Where's the car?

[Rick Courtright]

Hi,

Can some of you guys who play w/ cameras for real tell a total novice what happened here?

This picture was taken w/ a little Canon point 'n' shoot, in very low light, almost dark, w/ an extended shutter speed (mighta been several seconds?) Just playing around to see if it even worked, when a car drove by. I figured the whole picture would be a ruined blur. Instead, all that shows is the red streak from the tail lights, w/ fence posts and mailboxes still visible thru it, and no other blurring.

Where'd the rest of the car go?



Rick C

 

[Jim Puke]

Down the road...slow shutter speed captures the brightest objects...how it can totally remove something the size of a car, amazes me.

 

[Snake45]

...very low light, almost dark, w/ an extended shutter speed (mighta been several seconds?)

There's your answer. Very predictable result. Seen many pictures like this (most intentional). :wink:

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Lens was open longer than it took for the car to pass.

Only things recorded were the bright taillights and everything that didn't move during that time.

 

[Kanook]

It went "Back to the Future" Marty.

 

[street]

Being it was an extended exposer, more then a few seconds. The car passed through the shot in less then a second, not long enought or bright enought to record on the senser. Now for the tail lights. They were very bright and exposed on the senser easily.

 

[Rick Courtright]

Being it was an extended exposer, more then a few seconds. The car passed through the shot in less then a second, not long enought or bright enought to record on the senser. Now for the tail lights. They were very bright and exposed on the senser easily.

Hi,

Thanks, street! Is this just a digital "effect" or would film do the same thing?

Rick C

 

[Kevin]

Yes. Film would do the same thing. You had to have used a tripod or a rest of some sort, right?

 

[street]

Being it was an extended exposer, more then a few seconds. The car passed through the shot in less then a second, not long enought or bright enought to record on the senser. Now for the tail lights. They were very bright and exposed on the senser easily.

Hi,

Thanks, street! Is this just a digital "effect" or would film do the same thing?

Rick C

It's hard to say! I would think that you would have to have a lot longer exposer with film then you would with your digital camera. Your digital camera will use a lot higher ISO setting then color film which I think will go to ISO 400 or maybe 800, depending on which color film you use. My digital camera will go all the way to ISO 25600, which is 5 stops faster then ISO 800. This means that if it took 5 seconds to take that picture with a digital camera at ISO 25600, then it would take 160 seconds to take the same picture with film at ISO 800. And It woulds take 320 seconds to take it with ISO 400 film.

So if you was using film then the red tail lights which was only exposed at less then one second out of the total 160 or 320 seconds, depending on which film you used, would probably not even show up, and if they did it would be very very faint. If it was possible to get film that was as sensitive as the digital camera then you would have gotten the same picture as you did with the digital camera.

 

[WendyZXZ]

You certain Han Solo didn't shoot a blaster down the street?

 

[eric conrad]

Rick, I'm pretty sure he is at " In and Out" wants a #1 with lemonade.
Eric