I was waiting on an informed debate but...so much for that.
Lets' see what we've got at any rate..
What we really need are the original's but the chance of him giving them away for a 'little peek' is somewhat remote but we still have useful
information to work with so...
According to the image blurb on E-bay what we have is a image print and not an enlargement produced using a drum scan of the slides at 300 dpi.
No surprise there since the Negative isn't a negative as he used a positive film.
Technically its Fuji Velvia 50 (a slide film introduced 1990 discontinued 2005) with a Nikon 6006 35mm camera (introduced 1991 and superseded
This type of film is normally regarded as the de-facto standard of low speed, low grain, high saturation professional colour slide film that everyone
wants to emulate and is well regarded for its richer than rich colour representation that you see in the images.
Personally I would considered it to be one of the best landscape films ever made.
So much so that Fujifilm reintroduced it again last year with a modified emulsion the tech specs of which can be seen here.
Professional Color Velvia 50
If you take a peek at the EM response curves of the new stuff here:
Fujichrome Velvia 50 (PDF link)
You'll see that it is
sensitive just up to 700nm which is visible range and not IR.
Old stuff was supposedly more sensitive but we can't tell since it's a dead media. However there is no reason to expect it to differ too wildly
since the colour representation is what the new emulsion is intended to reproduce and even a 100nm differential would just about put it into the near
IR range but not by much.
We can ignore the Nikon since we don't know the lens used which would be the important bit.
Despite this seeming absence of information however we can tell a few things from the images themselves and in doing so effectively reduce the
possibility that it's an accidental reflection of something taken whilst in a car...
We already know 3 important things about the pictures.
1. The film is ISO 50. (Slow exposures only, none of this AE digital garbage)
2. The images display a maximum depth of field. (the smaller aperture values for the camera)
3. The shooter was working at dusk. (ambient light was pants)
All three of these points say that it is likely that we are looking at a range of long exposure shots possibly somewhere in the range of a second or
Additionally If you look more carefully at the original images that Ignorant_Ape has pointed out you can tell that there are actually over 8 different
exposure times used and that there are three distinct sets presented taken at three different times all from roughly the same vantage point.
The original E-bay listing
(Just to note I'm not hot-linking them and I'm not uploading them because of the copyright issues that I can just tell the original snapper takes