HS Baseball Photo Question

Why wouldn't 1/1600 of a second be fast enough to completely stop the movement of the ball? What speed will??????

Please feel free to C&C the photo.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I don't know, but that's a nice shot

shooter-

I don't think the shot is bad, but I am not sure I like the horizontal framing on it.

You can either crop the photo, or, if you have CS4, use content aware scaling to change the aspect ratio of the photo, so that the empty space on either side disappears, and it is a vertically framed shot..

Maybe that's why you don't like it either, your eye is seeing this akward framing.....

TheShooterMIssouri wrote in post #7463947
Why wouldn't 1/1600 of a second be fast enough to completely stop the movement of the ball? What speed will??????

Please feel free to C&C the photo.

That is a good question, hopefully someone will be able to answer. I have seen some with the ball much clearer and seem to be standing still. Maybe a aperture/iso setting needed? I am interested as well.

Simple, the ball's moving faster. I have a few shots at 1/3200 with the ball not completely frozen.

Great shot

If the ball was falling at 60mph, the ball would still be move over half an inch given 1/1600 of a second.

TheShooterMIssouri wrote in post #7463947
Why wouldn't 1/1600 of a second be fast enough to completely stop the movement of the ball? What speed will?

Unless an object is stationary it will always move some regardless of shutter speed. The question really is when does it become such a small amount you can't detect it. This depends on a couple of factors. How fast the object is moving and in what direction.

Objects moving directly toward or away from you are much less noticable. The more the motion is paralell to the face of your lens the more noticable it will be.

Adam's summary is a good one. Even at 1/8000 the same ball moving 60mph will cover .132 inches which could still be noticed if the shot was tight enough and the ball was moving drectly paralell to the face of the lens.

If you want to play around with different scenarios here is the math.

speed (MPH) * 5280 / 3600 / shutter speed * 12 = Inches of movement during shutter actuation. (For shutter speed, use the big number only. Ex 1/1600 use 1600)

Another example. If you were taking a picture of a MLB fastball as it flys past your lens between the pitcher and the plate and the ball is traveling 100mph and for your work you decide 1/16" is all the motion you can tolerate viewing you would need a shutter speed of 1/28,160.

Go as fast as you can go. Here's an example of 1/6000 sec. (I've done 1/2000 sec with decent results)

damn Adam i was trying to figure that out had both shoes off

i think movement in the ball is good. the ball is obviously not stationary during the game so why would anyone want to see the ball stationary in a photo? seems like a silly idea to me but as mentioned above, the ball is simply moving faster than the shutter speed.

I've often noticed that the ball distorts more than blurs. I finally figured out that the slit between the two curtains travels past the image of the ball as it moves across the focal plane, and there's not enough motion to show a blur, but enough to show distortion. Either that or the local 10-year-olds are throwing some sort of funky pitch that defies the laws of physics.