Here's a test for YA users in Photography. How did I take these pictures?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gatewaycityca
  • Start date Start date
G

gatewaycityca

Guest
This question should be extremely easy, and anyone with an understanding of basic photography should get this right away.

But I'm just curious how many people here will think that these pictures were "Photoshopped." Judging by a lot of the questions and answers I've been seeing here lately, a lot of people think that EVERYTHING is done with Photoshop.

But I did NOT edit these at all. There is NO "Photshopping" here, I can promise you that.

So tell me...how did I get these pictures?

Look at the clock...

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f86/gatewaycityca/Clock_August19_2008.jpg

(The "grain" on this next picture is just from my scanner and the matte paper. The actual photograph is a lot sharper.)

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f86/gatewaycityca/Clock_closeup.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f86/gatewaycityca/Cliff_Hanger_Hwy_18_long_exposure_b.jpg

(and yes I realize that the sign is completely blown out).

And this next picture was with NO flash:
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f86/gatewaycityca/Lake_Arrowhead_longexposure_small.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f86/gatewaycityca/49thStreetlongexposureOctober2008re.jpg

Like I said, this should be extremely easy for anyone with a basic understanding of photography.

The correct and most detailed answer will be chosen Best Answer.
It's a pendulum clock. Look at the picture again.
One Moment...you're close, but it wasn't with "B&W Mode." Think of another kind of camera that doesn't have "modes" :)

And Drenton...yeah, ya can't get any more obvious than that first picture. If you look at the second hand on the clock, the answer is literally right in front of your eyes.

The most correct and DETAILED answer will get chosen Best. :)
Ellenas, I deliberately centered the picture on the clock, because I WANTED it to look stark, on an empty wall. Also, I wanted the light source to be on one side, to hit the pendulum and create a glint and exaggerate the movement. Also, it makes the pendulum and second hand more visible with light hitting it laterally. Yes, the left part of the frame is blown out, but I could live with that.

And that "technical babble" is exactly what I was looking for in the answer. So go ahead and answer.

Also, did you even look at the other pictures??

I think I already know who the Best Answer will be...but I'm going to leave the question open for a while to let other people have a chance to answer.
 
I honestly don't see the point of this question/rant. It doesn't take a genius photographer to work out how you took these mediocre images.

You tell Ellenas you wanted the clock to look stark on an empty wall. Empty wall? First thing I see is a poorly composed image, then a clock, 2 picture/plaque things, an ugly powerswitch thingy complete with wires attached and a big black dot...oh, and part of an ugly ceiling and last but not least...an unsightly, light fitting.

sorry about the rant, but you know Photoshop DOES have a wonderful cropping tool...
 
Long exposure.
The trail the glint on the pendulum was a clear sign.
The only way to achieve a correct exposure at night is to either use a high ISO/ASA, or a long exposure. And since you are using film, and the highest it normally is pushed to is 3200, which is about ISO 800 on my Canon, you would have invariably had to use a long exposure anyway.
The only "tell" for the last shot is that everything seems sharp, so you probably used a small aperture, which would entail a long exposure, due to film's inherent "slowness" when compared to digital.

Plus, uh, the ends of the file-names of the last two give it away. But the first shot visually gives it away
 
i dont get it, you just took a photo of a clock at ten to twelve, i dont really understand what the technical mastership would be?
 
Back
Top