Talk:Shutter (photography)

message: There is a discussion at Talk:diaphragm (optics) about various similar terms with separate articles on Wikipedia, and trying to clarify what these terms all mean (from a confused amateur photographer!)... Carcharoth 23:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion at [[diaphragm (optics)]] 

message: I added a link to intermittent mechanism (or motion) from the movie projector bit at the bottom of the article. It sounds like the shutter and film bits of the projector both use intermittent mechanisms, but I'd be grateful if someone could check. Carcharoth 01:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The film-moving mechanism (claw) is intermittent, but the shutter rotates continuously. The claw moves the next frame into place, and while it is stationary, the shutter opens and closes, 2 or 3 times. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 02:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Intermittent mechanism]] 

message: Would this be an appropriate place for a discussion of shutter lag - the delay between pressing the shutter release and the damn thing actually going off? This seems to be more relevant than ever in this brave new world of digital imaging! 88.110.45.118 22:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be say no, but then, I'm a Luddite who still uses real cameras (ones which use film). I'm curious: just how long a delay are we talking about here? Half a second? More? I guess it could be relevant to digicams. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 23:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Added the section. Go ahead and flesh it out. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 00:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It's the lag from pushing the button to the shutter opening, no matter what the cause.  Dicklyon (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: quite true yet unfortunate.  the gist of my point is that the name tends to keep folks from coming to the proper solutions (see Severoon's comment above). Corrective actions involving more light or manual focus will have better results as they address the root cause: AF delays. the workings and limitations of the actual shutter mechanism have virtually nothing to do with it, other than to give it a name and misdirect those who might try to avoid it somehow. cheers Ken (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Shutter (photography)#Shutter lag|Shutter Lag]] 

message: As the original author of the leaf shutter article and the original drawer of the leaf shutter and focal plane curtain shutter diagrams (many years ago), I'm dismayed and disappointed with the way this article has gone.  I'd be flattered that my original drawings are still there (albeit not always helped by editing of one sort or another) but I expected somone would have done some good original work that improved on my poor beginning. This pastiche though is just confusing and contains so much mis-information and rubbish it's upsetting, to say the least.  
At least half of the article is just rubbish eg: Special flashbulbs were designed in a slow-burn style where the light would reach full intensity, and then remain at that intensity to wait for the slow focal-plane shutter to expose the full film frame.  What utter rubbish, and exactly the opposite of what actually happened.  The slow ignition time of the flash bulbs required that the flash be fired before the shutter was opened.  There's also silly claims in there of central shutters being capable of 1/40,000 second.  Your digital marvel can do some great things, but moving a mechanism at mach 4 or 5 is not one of them.  The author of that statement seems confused about what a shutter is and how it works - digital exposure time is not the same thing as shutter speed in this case.
I'd list all the errata in this article but it's just too depressing.  I'm saddened by the realisation that people coming here for information will instead get so much misinformation and outright rubbish instead of the concise article that should be here.  I'm a bit of wikepedia fan, and always had faith in the ability of contributors to self-edit.  That faith has been severely shaken on reading this article.
Chris
211.27.190.162 (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of wikipedia articles are in sad shape, and it's not because of personal biases so much as just not yet attracting the energy of editors willing to do the work to improve it.  Your comments do not seem to be the sort that are going to inspire anyone, so jump in and work on it if you want to help. Dicklyon (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm saddened that these people replying above aren't even responsible enough to educate themselves to obliterate their own deep levels of ignorance. One needs to only Google for "Focal-plane Flash Bulbs" to know that again you are revealing your sad personal biases, yet again. Causing you to call facts as fiction. You people are just sad and sadder all around. Hint: GO EDUCATE YOURSELVES! At least go buy some REAL cameras so that you are not inventing "facts" out of your pathetic delusional virtual-lives. Here's just one passage from hundreds on the net that describe focal-plane flash bulbs -- "High Speed Synch is like using Focal Plane flash bulbs - once ignited they emitted light for over 1/10th of a second, to ensure that the slit of light allowed by the shutter covered the entire frame." Get over your immature inexperienced biases, you are making yourselves look like the total fools that you are.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.61.221.16 (talk) 01:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sad Peronal Bias II