SKID Photography wrote: > Arthur Entlich wrote: > > > SKID Photography wrote: > > > > > > > > I think you will find that very few, if any, flashes are of such a > > short duration. It has been my experience > > > that the difference between, a 250th, 125th and 60th of a second > > exposure and almost any brand electronic > > > flash will yield very different film exposures, no matter what type > > of shutter you are using. > > > > > > > > > Harvey Ferdschneiderpartne > > > partner, SKID photography, NYC > > > > > > > My Vivitar 285 flash indicates specifications of 1/1000th to 1/30,000 > > sec, but it is what, 20 years old? > > > > I couldn't find the specs of my much newer Nikon speedlite, but I think > > it has an even faster minimum speed. > > > > Art > > > > > Try taking 3 different photos (Poaloids will do), at a 60th, 125th and 250th of a >second. Will will see that > there will be a significant exposrue difference between them. > > As far as 'spec' go, this would not b the first time that manufacturers fudged them. > > Harvey Ferdscneider > partner, SKID Photography, NYC
I apologize to all for my above post....I was writing it as I was having my morning coffee, I hit the wrong key, and it went out before it was finished. :-( It should have read: Try taking 3 different photos (Polaroids will do), at a 60th, 125th and 250th of a second. Will will see that there will be a significant exposure differences between them (due to long flash durations). In fact, usually, the less expensive flashes will have longer durations than the better ones. Which is to say that they get they power by flash duration rather than initial power. As far as 'specs' go, this would not be the first time that manufacturers have fudged them. Again, sorry about the mis-post. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
