heatherdoland Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 <p>Just wondering if anyone has ever seen this or has any ideas on how it may have happened. </p> <p>It appears that the camera shifted left/right while the shutter was open yet both images are clear with no blur. 15 seconds, f 22, 47.5mm, ISO 400, no flash, tripod, 2 second timer to avoid shake.<br> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9716585-lg.jpg" alt="" width="677" height="494" /></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mc2imaging Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 <p>The street lights have the answer. They <em>are</em> blurred. The tripod was bumped mid-exposure. The blur is harder to see in the dark, but notice how every other street lamp has a line between them? That streak is your motion blur.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylynn Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 <p>See the lines between the brightest lights? I think what happened was it exposed for about half the time, then was bumped or otherwise quickly shifted, to a second stable position, which got the rest of the exposure. The time in transit was negligible compared to the overall exposure time, so only the brightest spots registered enough light on the sensor to create a blur.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heatherdoland Posted August 30, 2009 Author Share Posted August 30, 2009 <p>Andrew~ So do you think the blue of the bridge lights just wasn't bright enough to do the same thing as the street lights?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylynn Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 <p>The bridge lights are less bright than the street lights. Still, hard to tell at this resolution, but there seems to be a bit of blue glow in there that could be that blur. Anyway, what you've got is definitely a bumped or otherwise moved tripod.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heatherdoland Posted August 30, 2009 Author Share Posted August 30, 2009 <p>Ok, thanks Andrew & Matt.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnw436 Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 <p>At any rate it's a very cool photo. I think this is a lucky keeper!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phule Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 <p>I don't think the camera was moved at all. I think you just have sets of lights close enough to each other in both horizontal and vertical positioning that the "rays" produced by the aperture of the lens happen to meet up.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raybrizzi Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 <p>Perhaps an earthquake? but more likely a foot hitting the tripod. The bridge curve in one set is faint, where the other is very clear, similar to the bright and dimmer pairs of streetlights.<br> I like it though. It looks like a double bridge.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heatherdoland Posted September 1, 2009 Author Share Posted September 1, 2009 <p>Thanks for the comments. I agree it was a lucky keeper. I was just shocked, for lack of a better word, that everything wasn't blurry looking and that it was faint but sharp. I'd like to blame an earthquake, but it was probably a foot.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now