All Shutter Speeds Let In The Same Amount of Light...

[dandaluzphotography]

for a given period of time, given the same aperture and light source.

I've been having a big debate with a friend about the above statement hopefully you guys can help settle. Let me explain.

(light source and aperture remain constant)

He says a slower shutter lets in more light. I completely agree. As a total amount of light, yes it does.

I also say that a shutter speed of 5 seconds, lets in the same amount of light as a shutter speed of 1 second. Let me explain that.

(Light source is constant)

If I have a camera that is set to an aperture of 9 and the shutter speed is set to 5 seconds, x amount of light comes into the sensor. Let's call the amount of light 10, just to give it a value.

Now, I have the same camera set to an aperture of 9 and a shutter speed of 1 second. Let's call that amount 2.

My assertion is that both settings let in the same amount of light.

Don't go nuts yet!

They let in the same amount of light but since the setting of 5 seconds is longer, the result is more light.

My assertion is that if you were to take the shutter speed of 5 and divide it by 5 and the amount of light (10) and divide that by 5, you come up with 1 and 2, respectively.

The same amount light for that given period of time (1 second).

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Danny

 

[Jarmo]

Just think light as photons, particles. The longer the shutter is open the more photons hit the sensor. That's all there is to it.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

I think you've just re-invented photography is what I think :lmao:

Thanks to you there's one less thing to adjust and I just threw my Shutter Speed controller in the trash...

There are some really amazing threads tonight. Is everybody drunk already?

 

[dandaluzphotography]

I think you've just re-invented photography is what I think :lmao:

Thanks to you there's one less thing to adjust and I just threw my Shutter Speed controller in the trash...

There are some really amazing threads tonight. Is everybody drunk already?

LMAO!

Of course you still need you shutter control!

I might be overanalyzing it, but I guess I was just looking at it mathematically.

 

[dandaluzphotography]

I am overanalyzing it

/thread.

I guess...

 

[GeorgieGirl]

for a given period of time, given the same aperture and light source.

I've been having a big debate with a friend about the above statement hopefully you guys can help settle. Let me explain.

(light source and aperture remain constant)

He says a slower shutter lets in more light. I completely agree. As a total amount of light, yes it does.

I also say that a shutter speed of 5 seconds, lets in the same amount of light as a shutter speed of 1 second. Let me explain that.

(Light source is constant)

If I have a camera that is set to an aperture of 9 and the shutter speed is set to 5 seconds, x amount of light comes into the sensor. Let's call the amount of light 10, just to give it a value.

Now, I have the same camera set to an aperture of 9 and a shutter speed of 1 second. Let's call that amount 2.

My assertion is that both settings let in the same amount of light.

Don't go nuts yet!

They let in the same amount of light but since the setting of 5 seconds is longer, the result is more light.

My assertion is that if you were to take the shutter speed of 5 and divide it by 5 and the amount of light (10) and divide that by 5, you come up with 1 and 2, respectively.

The same amount light for that given period of time (1 second).

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Danny

No thoughts.

My brain just shut down.

 

[clanthar]

1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 5; not math!!

So three friends go to a convention and decide to share a room.

When they check in, the desk clerk tells them the room is $30.00. (This was a long time ago).

Each guy pulls out $10.00 and gives it to the clerk (10 x 3 = 30) and they check in to room 203.

Later the clerk realizes that the hotel was running a special and that he overcharged the three. He hands a $5.00 bill to the bell hop and tells him to give it to the guys in room 203.

The bell-hop is a tad less than honest so he pockets $2.00 and gives $3.00 to the three friends in rm 203.

Now let's do an accounting: Each of our three friends spent $10.00 -- 3 x 10 = 30, but then got $1.00 back so the real cost of the room for each of them is $9.00. 9 x 3 = 27 and then there's $2.00 in the bell hop's pocket so 27 + 2 = 29. 30 - 29 = 1 !!Where's the missing dollar?

