# Havent Taken Any For A While



## Tom Radford (Apr 28, 2009)

Fun with a watch, torch and camera.


----------



## Andy Tims (Apr 13, 2008)

Cool shot.


----------



## Deego (Jan 1, 2008)

Its really 25 seconds . Nice going    I might try for a full 60 seconds tonight ..... Now where did I put my ND4 & ND8 filters :lol: :lol:


----------



## thunderbolt (May 19, 2007)

Great pic. :thumbsup:


----------



## MarkDavey (Jan 9, 2009)

That's a groovy picture Tom - so tell us more :wallbash: - how was it done?


----------



## Tom Radford (Apr 28, 2009)

Thanks!

Well, I set the camera up on a tripod and then turned out all the lights so it was totally dark. I then got the torch and fired the shutter of the camera on a long exposure (30 seconds according to the Exif data) and flashed the torch onto the watch roughly every five seconds to get the second hand effect and illuminate the watch face.


----------



## andyft21 (Feb 12, 2009)

Great picture Tom, would it be possible to photograph the watch so that the second hand goes all the way round. I am just curious if this is physically/practically possible?


----------



## Tom Radford (Apr 28, 2009)

Yeah its possible. You would need to do a 60 second exposure, and as mentioned above, you'd need to pull out your ND filters from the camera bag to really cut down the amount of light, otherwise you'd end up with a big white blob for a picture. (ND filters are basicly sunglasses for camera lenses, they are tinted to cut out the amount of light hitting the sensor)

The main issues would be getting the light right, to much and it will look awful, to little and you wont able to see any detail. Also you would have to watch out for camera shake. Having the shutter open for that long would cause even the tinest movement to look like an earthquake.

The other problem would be the minute hand. It would also be moving and would look blurry in the photo, as it is slightly in my picture.

I think for the effect to look best, you would need a watch with a ticking seconds hand rather than a sweeping hand, as the sweeping hand wouldnt give the same presence as the ticking hand.


----------



## Tom Radford (Apr 28, 2009)

Just so you can see what I mean.

A ticking hand would look like this










A sweeping hand like this....










As you can see, the ticking hand is much more pronounced, wheras the sweeping hand is little more than a blur.

These photos are 10 seconds for the first and 30 seconds for the 2nd.


----------



## andyft21 (Feb 12, 2009)

Tom Radford said:


> Yeah its possible. You would need to do a 60 second exposure, and as mentioned above, you'd need to pull out your ND filters from the camera bag to really cut down the amount of light, otherwise you'd end up with a big white blob for a picture. (ND filters are basicly sunglasses for camera lenses, they are tinted to cut out the amount of light hitting the sensor)
> 
> The main issues would be getting the light right, to much and it will look awful, to little and you wont able to see any detail. Also you would have to watch out for camera shake. Having the shutter open for that long would cause even the tinest movement to look like an earthquake.
> 
> ...


Thanks Tom, I know nothing about photography and this sounds interesting I doubt if this is something I have the skills to do.


----------



## Tom Radford (Apr 28, 2009)

As long as you have a camera you can control the shutter speed on, then its should be possible with a bit of bodging. Most DSLR's have shutter speeds up to 30 seconds and then a function called BULB, which means the shutter stays open until you press the buton again. You'd need to time the 60 seconds on the watch, or onna seperate watch.

On compacts, if they provided that feature, you might find the sensor would get too hot and you;d discover lots of red dots in the picture, which is the pixels overheating.

Like I said, the major issue would be getting the light right. At shutter speeds that slow, it would be just a case of trial and error.


----------



## vamos666 (May 20, 2009)

This is the best i could manage after much pissing about! It's reminded me about patience when taking photos

and also that it's definitely time to get the camera cleaned!

ETA: i used this cheap monster watch as it's the biggest i've got and with my limited lenses, the only one i could get a second hand to show up on!


----------



## Deego (Jan 1, 2008)

I tend to go for about 3-4 seconds so I am impressed by your 25 :blink:


----------



## Tom Radford (Apr 28, 2009)

Have you got a light tent or something for that first shot. The light seems very even, something I can never quite manage with just my one flash gun.


----------



## thedburgess (May 15, 2009)

Great photos! Can I ask what DSLR/lenses you use


----------



## Tom Radford (Apr 28, 2009)

I currently use a Nikon D200 and D90 (had to sell my D700 :cry2: )

As for lenses, I have a quite a few, but for most of my watch shots I use a Sigma 105mm macro


----------



## Blapto (Mar 7, 2006)

You could use an automatic with a sweeping hand with a stroboscopic flash (much like you did in your first exposure.)

That said, you'll rapidly approach the problem of overexposing the watch face to correctly expose the second hand each time.

The answer might be stacked exposures and photoshop.

I shall crack out the lighting equipment and have a play! Might even have a spare hour in a studio next Monday, could perhaps try it with the proper grown up lights.


----------



## Tom Radford (Apr 28, 2009)

Yeah I have used the strobe on my flash before, pretty much just a slightly more advanced method of the torch flashing.

I was also considering a photoshop mash to get a full 60 sec exposure, but to be honest I cant be bothered with photoshop most of the time. I'd rather just take a good picture to start with.


----------



## Rinaldo1711 (Apr 11, 2007)

Terrific pic.


----------



## gaz56 (Jun 13, 2009)

love it really great

gaz


----------



## Blapto (Mar 7, 2006)

Tom Radford said:


> Yeah I have used the strobe on my flash before, pretty much just a slightly more advanced method of the torch flashing.
> 
> I was also considering a photoshop mash to get a full 60 sec exposure, but to be honest I cant be bothered with photoshop most of the time. I'd rather just take a good picture to start with.


I'm not 100% sure it's possible to make the photo that we're thinking of in camera unfortunately. If it makes you happier, I'm sure that people would have done it in the darkroom before photoshop was around.


----------

