RE: Fireworks ?

[Varró Norbert <varron@xxxxxxx>]

Any documentation on slit panorama flash photography?

Norbert

> ----------
> From: 	Willem-Jan Markerink[SMTP:w.j.markerink@xxxxx]
> Sent: 	29 November 1999 00:44
> To: 	panorama-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: 	RE: Fireworks ?
> 
> On 27 Nov 99 at 1:14, Dave Buyens wrote:
> 
> >   Flash photography wouldn't seem to work with the 202 either.  Use the
> 202
> > for interesting daytime shots.
> 
> Flash photography is a tad less problematic than fireworks....the 
> flash problem can be solved with a stroboscobe....although you need a 
> big one to obtain the power similar to an ordinary flash.
> 
> Fireworks is indeed a sad limitation of any swing lens camera....with 
> a slit of only a few mm's creeping by on film, one will never get the 
> continuous full blast on film....even a comprimise like using 
> high-speed film and shorter shutter speeds won't work....it will 
> result in the same boring 'static' shots as with a normal 
> camera....the trail from start to end won't be visible.
> 
> I'd call this the most tantalizing problem of swing-lens cameras.
> 
> Btw fireworks: don't always stick to wide-angle and as many bursts as 
> possible....my best firework shots were with 100 or even 200mm, 
> covering only part of the 'bloom'....otherworldly, much different 
> than what is seen by the naked eye.
> Also cute, for those into IR: use Kodak Ektachrome IR without filter, 
> especially in snow covered areas....the background will be blue 
> (artificial lighting itself rather neutral, unlike normal film sans blue 
> filter), while the fireworks still maintain a nice spread of colors, 
> all in the warm range....very nice contrast, especially with a 8mm 
> circular fisheye, one that lives from strong contrasts (because of the 
> limited subject magnification), and covering both the entire trail 
> from start to end, as well as a lot of surroundings. 
> Cool fireworks....:-))
> 
> --                 
> Bye,
> 
> Willem-Jan Markerink
> 
> 
>       The desire to understand 
> is sometimes far less intelligent than
>      the inability to understand
> 
> 
> <w.j.markerink@xxxxx>
> [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
>