[LargeFormat] Re: rainbows, was R O Y G B I V

[philip lambert]

I probably used an exposure of about 1/250 for the shot of the rainbow that
disappointed.  The rainbow lasted five minutes, maybe less. I can't see how
a shorter shutter speed would achieve an improvement. The problem probably
lies in the way the film emulsion sees the light which is different to the
way the eye sees it.  I see bluebells as blue but all too often the photo
shows a reddish blue and it would take some work on the computer to fix it.
Maybe a digital camera would be capable of a realistic rendering in
experienced hands. Philip
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "john frost" <johnfrost@sprintmail.com>
To: <largeformat@f32.net>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 12:45 AM
Subject: Re: [LargeFormat] Re: rainbows, was R O Y G B I V


> As with cars, people, and aircraft, their motion through the frame may
> be fast enough to NOT be recorded, if using a slow shutter speed. If you
> want to capture the reflection (or refraction)of a drop (or molecule) of
> water, a faster shutter speed is needed.
>
> john (:>)))
>
> Alan Davenport wrote:
> > At 11:47 AM 12/11/2003, you wrote:
> >
> >> A slow shutter speed allows the water molecules to run away (turn),
> >> thereby loosing their contribution to the color.
> >
> >
> > Are you serious? Hmmm.  My understanding of the physics of rainbows, is
> > that the bow is produced by internal reflections and refraction through
> > water droplets, i.e., rain.  I doubt if the fastest shutter could keep
> > up with motion at the molecular level...
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LargeFormat mailing list
> > LargeFormat@f32.net
> > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/largeformat
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LargeFormat mailing list
> LargeFormat@f32.net
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/largeformat