[LargeFormat] Re: rainbows, was R O Y G B I V

[Verna Knapp]

I have a lot of good rainbow photos. I did not use a fast shutter speed. 
In some it was fairly slow. I did use Velvia. I have rainbows from rain, 
rainbows in waterfalls and rainbows in ocean spray, both from blowholes 
and in the spray at the top of waves. That last was not LF because it 
took lots of shots to coordinate the exposure with the actual rainbow. A 
finger coordination problem. ;-)

I'd say the large number of water droplets allows a cumulative effect, 
much like the streaks of red through night photos of auto tail lights on 
freeways.

I did see a photo of a rainbow produce by the photographer striking the 
water with a stick once, too. In a book, somewhere.

The best rainbow shot I ever got was from my car. I saw the heavy dark 
clouds and the heavy rain moving east, with sun to follow, so I pulled 
off the road and lurked in wait. The sun was in the west, and there was 
a spotlight effect on the fields surrounded by evergreen forest, with a 
rainbow against black clouds. That was on Velvia, and definitely not a 
short exposure.

Oregon is a wonderful place to collect rainbow photos. :-)

Verna


john frost wrote:
> I suspect that the fastest shutter speed is best. The theory is similar 
> to the 'empty' cathedral photos. A slow shutter speed allows the water 
> molecules to run away (turn), thereby loosing their contribution to the 
> color.
> 
> john (:>))) HTH. PS. practice with the garden hose (if the sun ever 
> shines again).......
> 
> Alan Davenport wrote:
> 
>>
>>> What is the way to get the best pictures of a rainbow?
>>
>> Opinions will surely vary as to "best" but a good place to start might 
>> be to use Velvia.  The added saturation could only improve the 
>> rainbow, IMO.


-- 
You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.

            - Mark Twain