When 2 seconds lasts for 1 second...

Paul IddonPaul Iddon Registered Users Posts: 5,129 Major grins
edited February 3, 2012 in Holy Macro
Time stands still, or travels at a different speed to reality? How deep is that for a thought?

Anyway, the reason for this is that I took a photo tonight of my wife's wristwatch and the exposure is TWO seconds long, but look at how the motion of the second finger is showing... It's ONE second.

So proof that 2 seconds lasts for 1 second. (Check the exif yourself if you want to, it's embedded in the image!)

No trickery, no photo-shopping, just a straight shot (converted from RAW of course).

I also like the colours (the face of the dial has a luminance built into it, a sort of pearly effect and the gold of the numbers and hands shows well too).

C&C as always.


Exif:


Camera Maker: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS 550D
Lens: 105mm
Image Date: 2012-01-28 00:08:54 +0000
Focal Length: 105mm
Aperture: f/11.0
Exposure Time: 2.000 s
ISO equiv: 200
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)
White Balance: Auto
Flash Fired: No (enforced)
Orientation: Normal
Color Space: sRGB
GPS Coordinate: undefined, undefined
Photographer: Paul Iddon
Copyright: www.pauliddon.co.uk



8001secondframed.jpg


Paul.


Link to my personal website: http://www.pauliddon.co.uk





Comments

  • nam69nam69 Registered Users Posts: 5 Beginner grinner
    edited January 27, 2012
    I think this shot was pretty cool, How many times did you have to snap to get that shot??? Excuse me if this is a dumb question. I dont know a thing about Cameras but I am here to learn
  • Paul IddonPaul Iddon Registered Users Posts: 5,129 Major grins
    edited January 28, 2012
    nam69 wrote: »
    I think this shot was pretty cool, How many times did you have to snap to get that shot??? Excuse me if this is a dumb question. I dont know a thing about Cameras but I am here to learn

    Just one.

    I did take about 9 photos from different positions as I was looking at various angles for the text on the face of the watch, but from the angle I got this at, just the one press of the shutter.


    Paul.


    Link to my personal website: http://www.pauliddon.co.uk





  • Lord VetinariLord Vetinari Registered Users Posts: 15,901 Major grins
    edited January 28, 2012
    :):)- interesting !- good shot
    brian v.
    Brian V.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/lordv/
    http://www.lordv.smugmug.com/
  • GOLDENORFEGOLDENORFE Super Moderators Posts: 4,747 moderator
    edited January 28, 2012
    Well shot Paul :)

    I can answer the question, with most battery watches the second hand jumps a second at a time, so if you pressed shutter at the split second the second hand had just moved , it would therefor be almost a second exposure time before you record it move, AMD another second before it moves again, so only 1 second movement recorded .
    Think I worded that correctly , still asleep. Lol
    Phil

    moderator - Holy Macro
    Goldenorfe’s Flickr Gallery
    Goldenorfe photography on Smugmug
    Phils Photographic Adventures Blog
  • GOLDENORFEGOLDENORFE Super Moderators Posts: 4,747 moderator
    edited January 28, 2012
    Well shot Paul :)

    I can answer the question, with most battery watches the second hand jumps a second at a time, so if you pressed shutter at the split second the second hand had just moved , it would therefor be almost a second exposure time before you record it move, AMD another second before it moves again, so only 1 second movement recorded .
    Think I worded that correctly , still asleep. Lol
    Phil

    moderator - Holy Macro
    Goldenorfe’s Flickr Gallery
    Goldenorfe photography on Smugmug
    Phils Photographic Adventures Blog
  • Paul IddonPaul Iddon Registered Users Posts: 5,129 Major grins
    edited January 28, 2012
    Cheers chaps.

    That's the closest correct explanation Phil (both of them!) Laughing.gif...

    Paul.


    Link to my personal website: http://www.pauliddon.co.uk





  • Ed911Ed911 Registered Users Posts: 1,306 Major grins
    edited January 28, 2012
    Paul Iddon wrote: »
    Time stands still, or travels at a different speed to reality? How deep is that for a thought? Paul.

    Yep, no brainer...you have a ticker...so the second hand stays in place for a second. You caught it right after it moved and just before it moved again.

    By the way, time doesn't travel. It, instead, is the cadence of reality.
    Remember, no one may want you to take pictures, but they all want to see them.
    Educate yourself like you'll live forever and live like you'll die tomorrow.

    Ed
  • slrtoolslrtool Registered Users Posts: 16 Big grins
    edited January 31, 2012
    Very nice crisp photo!
  • Paul IddonPaul Iddon Registered Users Posts: 5,129 Major grins
    edited January 31, 2012
    Wise words Ed :)


    Thanks Lisa :)

    Paul.


    Link to my personal website: http://www.pauliddon.co.uk





  • UrkitUrkit Registered Users Posts: 1 Beginner grinner
    edited January 31, 2012
    Great shot!

    I tried something similar a few weeks ago where an 11s exposure gave me 12s of time!

    IMG2417-M.jpg
  • Paul IddonPaul Iddon Registered Users Posts: 5,129 Major grins
    edited February 2, 2012
    Worked out nicely as well.

    And welcome to DG too :)


    Paul.


    Link to my personal website: http://www.pauliddon.co.uk





  • DeVermDeVerm Registered Users Posts: 405 Major grins
    edited February 2, 2012
    Hey Paul,

    I think you need to buy your wife a new watch as this one is running too slow rolleyes1.gif

    great shot!

    ciao!
    Nick.
    ciao!
    Nick.

    my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
    my Smugmug site: here
  • Paul IddonPaul Iddon Registered Users Posts: 5,129 Major grins
    edited February 2, 2012
    DeVerm wrote: »
    Hey Paul,

    I think you need to buy your wife a new watch as this one is running too slow rolleyes1.gif

    great shot!

    ciao!
    Nick.

    For goodness sake, don't tell her that!!!! :ivar


    Paul.


    Link to my personal website: http://www.pauliddon.co.uk





  • DeVermDeVerm Registered Users Posts: 405 Major grins
    edited February 2, 2012
    Paul Iddon wrote: »
    For goodness sake, don't tell her that!!!! :ivar

    Lips are sealed :)

    p.s. I'm an engineer so I just have to tell that the second hand did move twice but either the first or the last position was exposed so short that it is invisible (or the watch was really slow or the camera fast deal.gif )

    ciao!
    Nick.
    ciao!
    Nick.

    my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
    my Smugmug site: here
  • Paul IddonPaul Iddon Registered Users Posts: 5,129 Major grins
    edited February 2, 2012
    Cheers Nick - I knew the logic behind the illusion - but it was still worth suggestion the illusion anyway! wings.gif

    It was always gonna raise an eyebrow or two, but the knowledgeable soon saw through it.

    Cheers m8.

    Paul.


    Link to my personal website: http://www.pauliddon.co.uk





  • r3t1awr3ydr3t1awr3yd Registered Users Posts: 1,000 Major grins
    edited February 3, 2012
    Urkit wrote: »
    Great shot!

    I tried something similar a few weeks ago where an 11s exposure gave me 12s of time!

    IMG2417-M.jpg

    An IWC *DROOOOOOOL*

    I'm assuming you were using the chronograph function for this watch? Cus an automatic would have given you about 88 hands to capture in 11 seconds mwink.gif
    Hi! I'm Wally: website | blog | facebook | IG | scotchNsniff
    Nikon addict. D610, Tok 11-16, Sig 24-35, Nik 24-70/70-200vr
Sign In or Register to comment.