction paper somewhere. They will make an excellent background
The problem I had of ricochets vanishes when I use enough power. I had been using a single pump on the air gun. The pellets had been bouncing off a butt-ugly set of tumblers that I got from a charity shop. I raised the power to full (10 pumps) and the 1st tumbler shattered nicely. I have to wait until tomorrow night to do more high-speed photos though.
Generally I'm finding thin, lighter, more fragile objects such as pencils, crayons, eggs and fine porcelain make for better targets - with a .177 air pistol. I would like to use more power but for that I really need to build a decent garden shed with decent sound insulation and a good bullet trap. Then I can go up to larger calibers of pistol and rifle.
For a .177 a decent bullet trap is a piece of plywood (5 ply). That stops everything. For .22LR you definitely need (from experience on the range) at least 2" of wood. A phone book will usually stop .357 magnum. Bullet traps don't have to be expensive but I'd say the cheapest and best is probably a wall of sandbags. Those are very cheap and available from most builder's merchants. The holes can be patched easily with tape.
Guys... It was a first go at high-speed photography.
I have plans for more, better images. I think if I extend the zoom on the flash head, I can drop the ISO a few stops. I shot all that with the head set for 24mm. Thus I was using ISO 800. Having said that grain is not so important when it's such an unusual subject.
I will be using a background next time. I have some sheets of black construction paper somewhere. They will make an excellent background
The problem I had of ricochets vanishes when I use enough power. I had been using a single pump on the air gun. The pellets had been bouncing off a butt-ugly set of tumblers that I got from a charity shop. I raised the power to full (10 pumps) and the 1st tumbler shattered nicely. I have to wait until tomorrow night to do more high-speed photos though.
Generally I'm finding thin, lighter, more fragile objects such as pencils, crayons, eggs and fine porcelain make for better targets - with a .177 air pistol. I would like to use more power but for that I really need to build a decent garden shed with decent sound insulation and a good bullet trap. Then I can go up to larger calibers of pistol and rifle.
For a .177 a decent bullet trap is a piece of plywood (5 ply). That stops everything. For .22LR you definitely need (from experience on the range) at least 2" of wood. A phone book will usually stop .357 magnum. Bullet traps don't have to be expensive but I'd say the cheapest and best is probably a wall of sandbags. Those are very cheap and available from most builder's merchants. The holes can be patched easily with tape.
Faster flashes are ideal but look at the price of microsecond flashes and you'll see why this is such a specialist occupation - a secondhand 1960s EG&G Microsecond flash is currently going on ebay for $5,200. It is possible to make them yourself but you're dealing with lots of unshielded UV light and extremely high voltages (around 30,000 volts). One slip with a screwdriver or a finger could well be your last. Ear defenders are essential when using such powerful flashes as they make a hell of a crack when they fire.
AdamW
06-20-2009, 03:37 PM
Guys... It was a first go at high-speed photography.
I have plans for more, better images.
Better than best?
Mark_48
06-20-2009, 03:39 PM
It was a first go at high-speed photography......
If that had been the original thread title.........
.......it's likely the some 27 replies might have been quite different. :D
Gotta give you credit for exploring something off the beaten path. And you've probably learned a bit about flashtubes and triggers along the way.
A few links that may be of interest (Googled "led pulse duration"). Might give you some uses for the LED array and that 555 timer chip you've got.......
http://news.thomasnet.com/fullstory/547138
http://selenianboondocks.com/2007/05/another-thesis-bleg-short-pulse-duration-stroboscope/
Checkout the EdmundOptics links at the bottom of this link..
http://photo.net/photography-lighting-equipment-techniques-forum/00SyLy
JMWallace
06-20-2009, 11:26 PM
Professionalism isn't defined by the willingness to accept injury.
Nor by ones imagined or perceived value or skill as a photographer. Kinda like the contestants on American Idol.
...sometimes the ones that are closest encourage while lacking a sense of true talent and honesty. (a.k.a. not telling someone that they really aren't as good as they want think they are or want to be -- which would spare the contestant of the public humiliation.)
Just an observation that was on my mind along the lines of CDI's statement while watching Amerinan Idol Rewind.
Speaking of American Idol, has anybody seen the British version with Susan Boyle? She can sing like a bird. Unfortunately she finds the pressure of singing somewhat hard, which is entirely understandable given her background.
Flossmoor40D
06-22-2009, 12:27 PM
Rhys, wow...theres so much humbleness in this thread :p
Cool shot though, too bad You chose such a crapy background.
Ditto on the background being really bad and distracting
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.