Two photographers captured the same millisecond in time (2018)
dpreview.com
dpreview.com
Presumably both people took many pictures of many waves that day, but somehow both of them decided that this is the one that is the best from that trip.
As humans we share a similar metric for beauty. I find this idea simultaneously obviously and amazing.
Plus, the picture obscures it, but you can see the waves coming for a good distance. You'd expect two drummers to be on beat without much difficulty.
Fun fact, over a year later my dad and I had almost the same experience at the same spot shooting geese in flight. Judging by the angle, we were maybe just shy of a half a second or so appart. Maybe we should look at EXIF data to be sure!
Seems this stuff happens more often then people think.
Waves like this have a clear peak when they stop rising, but before they fall, so there is a natural moment to click the shutter.
I'm a visual artist and I'm so over the standard "internet photographer" look. Who takes pictures of lighthouses? It's so boring.
It's always people in the same demographic doing it, too. Give me some variety. Formulaic art is uninspiring.
Saying "who takes pictures of lighthouses" is like saying "who writes their own [editor/operating system/firewall/whatever], there are already dozens of great ones".
People get better by doing, and if they never did anything that had already been done they'd never be any good at all.
Besides, Lighthouses are cool and pictures of them are pleasant.
As a middle aged white guy myself (who codes and makes visual art) I am constantly reminding myself of the context in which my creations exist and reminding myself to actually be creative when doing so.
The millionth photo of something out of the Uffizi with an expensive camera and lens are not things I tend to publish. They're vacation photos, not art.
A lot of wedding photos look a lot like other wedding photos. That doesn't make them not art or not worthwhile.
Someone trying to exactly recreate a shot may not be art (trying to find exactly where Ansel was, etc.) but can still be a solid technical exercise in developing skills.
This is not that - it's two people creating something new and independently who happened to have similar results.
You’re right, but no one likes to be told their taste is banal. And that’s like 80% of the population.
Claiming that a particular subject is boring is extremely uninspired. For example, landscape photography is "boring", but aren't Ansel Adams's photos creative and high art? Didn't Van Gogh take landscape painting, a very old subject, and elevate it?
I could just as well claim that taking photos of people is boring - It's been done a billion times before. Reducing a work of art to just the subject seems to miss the point of what art is.
"we were both recording a video at 7 frames per second from the same location and are surprised one of the frames were the same"
but yes other parts of this are quite coincidental, except the Canon supremacy.
https://i.imgur.com/ISIGQrR.png
https://i.imgur.com/qLtZprZ.jpeg
Open both in 2 tabs on a computer, and quickly alternate between the 2 tabs, the 3D effect is quite visible because of the perspective differential :-)
In Chrome, I hit F12, selected the overlay in the DOM and deleted it.
These two exposures surely overlapped, with the known photo probably exposing for tens of milliseconds on either side of the flash, but the lighthouse exposures might not have overlapped at all, yet captured a far more exact slice of time regardless.
A focal-plane shutter actually consists of two "curtains", front and rear, which expose the film in a slot at high speeds. Below a sufficiently slow speed, the shutter is fully open for a period of time, which is what is necessary for flash photography.
Shooting either unsyncronised (shutter opens or closes before flash fires), or at too high a speed where the entire frame isn't exposed at once results in a partially-exposed shot (example in the first image in the Wikipedia article below).
That was usually 1/60th of a second, or slower, and some interesting effects can be had when shooting with a flash, or multiple flashes, on a scene that's otherwise lit. It's also possible to sync the flash to the beginning or end of a long(er) exposure, which has the effect of either capturing the beginning or ending of a movement sequence. Rear-curtain sync is popular and shows the subject moving toward its final position which is fully illuminated by the flash.
<https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/tutorials/rear-curtain-sy...>
The two cameras in the Japanese photo (the one capturing the flash of the other, which you show, and the image taken by the camera with the visible flash) likely occurred within 1/60th of a second of one another, but might differ in exposure start/end by as much as twice that interval, or 1/30th of a second. What we can be reasonably certain of is that when the flash fired, both shutters were open, but that's a relatively long period, photographically, at 16.7 1/1000ths of a second.
