by gar37bic » Tue Jul 20, 2010 1:41 pm
I see individual droplets of water falling off the bridge, so this can't be a normal time exposure. If it were, the droplets would be streaks if they were visible at all. So I suppose it could be either a rapid series of multiple exposures (and the multiple droplets are the same drops in different points of their fall) either on the same film frame or combined afterwards additively, or a short exposure with fast film. Looking at the droplets there is a very slight elongation, so working out the gravitational acceleration and the degree of elongation, you might be able to get an idea of the shutter speed. But the process of falling also distorts the droplets, so it's not simple.
... and now I see the explanation just above me, that confirms my first supposition! I don't know whether to be happy that I was right, or embarrassed that I didn't read it!
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
I see individual droplets of water falling off the bridge, so this can't be a normal time exposure. If it were, the droplets would be streaks if they were visible at all. So I suppose it could be either a rapid series of multiple exposures (and the multiple droplets are the same drops in different points of their fall) either on the same film frame or combined afterwards additively, or a short exposure with fast film. Looking at the droplets there is a very slight elongation, so working out the gravitational acceleration and the degree of elongation, you might be able to get an idea of the shutter speed. But the process of falling also distorts the droplets, so it's not simple.
... and now I see the explanation just above me, that confirms my first supposition! I don't know whether to be happy that I was right, or embarrassed that I didn't read it! :D