4 ms·

> same camera and lens and exposure settings Well, yeah, that would make a way more effective argument, but I'd have to obtain a a) manual camera, b) sizable p

> same camera and lens and exposure settings Well, yeah, that would make a way more effective argument, but I'd have to obtain a a) manual camera, b) sizable propane fire c) sizable kerosene/etc fire, d) b & c having nearly identical brightness, and e) a place and time to do it. These are doable, but not on an internet-debate timeline. Think about the differences in your experience with propane and wood fired fireplaces. Most people have had at least one experience with both, and those are the only things I can think of where the flames in both are of comparable size/brightness. > Smoke as a background is best not burning I'm sorry, I don't understand. Are you missing a word, maybe? > [link] Amazeballs link, thank you! Do you know the name of the fireworks that produce large quantities of specifically fire? I know them as "gas bombs", but I have no idea if that's the correct technical term.

ygra 10y ago
> Think about the differences in your experience with propane and wood fired fireplaces. Our eyes and brains are very, very good at working at vastly different lighting conditions and presenting the results similarly. That's why they noted that one should use a camera to compare because our eyes are lying to us. (Seriously: Try to guess proper exposure needed for a photo just with your eyes. Even with experience it's hard and you're likely to be off by one or two EV (i.e. a factor or two or four in brightness!)). However, if you have EXIF info you can probably still compare brightness of flames across photos, as an image's brightness only depends on the actual scene brightness, ISO, aperture and exposure time. And the latter three are merely factors.