Joe

 

[OrionsByte]

Meh, it's semantics. Neither aperture nor shutter speed would "let light in" without the other. A shot taken at f/4 is always letting the same amount of light through the lens regardless of the shutter speed, that is true. The shutter speed determines how much of that light is exposed; it does not change the intensity of the light.

Sounds to me like you're trying to win your argument based on word choice alone (semantics, as I said). If you really want to be able to say, "longer shutter speeds don't let more light in but they do let more light in," than be my guest, but why be so intentionally confusing? The more accurate way to say what you're saying is, "longer shutter speeds don't increase the amount of light coming in to the camera, but they do expose that amount of light longer."

 

[dandaluzphotography]

Meh, it's semantics. Neither aperture nor shutter speed would "let light in" without the other. A shot taken at f/4 is always letting the same amount of light through the lens regardless of the shutter speed, that is true. The shutter speed determines how much of that light is exposed; it does not change the intensity of the light.

Sounds to me like you're trying to win your argument based on word choice alone (semantics, as I said). If you really want to be able to say, "longer shutter speeds don't let more light in but they do let more light in," than be my guest, but why be so intentionally confusing? The more accurate way to say what you're saying is, "longer shutter speeds don't increase the amount of light coming in to the camera, but they do expose that amount of light longer."

I wouldn't say I'm trying to be intentionally confusing. I guess in my mind I was breaking it down further.

"longer shutter speeds don't increase the amount of light coming in to the camera, but they do expose that amount of light longer."

I like this. I will use it instead!

 

[GeorgieGirl]

My brain just shut down.

You're brain shut down because he's over-thinking and potentially confusing new photographers.

Shutter speed lets more light in, the longer the shutter is open. That's all you need to know about that. :lmao:

Awesome...I almost thought it was because I was drunk.

 

[Stosh]

Yeah, semantics. How about analogy time? Let's use water out of a faucet into a tub.
Aperture is analogous to how much you open the faucet.
Shutter is how long you let it open.
How full your bathtub gets is a combination of the 2 (let's ignore ISO)

So at a given faucet setting, the water coming through is always the same rate, but your tub should get more full if you let the faucet open longer. If it doesn't, you're in some kind of an alternate universe.

 

[dandaluzphotography]

My brain just shut down.

You're brain shut down because he's over-thinking and potentially confusing new photographers.

Shutter speed lets more light in, the longer the shutter is open. That's all you need to know about that. :lmao:

My intent was not to confuse new photographers. I would hate to do that!

Like I said before, I agree that I was over-thinking it. I guess I have an analytical mind.

 

[dandaluzphotography]

Yeah, semantics. How about analogy time? Let's use water out of a faucet into a tub.
Aperture is analogous to how much you open the faucet.
Shutter is how long you let it open.
How full your bathtub gets is a combination of the 2 (let's ignore ISO)

So at a given faucet setting, the water coming through is always the same rate, but your tub should get more full if you let the faucet open longer. If it doesn't, you're in some kind of an alternate universe.

I agree completely!

 

[OrionsByte]

I wouldn't say I'm trying to be intentionally confusing. I guess in my mind I was breaking it down further.!

Alright, so saying "intentionally" was probably unfair, but the way you described your math made even my head hurt, and it could really confuse people who are new to photography, especially because your thread topic implies that shutter speed is irrelevant, when it's not.

EDIT: Seems like while I was typing that a couple other people said basically the same thing. I wasn't intentionally being redundant.

 

[dandaluzphotography]

I wouldn't say I'm trying to be intentionally confusing. I guess in my mind I was breaking it down further.!

Alright, so saying "intentionally" was probably unfair, but the way you described your math made even my head hurt, and it could really confuse people who are new to photography, especially because your thread topic implies that shutter speed is irrelevant, when it's not.

I see what you mean. Of course we all know that that's not true, but I can see how a person completely new to photography would read that and think that. I will post more responsibly in the future. Hopefully a person new to photography will read the whole thread!

I thought that was simple math!