Photoshop Walt wrote:
> Although in the minority, which is nothing new for me, I still
> contend this photograph is a fake, at least in part, and a
> very large part at that. Examining it closely, it appears to
> me that the light is coming from a highly improbable two
> directions, maybe even three.
Ok, let's talk it out.
http://suryakant.wordpress.com/files/2006/04/rainbow_elam_3.jpg
1. The sun is directly behind the photographer. The center of
the disk is perfectly opposite of the light source. The base of
the tree appears to be centered in the disk.
2. A primary rainbow has approximately a 42 degree radius. The
secondary (outer) rainbow has a 51 degree radius. Let's keep
that in mind as we move forward with the analysis.
3. This photograph was taken with a very wide-angle lens. This
has a very large bearing in the apparant discrepency. In fact,
the coverage appears to be 120 degrees horizontal. (based on the
size/position of the primary and secondary rainbows).
Ok, now with those factoids identified, let's apply this
knowledge.
The photographer and the tree are in the same shadow. This is
most likely a hill or forest causing the shadow which is slowly
swallowing up the valley. The top of the tree is extended into
the light.
The haybale or whatever the object is to the right of the tree
in the background might or might not be casting a shadow. There
just isn't enough detail in this downsized image to know what
we're looking at. Even so, it's approximately 8 degrees off axis
to the alignment of the sun so a shadow falling to the left is
possible.
> Like I pointed out in a previous post, the light on the
> foreground tree is inconsistent with the long shadow on the
> woods in the right background. There's no way the field could
> be illuminated and the woods be in deep shadow if the sun is
> behind and a little to the left of the photographer, as it
> appears from the foreground. That shadow has to be coming from
> the right.
The secondary rainbow (outer band) has a 51 degree radius. Let's
pretend for a second that the camera is pointed directly east.
Given the fact that sunset hasn't directly occured yet, the
secondary is meeting the ground at almost a perfect North-East
(45 degrees) and South-East (135 degrees). The shadows crossing
the road as well as the hillsides on either side are consistant
with a lightsource coming in at 45 degrees. Again, we must
remember that the lightsource is NOT at the photographer's
location.
The tall trees on the left side have the raking light consistent
with a 45 degree lightsource too.
The only thing I had trouble with until further analysing is the
shadow line in the distant trees immediatly behind the
foreground tree. However, seeing the sharply defined shadow
crossing the field just to the right of the tree and coming down
from the left treeline, they do meet right there in those
distant trees. Inotherwords, the field immediately behind the
tree does NOT have any sunshine on it so it's entirely possible
that the whatever it is immediately behind the photographer is
casting a shadow clear across the field into the distant trees.
Since a wide-angle lens is used, those distant trees really
aren't that far away.
AG
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