Some modern phones, and possibly smartphone cameras, may have a faster effective flash synch, particularly if they use an electronic shutter.
The two "simultaneous" images are the one linked, and presumably the one taken by the woman whose camera flash is seen fully illuminated in the first picture, though as I've described, there might actually be a considerable difference the moments exposed due to flash sync speeds.
I figured it out a few years ago, but haven't heard anyone else mention it. It's a really cool hack.
It’s something I think about many times per day - I mean, I’m looking at stuff all day, and this is such a fundamental aspect of the experience of looking at something. But my impression is that most people are only barely aware of how this works?
Something zen about it...
Don't think but it just is.
My eyes did this too up close, but could focus once I backed up.
New found possible love, stereoscopic photography. Honestly the stereoscopic effect is absolutely beautiful, even more so that each individual photo
I keep seeing both images rather than a single synthezised 3D image.
Probably the dead simplest thing to do is find a thrift store vr headset designed to go over a phone and get a 3d image viewer app.
For parallel viewing, try focusing your eyes on some object in the distance while still focusing your brain, not your eyes, on the image in front of you. It can take some hours of trying if it is your first time.
I find cross-eyed viewing much easier. For cross-eyed viewing, try to focus your eyes on your nose, and then slowly try to focus your brain on the image in front of you, just like when trying look at something in the corner of your eye without side-eying. At the start, this might mean that you see two versions of the image far apart from each other. While focusing your brain on those images, try slowly focusing your eyes a bit more in front of your nose until the images perfectly overlap.
Thank you for pointing this out !
I seem to be unable to see in 3D.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_inv...
But even if it was this is nonsensical. The visual content of a photo is generally not what is used to determine the moment in time when it was captured. There's metadata in the image format that specifies when the photo was taken.
There are pictures taken at almost the same moment in time all the time around the world, and there are many pictures taken of the same place, what's special about the situation here is that both of those things happened, and the subject isn't hyper famous, and it isn't a static object, so the chances of it happening were very low.
The clocks are most likely synchronized based on gps assuming they’re already pulling location data from the satellites, the time is “free”. However, the precision of the clocks is not specified and like any process is subject to error. So at the small timeframes here (sub millisecond), you are potentially within the margin of error. When the error bars of several measurements from distributed parts of your system overlap, how do you determine an ordering between them?
It's not super well known, so random pedistrians or people at outdoor tables star and record the parade on their phones, so there's multiple videos of us all around town.
Even if they left the lens caps on and both images were black on black, there would be two distinguishable images with e.g.: different exif data, sensor noise, etc.
If we pretend that camera sensor captures are exactly the same, then I guess it does not belong to a single photographer in this case. But usually no one cares about sensor data, people care about "deliverables", like JPEGs or printed versions, and they will not be the same because everything after sensor capture would be different for each photographer.
Because it is subject to copyright in some countries. In France, for example, photographs of certain buildings cannot be published without the permission of the rights owner.
If I am the photographer and I set up decorations, lights etc. then the scene itself is my creative work. The other guy will have trouble claiming any copyright over his photo of the same scene because it is based on my creative work.
Not in this case because the scene is naturally occurring. So we can move on to other things that make the final photo like sensor capture and processing
Photons mostly
> Why would anyone think that was "subject to copyright"?
Scene itself is absolutely ""subject to copyright"" in many cases, like when it's set up by photographer or includes recognizable people (they can sue you if you sell a street shot with their face)
Nevertheless, pretty cool ;)
Should two photographers quote each other's work although both are completely original?
As a point of clarity regarding the title of the article, that means they didn’t take the photo at the same moment.
What the title really means is that, the light from this instant in time hit each person camera sensor at the same moment.
Being 28 meters apart makes a maximum 93 nanoseconds difference in time between the light reaching each other
The article says "same millisecond", not "same moment". +/- 93 nanoseconds makes no real difference to the resulting image, the photos were likely thousands of nanoseconds apart
edit: not to mention photographs don't capture a precise moment in time but a window of time, in this case one of them captured 1ms of time and the other 0.625ms, and those windows overlapped almost entirely