Rain photography, film camera

[ciaran_mcmenemy]

<p>How can I take a picture of rain in bad weather (with film camera)? Do I just use a low shutter speed, and flash, or is there more to it? I always like it when it's night and you see the rain falling near a car's headlights (feel free to share photos ^_^).<br>

I just remembered another question I had, related to flash: If flash must take place at 1/60 or slower, but 1/60 is the.. blur speed, couldn't flash in the daytime cause motion blur?</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>Flash will not cause motion blur generally because the flash, which is very bright, has a very short duration. The effective exposure speed is thus that of the flash, not the shutter, and the usual effect is the opposite. It stops motion of whatever it illuminates because its speed is higher than most shutters can achieve. If your camera allows slow sync or rear curtain flash, it is possible to achieve blur in a flashed picture, but the flash is not creating it. </p>

<p> </p>

[ciaran_mcmenemy]

<p>oh of course.. do you now how long the intense flash lasts for? is it 1/1000 or faster? </p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>Depends on the flash you are getting. Some are significantly faster some aren't and 80% of the time it probably doesn't matter...</p>

[AJG]

<p>Most on camera flash units will be 1/1000 or faster, especially if they are set on auto and you are close to the subject. The camera/flash automation on dedicated flashes sets exposure based largely on distance and cuts off the flash sooner as you get closer to the subject. I think that my Vivitar 285 HV can be as fast as 1/30,000 at closest distance. Matthew is right that setting a slow shutter speed would allow ambient light exposure to augment the flash exposure, and rear curtain sync would allow a blurred rain drop that ends in a sharp drop. Some experiments with a digital camera would be the easiest way to get the effect you are after, but if you're using film, make detailed notes of your settings, ambient light readings, etc.</p>

[SCL]

<p>I assume you mean electronic flash rather than flash bulbs. Bulbs can have quite a long duration (think 1/2-1/25 sec) as well as noticeable a curve in intensity as the flash builds up and diminishes. Many electronic flashes, at normal ranges usually have a duration of about 1/10,000 sec. or so.</p>

[al_derickson]

<p>I'm just thinking out loud here but if a time exposure is possible, possibly "painting" the rain with a handheld flashlight might be an experiment you could try.</p>

<p>Al</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Rain is best photographed backlit. That's why it shows up so well in a car's headlights or in a street lamp, etc. In daylight, it usually shows up best against a dark background rather than a light background. As for shutter speed, you have to experiment to get the effect you want. Slow speeds can capture rain as a streak. Very high speeds can capture invidual drops. You have to decide which look you prefer.<br /><br />As others have explained, flash cannot cause motion blur since flash inherently freezing motion at around 1/1000 or a second and faster. What you're thinking of is a situation where if you're shooting at say 1/60 of a second and using flash at the same time, you can get a sort of ghost image. Most people can handhold a camera at 1/60 without blur, so it comes down to the speed of subjects within the picture. A baseball bat being swung will definitely blur at 1/60. If you shoot it with flash at 1/60 you will get both the sharp frozen image from the flash and a blurred image from the 1/60. But someone standing still or barely moving won't blur. Bottom line is that flash fill in daylight is a standard practice and doesn't cause problems. You just ahve to watch out for fast motion.</p>

[ciaran_mcmenemy]

<p>thanks everyone! wow, flashes are fast indeed.<br>

that was a great explanation of daylight flash, by the way.<br>

'painting' is actually a really good idea! </p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>As Craig said, I think rain is best visible when it is backlit, so I have doubts whether the light painting option would work. Could be fun to try, but for experiments like this, I love digital as it's easier to adjust-and-try-again. With film, be prepared to waste a roll.<br>

In my experience, lamp posts are ideal. They don't move, give a bit of context to the frame/composition, and render the rain very visible. With slowish speeds, you can get decent streaks of rain falling (if it rains hard enough). Speeds should not be too slow, though, as that will stretch out the streaks too much. I'd try between 1 and 4 seconds more or less, and see how that goes; then adjust to taste (and weather conditions).</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>While flash is one approach I found that a 1/60 shutter captured this shot quite well and rain is drops of water as is most of this shot ....</p><div></div>

[jcuknz]

<p>Though I think that the drops of rain after falling can be interesting .. this was edited from two frames, elementary focus stacking :)</p><div></div>

[jcuknz]

<p>The thought crosses my mind that a cheap Bridge camera with PASM manual over rides would be useful tool to experiment with and learn what works and then use the successful settings for your film camera?</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>Thinking about the dog photo .. it works because o the back lighting so flash pointing someway towards the camera but the latter with a good lenshood etc shielding the lens from the light. second thought he dog is shaking large amounts of water off itself and rain is usually small drops quite a distance from each others so unless in a heavy downpour such as I experienced prior to the second photo which deposited large drops on my windscreen as I sheltered the results will not be particularly wonderful. One of the advantages of digital is the freedom to experiment at little cost and to see, if only on a tiny monitor what you got immediately instead of guessing an exposure and having to wait for it to be processed. </p><div></div>