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

[Nijay]

Your friend and you are arguing about two different measures and you're both right.

You are arguing the rate of light let in is the same, which it is, as that is determined by aperture and is independent of shutter speed.

He is arguing the total amount of light let in is different, which it is, as that is determined by aperture and shutter speed.

 

[vtf]

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

Look here, solution!

 

[BuS_RiDeR]

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

Are you stoned?

Longer shutter =more light... it isn't rocket science.

 

[impulsive1]

I think I am going to take up nuclear physics as a hobby. Seems less confusing.

 

[dandaluzphotography]

You will go nowhere in photography

Was that directed at me?

 

[dandaluzphotography]

Your friend and you are arguing about two different measures and you're both right.

You are arguing the rate of light let in is the same, which it is, as that is determined by aperture and is independent of shutter speed.

He is arguing the total amount of light let in is different, which it is, as that is determined by aperture and shutter speed.

Right! I agree!

 

[white]

This thread reminds me of the stupid "philosophical" discussions my friend and I used to have. Whoever argued semantics better won.

We're not friends anymore.

 

[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

Are you stoned?

Longer shutter =more light... it isn't rocket science.

Thanks for your feedback! Very constructive!

 

[Josh66]

BTU's is a measure of heat. BTU's does not equal Kelvin. Or Kevin if he so insists.

Actually, it's a measure of energy.

 

[dandaluzphotography]

This thread reminds me of the stupid "philosophical" discussions my friend and I used to have. Whoever argued semantics better won.

We're not friends anymore.

My buddy and I are great friends. We'll be fine.

 

[mjhoward]

Yea but who's on first?

 

[dandaluzphotography]

Are you stoned?

Longer shutter =more light... it isn't rocket science.

That's honestly what my first thought was before posting. :lmao:

This sounds like a conversation my friends and I had back in college when...THEY...uh... yeah... were stoned... (because I've *neeeeever* smoked in my life... especially not freshman year of college...) and we invented a new "religion" and called it "Deanism" (after my friend who started it all).

For about an hour we were convinced we COULD walk through walls if we *wanted* to... but the only reason we couldn't, was because none of us believed it enough.

...or... something like that.

I dunno.

I wrote a ridiculously long blog entry about it... if I still had access (or even knew the URL) to my old Xanga, I'd be tempted to find it now just for sh*ts and giggles.

Point is, however... reading unnecessary Philo-babble online always makes me wonder if that person is a) actually deep b) *thinks* they're deep but they're not or c) just in between hits.

I think i'm deeeeep!
:mrgreen: