Flash powders, an education.

[StoneNYC]

There was recently a thread about flash powders, I found it very interesting and then it got to the end of the thread and found that a few people were afraid of the technique and decided that it should be closed.

This post is not meant to agitate the moderators, but it is meant to remind people about who we are and what we do.

Every day we as film photographers go into the darkroom and safely handle very VERY dangerous chemicals, chemicals that can cause all sorts of health risks including death, we do this day in and day out to create beautiful and unique imagery. Many of these chemicals (like Rodinal and Pyro developers) are ORM-D (is that acronym right?) classified for shipping.

And yet no one seems to complain about that, however, for some reason flash powder is scary to everyone?

I want to kind of remind people that this is a forum that is about sharing information, information that is being lost and is slowly dying out because all the people that have the information are also dying out, and if we don't pass on this valuable information, the details will be lost forever.

When I was about 11, my father, who is a chemist, taught me how to from scratch using household chemicals, create a substance that would get hot enough to ignite magnesium powder, and the only thing you needed to start the reaction was a single drop of water.

Did we have fun? Yes. Was it dangerous? Yes. Did I learn something valuable? Yes. Did we put a hole in the cement of the backyard patio? Yes.... But did we have fun? And did we learn something? Yes yes yes.

Did I end up making bombs and blowing stuff up? No of course not, because I was also taught to be safe and to use the knowledge properly.

There are a million places on the Internet where someone could find info in order to use it to make something dangerous for an evil purpose, (I mean everyone knows about the "anarchists cookbook" that's been around since the mid 90's) and I highly doubt that simply sharing information about flash powder could somehow be more dangerous to anyone than half of the other stuff on the Internet, and I think limiting the sharing of information especially of historic value, is a dangerous path, and one that history has shown can lead to very very bad ends... It's a slippery slope, this censorship of information...

Anyway, I will end this post by saying ...

Any of the following information that may be contained within this thread posting and subsequent posts, are for informational purposes, and to aid in the techniques of creating photographic imagery using traditional methods, and should only be used for that purpose and that purpose alone, you should also acknowledge that by reading such information you will not hold liable the forum or any members thereof participating or not participating if you should happen to cause injury to yourself or others in the use of such information.

By reading further you agree to the above.

That should cover the forum for any liability concerns...

Anyway, so if the moderators would permit me to continue? Please?

Would anyone share some imagery they created using flash powders? Any technique and lessons learned personally? And only share formulas if you feel comparable doing so, and with a rider like the above so the mods can stay happy.

I would really be interested in seeing some modern imagery using flash powder as the light source.

Thanks.

~Stone

[Tim Meisburger]

+1

I've only seen images on the web, but it looks quite useful for lighting large areas. For people in the US, you can buy it at any theatre supply house.

I have a little flash pan made in the 60s (I think) in England that has an 8 inch handle, a tray slightly larger than a small matchbox and a clockwork wider that sparks a lighter flint. Its cute, but I have yet to use it.

Here is a link to some pictures of it. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?92285-Flash-powder-lamp-and-front-mounted-shutters

[BetterSense]

IBTL

Somewhere I have an on-film comparison between my Niko speedlight, Novatron, and some flash powder. It is very interesting and I will try to dig it up.

[StoneNYC]

Tim, thanks for the link, interesting, I would think they would be larger, I guess that's for "modern" powder as opposed to the larger amounts used in longer pans.

PS nice shutters!!! What a find!

And I look forward to the comparisons bettersense.

[Shootar401]

I'm guessing that back in the days of flash powder photography, photographers would make their own since the ingredients were much, much easier to buy. The making would involve measuring the chemicals precisely in order to get the right "flash" and in turn the right exposure. I know next to nothing about flash powder in photography, but I assume that the flash pan size, shape and the powder volume were all factored in to get the correct exposure.

Alot of trial and error and information passed from other photographers, most likely lost to history.

[StoneNYC]

That makes a lot of sense.

Does anyone know if using flash powder produces more UV needed for collodion wet plate stuff? That could be an optimum way to get freeze frame shots? Or at least faster than 3 second exposures?

[Drew Bedo]

I see the point made by StoneNYC. One step in the wet collodien process involves nitrated cellulose aka "gun cotton", which can be explosive if not treated well. Looked at from the perspective of firearms and re-loading supplies I can see that there is a place for flash powder in photography.

Shooter401: This "lost" information is well documented on Wikipedia under "Flash Powder". there is a discussion of ingredients and ratios. One key concept that is missing from this discussion so far is that the components are essentially inert separately. There is a product for firearms shooters called Tanerite (I think) that consists of two powders, ammonium nitrate and aluminum. The measured components are shipped together in separate packaging via UPS without any regulation. These premeasured powders are shaken togfether at the range and placed as a target. When struck by a bullet, the mixture explodes dramatically. It is available in quantity on e-bay. There is an article on Tanerite on Wikipedia too.

With that in mind. I suppose a photographer could premeasure one-shot quantities of flash powder ingredients and make it up prior to each exposure. I get the idea that the amounts needed for an exposure are about the volume of a pill bottle. Just pour one into the other, cap and shake, then spread in the flash pan.

[Drew Bedo]

That makes a lot of sense.

Does anyone know if using flash powder produces more UV needed for collodion wet plate stuff? That could be an optimum way to get freeze frame shots? Or at least faster than 3 second exposures?


Well, a lot of images were made with flash powder so I would think so. This is the trial-and-error part of old processes.

[Richard Johnson]

Even if a lawyer wrote the best waiver/acknowledgement it still would not absolutely protect the private owner of this forum from a negligence lawsuit should something unfortunate happen so that an aggressive lawsuit was created, no matter how unsound and unjust. The problem here is not with the moderators but with our society, at least in the USA, where frivolous plaintiffs go on a money hunt in the courts. It doesn't matter if there is no cause for a case, the costs of defending yourself are significant and, once your insurance is cancelled because you were sued no matter how frivolously, you're left in a bad situation.

In other words, do your flash powder experiments with personal injury attorneys and the politicians who enable them. But please don't expose the forum owner to this.

[MDR]

Plenty of old photography manuals have flash powder formulas and you can view them on Google Books. I also hope that nobody on this forum uses sparklers at christmas or other parties as they are very close to flash powder in their formulation. Don't drive a Bugatti Atalante either as it's made out of magnesium. Also google Flashpowder everyone and their mothers seem to have a formula and are willing to present it on the web.

Maybe a huge disclaimer is the solution: The fabrication or use of.... might cause blindness, death, etc....
Don't use these .... without professional supervision....

[Drew Bedo]

Richard:


Do your concerns also apply to any discussion of the Daguerreotype process using Bromine based "quick" sensitizer and Mercury bath developing? Again; I mention nitrocellulose in wet plate photography. Collodian , also called "gun cotton" is explosive under the right conditions . . .as is flash powder. I bought Iodine crystals from Photographers Formulary a few years ago and had to fill out a form from the DEA—which surprised me as I would have thought the BATF would be more interested. What about the health risks inherent in ULF photography such as crushed foot injuries and hernias? I know a guy who had a heart attack while lugging around a Deardorff V8 . . .not even ULF.

There are whole forums devoted to firearms, reloading bullets and hunting that don't seem to have any problems . . .how is that? There are even auction sites for these items. IThose sites discuss subjects that actually involve the intent to commit violence downrange, be it a bulls eye target or game animal. Here on Large format Photography the explicit and implied object of every thread is creating an image.

[Jac@stafford.net]

IBTL

Somewhere I have an on-film comparison between my Niko speedlight, Novatron, and some flash powder. It is very interesting and I will try to dig it up.

I look forward to that! I sometimes use big Edison/Mazda-base flashbulbs which produce an enormous amount of nice, soft light. Someday it would be interesting to compare to modern light sources.

Speaking of dangers - I have two bulb types that just plain scare me. One is the Mazda 75, another is the type that has a duration of 2.7 seconds. I'd have to dig to find the brand/model number on packages of the later. Oh, I wear armored mechanics' gloves when I mount them.

[goamules]

As a black powder reloader for 35 years, a wetplate collodion photographer for 8, and a industrial/Safety training manager for a long, long time I can speak to the concern. No one knows who is reading internet forums. Some people are professional, reasonable, and cautious. Some are loose canons (no pun), ready to try anything for a bang (no pun). I believe in free speech. But exploring the most dangerous solution "for fun" is a little irresponsible. I don't post reloading formulas on my gun forums for the same reason. You don't know who is going to follow your instructions, or how well. Learning to make flash powder is a solution looking for a problem.

Already, there are myths being bandied about in this thread:

1. Myth: Collodion is guncotton, and therefore explosive. Wrong. Collodion is made from gun cotton, which then becomes a different substance with different properties. No one makes collodion from scratch (guncotton), they buy it in safe, medical grade form. It and it's fumes are merely flammable, just like the gasoline in your lawn mower in the hot garage.

2. Myth: Wetplate photographers used flash powder a lot. Wrong. I believe this misconception comes from all the Western movies that show an outdoor scene with the photographer holding a flashtray. You don't need a flash for outdoor photography. And you don't want to fill an indoor space with a plume of choking smoke. Or with fizzling sparks ready to burn down the town. Wetplate studios had skylights, not flash powder. You will have to look at hundreds, perhaps thousands of wetplate tintypes before you'll find one taken with a flash.

3. Myth: Because I'm a smart guy, everyone on the forum is smart and careful. Wrong. See opening paragraph.

Talk about it all you want. Next we need a post on "how to make Silver Nitrate from scrap silver" which comes up on the Collodion.com forum from time to time. And I shut it down because it's one of the most deadly things you could try to do in the home. And when I list the dangers, the same thing happens as this thread - the original poster tries to use every rationale from freedom of speech to native intelligence to justify a long, instructional post on how to flirt with suicide. Though you can buy safe Silver Nitrate for the same cost as scrap silver, some have even put helpful youtube videos on the process, without mentioning the extreme, life threatening hazzard.

[BetterSense]

I will have to go digging thru negatives to find my flash tests.

[goamules]

And if you search this forum, you'll find the topic comes up once a year of so:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?44107-Old-Press-Cameras-with-Flash-Powder&p=423639&viewfull=1#post423639

As you'll see, I'm not opposed to trying to use flash powder, I'm opposed to trying to make it.

[BetterSense]

I located a scan of my original flash powder test. This is the same film strip contact printed twice...the top printing exposure was much longer than the lower one. The hsecond frame from the left was a dud and should be ignored.

This test also shows off the extreme latitude of TMY.

113903

http://chazmiller.com/images/powderflash.jpg

[E. von Hoegh]

There was recently a thread about flash powders, I found it very interesting and then it got to the end of the thread and found that a few people were afraid of the technique and decided that it should be closed.

This post is not meant to agitate the moderators, but it is meant to remind people about who we are and what we do.

Every day we as film photographers go into the darkroom and safely handle very VERY dangerous chemicals, chemicals that can cause all sorts of health risks including death, we do this day in and day out to create beautiful and unique imagery. Many of these chemicals (like Rodinal and Pyro developers) are ORM-D (is that acronym right?) classified for shipping.

And yet no one seems to complain about that, however, for some reason flash powder is scary to everyone?

I want to kind of remind people that this is a forum that is about sharing information, information that is being lost and is slowly dying out because all the people that have the information are also dying out, and if we don't pass on this valuable information, the details will be lost forever.

When I was about 11, my father, who is a chemist, taught me how to from scratch using household chemicals, create a substance that would get hot enough to ignite magnesium powder, and the only thing you needed to start the reaction was a single drop of water.

Did we have fun? Yes. Was it dangerous? Yes. Did I learn something valuable? Yes. Did we put a hole in the cement of the backyard patio? Yes.... But did we have fun? And did we learn something? Yes yes yes.

Did I end up making bombs and blowing stuff up? No of course not, because I was also taught to be safe and to use the knowledge properly.

There are a million places on the Internet where someone could find info in order to use it to make something dangerous for an evil purpose, (I mean everyone knows about the "anarchists cookbook" that's been around since the mid 90's) and I highly doubt that simply sharing information about flash powder could somehow be more dangerous to anyone than half of the other stuff on the Internet, and I think limiting the sharing of information especially of historic value, is a dangerous path, and one that history has shown can lead to very very bad ends... It's a slippery slope, this censorship of information...

