1 edit
Originally posted by DdVWell, you sure did a fine job with the man in 'Relic'. Maybe he wasn't moving too fast, though. ;-) Moving people are hard. Even taking pictures of my kid is hard, and the li'l' tike's not not that speedy yet. Unless they're sitting still, they're hard for me to capture too. I don't know if I'm too slow or too picky.
I guess this is the reason I find it so hard to make photographs of people or street scenes. I just need too much time, they usually left the scene before I'm able to press the button 🙂
Originally posted by DdVYou raise good points, and I agree. I don't think we need an actual definition. I merely posed the question to get others' input. Sometimes a clear definition helps people understand.
Should it really be defined? I wouldn't vote for a picture that clearly isn't on topic, however good it might be. I guess most people take the topic into account, so only pictures which show that extended exposure is used would get votes. And if it isn't clear straight away how extended exposure affects the image, the photographer can point it out in his notes.
David
I think a picture can look extended even around one second. And if the subjects are moving quickly enough, you may even be able to use less time. But then the border between "motion" and "extended exposure" gets grayed at that limit (in my opinion). Like I said before, I don't think too many cameras will have a problem making "extended" exposures. I'd like to hear what other people have to say.