I'm "watching" my submission sink into oblivion...lol...I guess the photo doesn't show enough tripod.... only thing I can say is that it was shot with a tripod...and it wasn't obvious enough...lol...even though it was hanging from the chain..with a white background set up 4 feet behind it.
Statistics
Place: 68 out of 89 Avg (all users): 5.1677 Avg (commenters): 5.1667 Avg (participants): 4.7111 Avg (non-participants): 5.3545 Views since voting: 966 Views during voting: 420 Votes: 155 Comments: 6 Favorites: 0
You know, I've tried my hardest here, but I just don't get the connection to a tripod. If I saw blur on the hands of the watch, then I'd be good. But there's nothing in this image that screams a tripod was used. Which is VERY unfortunate because I LOVE this image. Such simple, understated elegance. Love the negative space, and for once, I think the border actually does a lot to add to the image. Torn on how to vote, but decided to settle on a 7.
Obvious use of a tripod, or any other long-term stabilization tool (1-10 *is not the score of the shot though*): 2
Do you know what would have worked better here? Seeing the second hand appear all around the face of the watch. As it is, no movement is showing.
Interesting minimalism to this photo. The watch seems to be pointed away from the emptiness.
Obvious tripod use: For me, it's very low. With the amount of light in the image, it seems very possible to take this handheld. I do see the slight ghosting of the second hand indicating that it's a long exposure, but I wonder how many voters will completely miss that.
Add photograph to your favorites
Add photographer to your favorites
Photographer found comment helpful.