Anyway, I will end this post by saying ...

Any of the following information that may be contained within this thread posting and subsequent posts, are for informational purposes, and to aid in the techniques of creating photographic imagery using traditional methods, and should only be used for that purpose and that purpose alone, you should also acknowledge that by reading such information you will not hold liable the forum or any members thereof participating or not participating if you should happen to cause injury to yourself or others in the use of such information.

By reading further you agree to the above.

That should cover the forum for any liability concerns...

Anyway, so if the moderators would permit me to continue? Please?

Would anyone share some imagery they created using flash powders? Any technique and lessons learned personally? And only share formulas if you feel comparable doing so, and with a rider like the above so the mods can stay happy.

I would really be interested in seeing some modern imagery using flash powder as the light source.

Thanks.

~Stone

Stone, if we are thinking of the same thread, there was one where a very poorly informed person kept persistently posting advice ranging from bad to downright stupid and likely to land the follower in a burn/trauma unit.
Hopefully that sort of imbecility will not afflict this thread, 'cause I'm interested too. :)

[Richard Johnson]

Richard:

....There are whole forums devoted to firearms, reloading bullets and hunting that don't seem to have any problems . . .how is that? There are even auction sites for these items. IThose sites discuss subjects that actually involve the intent to commit violence downrange, be it a bulls eye target or game animal. Here on Large format Photography the explicit and implied object of every thread is creating an image.

That's their prerogative and I do not know what protections or risk they are taking. But why should we expose the private owner of this forum, who does us a good service through his generosity, to the potential of a frivolous yet expensive lawsuit?

Again the problem is not the well-intended but the legal system in the USA that allows such suits to happen, plus the idiots who blow themselves and others up.

[Drew Bedo]

If this topic is such a threat to the forum, the owner/admin can make a policy on it. If a topic is declared off-limits I am sure that it won't come up too often. If a poster persists with a forbidden topic the admins can ban the poster. The wuestionis; Is this really worth making such an issue over? If the answer is yes, then ban the topic. We are not dealing with an illegal act or a repugnant lifestype (whatever that may be).

If someone persisted in posting images that were repugnant to the owner, I am sure that action would be taken.

[Shootar401]

That's their prerogative and I do not know what protections or risk they are taking. But why should we expose the private owner of this forum, who does us a good service through his generosity, to the potential of a frivolous yet expensive lawsuit?

Again the problem is not the well-intended but the legal system in the USA that allows such suits to happen, plus the idiots who blow themselves and others up.

Let me guess, you are a lawyer? 4 posts and you have nothing but negative things to say?

Let's get back on track please.

[Richard Johnson]

Let me guess, you are a lawyer? 4 posts and you have nothing but negative things to say?

Let's get back on track please.

If you actually look at my four posts none are negative, I have only been the victim of lawyers, and am only suggesting caution since there are instances of website owners being sued for things like this.

FWIW I've been a large format photographer for four decades and would enjoy a like-minded internet community. I've read on here for years but decided to post, but if it only takes four exchanges until I meet a obnoxious troll it makes me wonder if it's worthwhile?

[Tim Meisburger]

Flash powder was produced commercially and used extensively for the first 60 years of the 20th century, and there is a wealth of information available on how to use it in photography. I doubt any photographers made their own. And it wasn't trial and error by the masses, there were clearly established and understood guidelines for quantity and exposure for different situations (I've seen Kodak guidelines, but don't have them in-hand). If the concern is making flash powder, great! You can still go down to the local store and buy it pre made. Comes in two bottles, A and B, and you mix the quantity needed when you need it. Its not mysterious stuff. Its used all the time in theatre and movies.

[StoneNYC]

I can certainly vouch for the fact that it is often used in TV and movies, I have seen it used but have never used it myself.

As for the safety guy, there was a police officer that once told me a really wise thing about driving, he said that there are police on the road for reason and if you don't like someone's driving even if they're swerving in and out of lanes you shouldn't go chasing after them trying to make sure they correct themselves, because it's not your job, and though you are a health and safety person and you working at industry that is not your job to police other people in the world. I do value your advice and opinions on the subject of safety, and if there are safety concerns I'm certainly glad to hear them. But I also think that this information is valuable and should be discussed and shared, and that's all say about that really.

