Shooting through the lens...

[spacefuzz]

Thank you all for the comments and compliments! I'll post on here later today exactly how I did it when I get a chance to include pictures of the set up.

Here's how I did NOT do it: No triggers, no fast firing strobes, just a Canon 60D with an off camera 580EX II. And there was some editing involved, but it's not a "photoshop" job. All of the elements were in the original picture. I only destroyed one lens, no burst mode.

The real question is did: the bullet actually punched through the lens over 600fps?

well no it wasnt going 600 fps simply due to kinetics.

 

[Vtec44]

Thank you all for the comments and compliments! I'll post on here later today exactly how I did it when I get a chance to include pictures of the set up.

Here's how I did NOT do it: No triggers, no fast firing strobes, just a Canon 60D with an off camera 580EX II. And there was some editing involved, but it's not a "photoshop" job. All of the elements were in the original picture. I only destroyed one lens, no burst mode.

The real question is did: the bullet actually punched through the lens over 600fps?

well no it wasnt going 600 fps simply due to kinetics.

Yeah just a random number I throw out. It looks like a huge bullet so I just assuming the starting speed is around 900fps through a bunch of lenses probably dropped the speed quite a bit. There's a good reason why I'm not an engineer lol.

 

[shootermcgavin]

Ha..! You hung those glass pieces with black strings, blow smoke trough the bullet hole, hung the bullet too? Close enough?

Ding ding ding, I think we have a winner. This is what I'd put my money on, something just doesn't look right about the shot. Every slow motion video I've seen of bullets has the dust or matter flying forward and out, it seems to trail the bullet too well. I'm real interested to find out what really happened.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Based on the shape of the slug projectile, the bullet hit something that is hard and sturdy (like a concrete wall). Trust me on this.. I watch a lot of CSI. You also need to brace the camera down because I dont think the camera would just sit there stand still during impact unless the camera is mounted down on the tripod mount.



LOL JK. I have no idea but I wish the OP would reply NOW!

 

[spacefuzz]

you make a good point about mounting that camera down.....
the fractured front lens doesnt look like its missing the big pieces that were blown out (though that could be perspective).

The bullet looks like its starting to tumble, slight downward tilt so its going pretty slow at this point. Aerodynamically its a sail.

 

[scorpion_tyr]

Schwettylens nailed it, well close enought. I used fishing line and just cloned it out in PP. The bullet is suspended by fishing line as well. I did fire the bullet a long time ago, but at water. It's a 9mm hollow point so water had enough resistance to open it up, but not to really mangle it bad like other surfaces would, like a camera. The smoke was done by actually driving a screwdriver through the lens with a mallet to get broken glass and open up a hole. I then routed a small air hose through the back by going through the shutter, under the mirror and into the lens. I smoked an e-cigarette and blew the smoke through the air hose as I took the shot.

I did a lot of research beforehand and figured the bullet would be going slow enough to freeze it after I fire it through a phonebook and camera, but the problem is that bullets deflect BAD when they go through glass and all the glass in a lens would surely make the bullet exit out the side of the lens somewhere. I was using a 60D so if I had gone for a fast shutter speed (1/8000) I would still need a bullet moving less than 300fps to even be able to recognize it.

Thanks again for all the compliments! I did this shot mostly to prove a point during a photo class I teach:

There are only three things that will limit your photography: your knowledge (skill, experience, training), your equipment, and your imagination. If you're falling short in one of them you can make up for it by being strong in the other two areas.

 

[scorpion_tyr]

Oh, and for the one who mentioned it, yes, the camera would need to be still. Many objects will only move a split second after the bullet passes through, but with all the resistance of the lens the camera would have moved a lot as the bullet went through.

And yes, there would have been a lot more debris behind and a few pieces in front of the bullet, but I was lazy and I also was going more for the art, not the science of it on this one.

 

[scorpion_tyr]

And I know the lens doesn't look like it's missing any glass, but it is. Those big pieces were the very front element and the element still in the lens is actually the second.

 

[Robin Usagani]

It is awesome man. You fooled everyone. That is how good it is.

 

[Trever1t]

love it. almost as much fun as really blasting away at an old camera and lens.

 

[scorpion_tyr]

Thanks!

 

[arkipix1001]

all i can say is....wicked!!!

 

[Derrel]

Buckster, I know what you mentioned is how it is properly done, but how many people own a sensor trigger?Bulb mode only works if you use the sensor trigger to shoot the strobe at a certain time. You can't have multiple strobe fires during the bulb mode, then the target (camera) will be overexposed. Or, I am really sure 12 fps or faster with short duration flash, you don't need to be that lucky to capture a bullet hitting a target. Judging with how sharp the bullet is, op may not have used regular strobe unless the camera and lens really slowed down the bullet.

"I am really sure 12 fps or faster with short duration flash, you don't need to be that lucky to capture a bullet hitting a target"

Are you kidding? 1/12 of a second is an eternity with a bullet traveling even 400 feet per second--which is coming from a low-powered handgun "squib load" that is so underpowered the bullet barely leaves the barrel; even a "slow" normal handgun bullet will be traveling at 800 feet per second...and you think, somehow, a guy can capture a bullet's impact or presence in a small area by firing a camera that shoots at TWELVE frames per SECOND??? Uh, seriously, no, ain't gonna happen...

 

[unpopular]

Omg. You guys.

Assuming that the bullet was traveling at 600 ft/sec:

600 ft/sec = 182 m/sec = 18288 cm/s = 18.22 cm/ms

That means that if the bullets travels a reasonable distance of about 20cm, you'd have more than 1ms to trigger a flash from when the gun was discharged. If you don't like the position of the bullet, move the gun. This is more than practical, and I could build a trigger that would do this for about $40-60 using a microprocessor, and even less using a 555 timer. It could even be programmed to open the shutter upon trigger, wait 1ms, trigger the flash, wait 1ms, close the shutter. With 1/2000sec, you wouldn't have to worry about stray light at all.

Flash time, however, is another issue entirely. At 1/10000 sec the bullet would have traveled about 20mm (about 3/4"!), at 1/50000 about 3.7mm and at 1/100000 about 0.18mm. Clearly, normal flash equipment isn't sufficient to achieve sharpness. I am thinking that this shot may not have been possible with anything less than a flash duration of 1/100,000sec. Considering that the ISO was at 100 and aperture at 18(!), you'd have to dump a HUGE amount of light to accomplish this. I don't know if it's impossible, but I kind of have my doubts.

(disclaimer: not responsible for mathematical inaccuracy)

 

[Robin Usagani]

Jesus derrel.... do you want me to give you links of photos people getting lucky with bullet shot? What if you make the medium it goes trough thick enough where the bullet will barely come out? Is it still 600 ft/sec? Of course it is possible.

There was no doubt in my mind it has to be done like what buckster said, but HE failed reading the OP's post. He was indicating that he was shooting with "BASIC" equipment. Not my fault making that assumption because I READ the original post! Give me a break.