>>3139503>I don't believe this to be a 30 second exposure since I expect motion blur not for the laser but for the depth and edges which is exposed by it. Also why do the laser lines only interrupt at the background? I call fake.I have done photos like this myself, and this doesn't look fake to me.
The edges which are being hit by the laser are sharp because they're being hit with a laser moving pretty fast (the way I do it, and the way this photographer clearly did it, is to just sort of whip the laser pointer back and forth over and over again). So the "exposure" on the edge of the person where the laser is hitting is a fraction of a second. You're not really seeing the model at most parts of the edge, you're just seeing blackness which your brain is filling in as a human shape because you have the laser stripes, so the actual human parts probably *are* a bit blurry, you're just not *really* seeing them.
I'm not sure what you mean by:
>why do the laser lines only interrupt at the background?Do you mean how they're a little fuzzier than the lines on the person? That's just what you get when a laser hits a less-reflective surface compared to skin. E.g., if the model's on a fuzzy blanket or carpet.
Or do you mean how there's blackness on the background around the model? If so, that's just because the model is casting a shadow.
