For the uninitiated, the questions here are what were the differences that made you go for 3 minutes on one (this one) and 953 seconds on another (this one). Was the half-hour timr difference in them being taken the crucial factor (I assume the light would have been going fast), or were there considerations that led you to doing something to go way up to 15+ minutes? Real lessons for us who might one day risk our reputation and try very long exposures.
Hi Donald,
Nice to know people are keeping a close eye on me (I'm a born exhibitionist!)
Basically, yes. Being winter here the twilight doesn't last particularly long. The shot above was just a "warm up" shot waiting for the "main event" (which I saved for the monthly competition in a desperate bid to avoid getting my butt kicked by you and Yan again!) (not that I'm a competitive soul in any way, shape, or form!). What's more, the shot above had about 6 stops of ND filter attenuation, whilst the 16 minute exposure one didn't have any kind of filtering (in fact I came back to the long-exposure shot after trying a wide-angle composition with a Bronze statue, but it didn't work out).
Bottom line is that with these types of conditions (light & broken stratiform cloud in light wind) generally the longer the exposure, the better the effect.
You should give long-exposure a try; the exposure isn't as critical as you might think as plus or minus a stop often isn't a show-stopper, which in this case would equate to anything between 8 and 40 minutes (pretty hard to miss a window that big)