I'm one of those type of people that like to know information just to know it, say the world ends and chaos rules and I'd like to make things from scratch, I know how to build fabric from scratch as an example, that kind of thing, how are things really made from the beginning, because a lot of people really don't have that info and if you don't have access to the knowledge about the raw materials you really know nothing. So to me it's more about the knowledge and learning about it I may never actually make my own but I would like to know how, it's really interesting and is a valuable piece of information should 20, 30 or 40 years from now I want to make images with flash powder, but they no longer sell it, I would like to know how to actually produce it myself you never know. If you have ill intent to do something, it's not going to stop you if the information is in on this forum for example, or not.

The information is out there, and I'm personally not concerned about the forum owners because I don't think anything bad will happen to them, I wouldn't post anything that I thought would endanger the forum or the owners.

Anyway back to the discussion, those images are interesting, so fresh powder certainly is very very much brighter than even some strobe light, cool!

[goamules]

I just did a quick Google search on "flash powder photography" and you're right Tim, there are dozens of old articles about it. Here are a couple near the top:

"It is very important to bear in mind that these magnesium flash powders are really explosives, and must be treated with all the respect due to such compounds. Several fatal accidents have been caused in the past by carelessness in this respect."
Illford Manual of Photography, 1925 (http://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Ilford/FlashPowder_Manual_of_Photography.html)

"Photography magazine for January 1981, describes using flash powder "...If all went well a sheet of white flame was produced, varying in height from 6" to a foot (12" = 300mm), depending upon the amount of powder. If you were unlucky, however, one of two things could happen. .... Everyone had some horrifying story to tell about flash powder.""
http://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Ilford/Flash_History.html

Deaths and injuries per year due to fireworks, mostly homemade "Darwin Awards."
https://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/108534/2011fwreport.pdf
http://www.statisticbrain.com/firework-statistics/

Stone, you're right, it's not my job to make you be safe. You don't work for me, fortunately. But just as your "thirst for knowledge" drives you to start threads "just because", my beliefs on safety (of only certain topics), drive me to provide that information. You can do with it what you wish. And like I said, I'm not opposed to people going out and trying to use flashpowder. I just can't figure out why you don't search the mangnitude of information already in this Forum, and on the internet. It seems you just want to start a controversial topic, among a bunch of people that don't use it and are only guessing about it. It was used, the info is out there, it's not used any more. Probably for a reason, eh? I'm out....

[Jac@stafford.net]

I located a scan of my original flash powder test. This is the same film strip contact printed twice...the top printing exposure was much longer than the lower one. The hsecond frame from the left was a dud and should be ignored.

http://chazmiller.com/images/powderflash.jpg

Thank you for that!

[Shootar401]

What spees film was the norm back then? Was it even rated?

Had to be low to handle the brighness, even stopped down id imagine

[dsphotog]

I'd imagine the subject of such a portrait would have a rather startled facial expression.

[Nathan Potter]

Hah, I'm probably guilty of disclosing information that is dangerous to ones health and well being and for that I apologize. But I'm not very sympathetic to censorship of any kind. The entire web is a forum for information exchange and yes, anyone who posts is open to suit along with the site sponsor, however remote the basis for suit is.

This is a natty issue in that any advice or recommendations posted on a forum is open season for aggressive lawyers to make a buck. Notice that when I advise LF forum members of a particular site suitable for a fine photograph and a member slips and drowns I and the forum owner conceivably are liable, as far fetched as this may seem. So be careful not to suggest risky places to photograph on this forum - and by extension any number of other types of information that could result in injury. This philosophy can be stretched to lengths that are really detrimental to the free exchange of information. Do we really want a ridiculously sanitized forum?

OTOH the decision to close a thread is and should be up to the moderators and is often a judgement call.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[StoneNYC]

Good stuff.

Those images are telling of the brightness for sure.

Has anyone actually used a light meter to rate the light in quantities like measure by weight if the powder to see on a standard long reflector/holder?

Obviously it would vary but it would be good to have a starting point?

