I've a coworker that has done five- and ten-second exposures in 35mm, and though mostly fuzzy, there is usually some part of the image that is "sharp" enough to look good.
Not to the original post, but so far I've hand-held medium format at about 1/4 second with fair results.
1-2 seconds in a tunnel. Deep breath, steady hands, arms braced against my body like a tripod, mirror up....hope for the best!
I don't take offence to you calling BS...I would do that same if I had not have been the photographer. But look at the depth of field. I was shooting at f11 in a tunnel with 400 film, no pushing so I wouldn't blow the highlights out in the background too much. The first one is 1 second for sure. I have a few shots from that same angle (with the same settings) and have everyone blurry because of movement. This one just happened that the two guys in the back are spraying left to right and the frontman is standing somewhat still and looking at his piece. This is why it doesn't look like there's motion -their bodies weren't moving and their arms were doing more slight and fine, back and forth detail, rather than long lines.
I didn't post this as a "hey, look how long my exposure is" contest. I'm not that vain, nor that confident in my photo skills to try and strut around this forum like I'm king S&^# of photography. I'm simply showing what is my personal best shots with a long exposure to show what's possible.
With Pentax 67 and 45mm f4 (std prime), 1/30 with mirror lock up. But it is quite a whack all the same. 99.8% of my 67 work is tripod/cable release/MLU.
With 35mm, 1/15 sec sec easily (24mm, which is my standard prime), but again tripod/release/MLU is much preferred, unless using Program which biases toward higher Tv at the expense of shallow Av.
When the quality of the image quality counts, I'm not one to take risks and not troubled by tripod use! ;)
1/250 but I was drunk at the time ;o)