Replies

Shutter speed of 1/6 second = VERY SLOW. <<< Unless you are an astronomer, in which case it's very fast.

The cable is in motion during that 1/6th of a second and moved several inches at a minimum to produce this effect. The singer's legs did not move very much if at all during that 1/6th of a second.

Hence, the cable appears to be gone in the photo, yet the singer's legs are not blurred. Although the right leg may be blurred a bit by motion.

Yes. What you are seeing is the combination of a very slow shutter speed and movement.

First of all, understand that a very slow shutter speed is still an instant in time and at any given moment there are things in a space that are moving quickly, and things that are not moving at all. When I discuss fast and slow, we are talking fractions of a second difference.

Now, when you take a photo in a low light situation, you must open that shutter a little bit longer, or you will leave a great deal of your subject in the dark and not get any detail. But the longer that shutter stays open, the more motion occurs and the more blur you will get. (This is why in old photographs subjects look so stiff. With the existing technology they had to hold COMPLETELY still for a long time to allow for the mechanics as well as allow for adequate lighting.)

This photographer wanted to capture the faces of the soldiers in the crowd, but they were in an area that was very poorly lit. Therefore, he used a longer shutter speed and sacrificed "no blur" for "illumination and therefore detail."

You can do this with a camera and a bicycle tire in your garage. If you spin the tire and have a very short shutter speed, you can make it look as if the tire is not moving at all. However, as you lengthen you shutter speed the spokes will blur and/or disappear depending on lighting conditions. These are the exact techniques photographers (as well as filmmakers and videographers) use to create what we generally call "time exposures."

I also want to mention there are other factors such as aperture and steadiness (tripod or hand held) that can also affect this...but shutter speed, in this case, takes the biggest responsibility.

NOW, regarding the pixels in Photoshop. I suggest you take any photo that utilizes blur (sports photography utilizes that technique a lot) and compare pixels. I would bet my bottom dollar that you will find the pixels in those photos bear many of the same characteristics as those in this photo in the blurred cord.

Finally, in classes we often teach students how to do controlled blur: Blur the background not the subject; blur the subject not the background; and finally put up with some blur to emphasize other things that may not be illuminated adequately by natural light.

In this case, the photographer chose the latter option.