[Drew Bedo]

Film speed wasn't rated the way we think about it till very late. The early Kodachrome was rated at ASA 12 in the 1930s. It was a breakthrough when that sensitivity was doubled to 25.

[Corran]

Even if a lawyer wrote the best waiver/acknowledgement it still would not absolutely protect the private owner of this forum from a negligence lawsuit should something unfortunate happen so that an aggressive lawsuit was created, no matter how unsound and unjust. The problem here is not with the moderators but with our society, at least in the USA, where frivolous plaintiffs go on a money hunt in the courts. It doesn't matter if there is no cause for a case, the costs of defending yourself are significant and, once your insurance is cancelled because you were sued no matter how frivolously, you're left in a bad situation.

In other words, do your flash powder experiments with personal injury attorneys and the politicians who enable them. But please don't expose the forum owner to this.

Please post some citations for this claim. I'm almost positive this is completely wrong.

[Shootar401]

Good stuff.

Those images are telling of the brightness for sure.

Has anyone actually used a light meter to rate the light in quantities like measure by weight if the powder to see on a standard long reflector/holder?

Obviously it would vary but it would be good to have a starting point?

I think the issue would be a long flash duration making it difficult to get an accurate reading. Much like flashbulbs I can see flash powder flashing longer than electronic flashes, which all modern meters are built for. Worth a try though.

[ic-racer]

Every day we as film photographers go into the darkroom and safely handle very VERY dangerous chemicals,

Speak for yourself. Nothing dangerous in my darkroom except a 220v outlet with no child-protective cap that is 10 feet in the air.

[StoneNYC]

Speak for yourself. Nothing dangerous in my darkroom except a 220v outlet with no child-protective cap that is 10 feet in the air.

Use Rodinal, HC-110, pyro, fixer, wetting agent? Or are you an xtol / coffee develoer guy?

[StoneNYC]

I think the issue would be a long flash duration making it difficult to get an accurate reading. Much like flashbulbs I can see flash powder flashing longer than electronic flashes, which all modern meters are built for. Worth a try though.

My meter measures a flash's high point and then lesser left over ambient light over a 1 second exposure and displays the high AND the percentage of ambient light, but this would capture the high and low of the flash powder over a 1 second time frame, that could be useful enough.

But I also know what you mean, these are long exposures to have very bright light, portraits would be difficult.

[Michael Cienfuegos]

Safety is everybody's business. I learned that lesson long ago. Leave the pyrotechnics to the experts. They are the only pyromaniacs who should be allowed to touch the stuff.


:p


m

[StoneNYC]

Safety is everybody's business. I learned that lesson long ago. Leave the pyrotechnics to the experts. They are the only pyromaniacs who should be allowed to touch the stuff.


:p


m

I support natural selection ;)

[Brassai]

There was also electric arc flash, something Fox Talbot himself experiemented with. We could argue how "safe" that was too. I hate to see interesting threads closed by namby-pamby nanny types. This forum is about more than just LF, it's also a terrific resource for photo history. As a night photographer who loves large outdoor flash set ups, I am fascinated by the early history of flash photography. My hereos are O.W. Link, and of course, the great Brassai. Brassai was using flash powder in the early 1930s, indoors even. He was jokingly called a "terrorist" by his friends for setting off charges and scaring the hell out of everyone. I'd like to see a sense of perspective kept here. If someone is advocating mixing uranium, dynamite, and Ebola virus or something, why not simply delete that post rather than cutting off an interesting thread? The history of early flash is an interesting aspect to the history of photography. I think that's what most of us are here for--the history as much as the practice.


"9) Picasso nicknamed Brassaï “The Terrorist” because of the explosions caused by the flash powder, which were extremely loud and bright and gave his pictures their characteristic lighting."
http://www.anothermag.com/current/view/3555/The_Facts_of_Brassa%C3%AF

[StoneNYC]

Good point about the arc flash, those things were scary dangerous and still are as some still enjoy using them, and they also made some of the models and actresses that they were used on semi-blind so I've read.

[Tim Meisburger]

Flash powder is available from Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Newco-Flash-Powder-Char-Only/dp/B004300314

[Jac@stafford.net]

Has anyone actually used a light meter to rate the light in quantities like measure by weight if the powder to see on a standard long reflector/holder?

