Response to Long Exposure (Response #4)

Uploaded 769 Days Ago by indigo - 16 comments

Photo © indigo (Carl Ettinger)
Unauthorized reproduction not permitted.

User Comments

pursang said 769 days ago:

I have not rated this image because I must be missing something. It's a fine shot, well composed, but I cannot understand how it relates to long exposure. Was it taken in almost complete darkness or something?

gorin-images said 769 days ago:

Sorry, but I don't get this one.

I have to admit I was excited when I saw the thumbnail, because I thought "Wow, this photographer actually did a long enough exposure to capture motion blur in the hands of a CLOCK!". But then when I see the larger image, the clock/hands are razor sharp. I guess you might have used a long exposure (greater than 2 seconds) to capture this image, but there are no real cues inthe image itself thaty alongexposure was employed.

I'm not saying a shot HAS to have motion blur to be relevant to a long exposure theme, there are other cooleffects of long exposures besides motion blur. In this case though, the same shot could have been done at 1/60th second using a flash and/or if there was brighter ambient light.

On the other hand, I give you top ratings for image quality.

digitalpeace said 769 days ago:

I don't really get this, I'd expect the pointer to be blurry because of long exposure.

davedupplaw said 769 days ago:

Is this really longer than 2 second exposure, because the second hand seems rather clear! It's nice and clear and I like the colour cast. The empty space at the top would make it a saleable photo.

brent said 769 days ago:

I can't tell that this is a long exposure.

forgingahead said 769 days ago:

Maybe I am wrong but in a two-second exposure wouldn't the second hand move? If the second hand was showing a blur this picture would be a winner in my eye. Without it, I have trouble fitting with the theme.

indigo said 768 days ago:

The "always" running second hand that is blurred in this shot is actually in the small circle right between the "5" and "7". The larger second hand is for the stopwatch functionality which was not enable at the time of the shot. After seeing everyone's comments, I can see where you guys are coming from, however, the exposure time here was 25 seconds. Thank you for your comments!

indigo said 768 days ago:

zorilla said 768 days ago:

If this was a long exposure at least the second hand should be blurred, preferably it'd be the minute also, but ideally it'd be the hour as well.

Wouldn't it be cool serendipity if your final rating came out to 2.16

forgingahead said 768 days ago:

Ahhh! I see. But most of us expect that large hand to be seconds! Well, you had the right plan... :-)

photosapience said 768 days ago:

Is the battery dead, or is this less than a 2 second exposure?

Flatline said 768 days ago:

What am I not getting here? Is it long? The lowest dial seems to have done one rotation, but I don't see corresponding movement elsewhere...

Flatline said 768 days ago:

Nevermind, previous comments have resolved this for me. Good effort. Like many others, I gave high marks except for relevance because it wasn't obvious enough for me.

I have been meaning to take some long exposures of various chronographs I own, but I am travelling and am away from the macro lens I had planned to use.

ArneG said 768 days ago:

I'm missing the long exposure thingy here - maybe I'm daft...

smudo said 768 days ago:

i'm not entirely sure if i understand the relevance of this shot wrt this week's theme. other than that, i like the simplicity and cleaness of it;)

smudo said 768 days ago:

ok, so i've seen the explanation and i understand it. i just wished it'd been more obvious at first glance...

You could comment on this photo if you were logged in.