It could be done with a flash meter using a cord to trip an igniter. I wrote on how one can use the same: a corded flash meter to read a flashbulb exposure. I'm not ambitious enough to search for it. Feel free!

[Jac@stafford.net]

I think the issue would be a long flash duration making it difficult to get an accurate reading. Much like flashbulbs I can see flash powder flashing longer than electronic flashes, which all modern meters are built for. Worth a try though.

See my response in a thread about metering flashbulbs. I can certainly be done. The problem is not with the duration of the flash, but with the meter being insensitive to the flashbulbs relatively slow onset. Using a corded flash-meter to trigger the bulb obviates that issue.

[StoneNYC]

See my response in a thread about metering flashbulbs. I can certainly be done. The problem is not with the duration of the flash, but with the meter being insensitive to the flashbulbs relatively slow onset. Using a corded flash-meter to trigger the bulb obviates that issue.

I hate to actually say this and get a bunch of really upset guys, but you could easily test this with film of course or you could use a digital camera to at least test the exposure for the full duration of the burn, and then use a value based on that full burn exposure versus of course a very fast shutter exposure. This would of course give you some kind of exposure value based on a continuously open shutter, compared to 1/60th for example.

You can to be done with film, or even better with transparency film to at least get an idea of the exacting nature of substance over attend shot basis, but of course would be just much much faster and easier using digital to test the exposure, it would be no different than using a Light Meter except that you would get a visual of the kind of exposure and lighting that you would expect, then based on those numbers and a particular kind of reflector/holder of the powder, you could have a good idea of what kind of images you would get before doing actual shoot with it.

I'm sure of course somewhere there is someone who is a ready done all of this work for us, but again this is where the disconnect of knowledge happens, some old-timer probably knew all about exactly how much to use, and Wouod weigh it beforehand especially a professional to know exactly the combination of materials and amounts needed to get the "perfect" exposure.

Anyway, interesting stuff. I don't have enough magnesium to do any kind of testing, just a tiny amount for making really really small burns, just what's left over from my kit when I used to play with my dad which of course I keep in a safe place, and all of the chemistry bottles are the old-fashioned glass kind with amber colored tint so they are safer than in plastic ones that they use today. But anyway, I don't even recall the total amount of materials needed to set off magnesium, obviously there are smarter ways than to take a torch to the material like that guy did... (Stupid).

[Jac@stafford.net]

I hate to actually say this and get a bunch of really upset guys, but you could easily test this with film of course or you could use a digital camera to at least test the exposure for the full duration of the burn, and then use a value based on that full burn exposure versus of course a very fast shutter exposure. This would of course give you some kind of exposure value based on a continuously open shutter, compared to 1/60th for example.

A corded flash meter will give the proper value for a long burn, plus ambient. Keep it simple.

[ic-racer]

And one may want to be free to paint your house with lead paint, buy Jarts for the kids to play with, rewire your house with Knob and Tube, drive a 1960 Corvair, use Cyanide to treat your high blood pressure, and buy a home heater without CO draft venting. But a discussion of photography that implies it is inherently dangerous is out of line. It is NOT a dangerous endeavour, don't pretend like I want to put my life in danger just because you want to put your life at risk.

[StoneNYC]

And one may want to be free to paint your house with lead paint, buy Jarts for the kids to play with, rewire your house with Knob and Tube, drive a 1960 Corvair, use Cyanide to treat your high blood pressure, and buy a home heater without CO draft venting. But a discussion of photography that implies it is inherently dangerous is out of line. It is NOT a dangerous endeavour, don't pretend like I want to put my life in danger just because you want to put your life at risk.

Jarts!!!! I've always wanted to play with those! :)

[Kodachrome25]

And one may want to be free to paint your house with lead paint, buy Jarts for the kids to play with, rewire your house with Knob and Tube, drive a 1960 Corvair, use Cyanide to treat your high blood pressure, and buy a home heater without CO draft venting. But a discussion of photography that implies it is inherently dangerous is out of line. It is NOT a dangerous endeavour, don't pretend like I want to put my life in danger just because you want to put your life at risk.

Don't feed the troll....