Jump to content
The Education Forum
Tony Krome

Backyard Photo Observation

Recommended Posts

Yep.  I’ve been waiting for the emergence of Ray Mitcham and his idea fixe notion of converging not conflicting shadows in the BYPs. Here are two bits of info from the internet:

“Parallel lines are two lines, that are always the same distance apart and never touch. In order for two lines to be parallel, they must be drawn in the same plane, a perfectly flat surface like a wall or sheet of paper. ... Any line that has the same slope as the original will never intersect with it.”

“All parallel lines receding into the distance are drawn to converge at one or more vanishing points on the horizon line. in one-point linear perspective, receding lines converge to one vanishing point. ... A point on the eye-level line, toward which parallel lines are made to recede and meet in perspective drawing.”

The very definition of parallel lines do not allow the lines to converge.  It is the illusion of distance that renders the notion of convergence.  The second info bit above is for artists and others who deal with perspective.  As an artist I live or die on the canvas by using perspective properly. 

Parallel lines never converge even at a great distance.  They simply vanish into the distance at what is called a “vanishing point”.  That is the proper use of perspective.

parallel-lines.jpg

You can operationally define parallel lines to converge if you add the notion of infinity.  But, that is a special condition of math.

If apparent parallel objects such as shadows in the BYPs are said to converge at some point then overlap they are not parallel simply based on the definition of parallel lines.  Parallel lines as shadows are from a single light source.  If they are not parallel then they will have different sources, different light sources.  And, that is what we see in the BYPs.  The distance in the BYPs at the Neeley Street home is to small to show any great convergence or overlap as suggested by Ray.

Ray’s use of perpective is an improper use of convergence suggesting converging shadows that overlap in such a short distance as the backyard at Neeley Street.

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

David, I've explained this to you before. Vertical shadows from the sun always converge , not diverge, towards or away from the sun

Sorry, Ray but that’s simply not true... shadows trace back thru that which is creating the shadow to the light source..

They will ALWAYS converge at the light source... laws of physics...

How-to-draw-shadows-in-perspective.jpg.9c54e921c0cc1c1b9cdbe565f2f4a926.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Sorry, Ray but that’s simply not true... shadows trace back thru that which is creating the shadow to the light source..

They will ALWAYS converge at the light source... laws of physics...

How-to-draw-shadows-in-perspective.jpg.9c54e921c0cc1c1b9cdbe565f2f4a926.jpg

If that is true, perhaps you can explain how these shadows of two vertical poles, both towards and from the sun converge.

 

[url=https://postimg.cc/rzdmZ9y1]poles4.jpg[/url]

 

Poles5.jpg

Edited by Ray Mitcham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Butler said:

Yep.  I’ve been waiting for the emergence of Ray Mitcham and his idea fixe notion of converging not conflicting shadows in the BYPs. Here are two bits of info from the internet:

“Parallel lines are two lines, that are always the same distance apart and never touch. In order for two lines to be parallel, they must be drawn in the same plane, a perfectly flat surface like a wall or sheet of paper. ... Any line that has the same slope as the original will never intersect with it.”

“All parallel lines receding into the distance are drawn to converge at one or more vanishing points on the horizon line. in one-point linear perspective, receding lines converge to one vanishing point. ... A point on the eye-level line, toward which parallel lines are made to recede and meet in perspective drawing.”

The very definition of parallel lines do not allow the lines to converge.  It is the illusion of distance that renders the notion of convergence.  The second info bit above is for artists and others who deal with perspective.  As an artist I live or die on the canvas by using perspective properly. 

Parallel lines never converge even at a great distance.  They simply vanish into the distance at what is called a “vanishing point”.  That is the proper use of perspective.

parallel-lines.jpg

You can operationally define parallel lines to converge if you add the notion of infinity.  But, that is a special condition of math.

If apparent parallel objects such as shadows in the BYPs are said to converge at some point then overlap they are not parallel simply based on the definition of parallel lines.  Parallel lines as shadows are from a single light source.  If they are not parallel then they will have different sources, different light sources.  And, that is what we see in the BYPs.  The distance in the BYPs at the Neeley Street home is to small to show any great convergence or overlap as suggested by Ray.

Ray’s use of perpective is an improper use of convergence suggesting converging shadows that overlap in such a short distance as the backyard at Neeley Street.

"Parallel lines never converge even at a great distance."

Of course they converge. (see above post)

Note I did not say meet.

"The distance in the BYPs at the Neeley Street home is to small to show any great convergence or overlap as suggested by Ray"

 

Rubbish.(see above post)

 

 

 

converge

[kuhn-vurj]

verb (used without object), con·verged, con·verg·ing.

to tend to meet in a point or line; incline toward each other, as lines that are not parallel.
Edited by Ray Mitcham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, John Butler said:

Chris,

Since the shadows appear to move in different directions.  I think they show 3 time periods.  Your opinion would be greatly valued.

What time of the day would you put on the step shadows striking the fence?

What time of the day would you place on the Oswald figure's shadow?

What time of the day would you place on the Oswald figure's nose shadow?

 

Since no one has tried to answer the questions above that makes me think they may not be worth answering.  My ability to do research on the internet has been limited.  A search on what hour of the day is shown in the BYPs results in McAdams, Von Pein sites, etc. and essentially unrelated sites and materials.

First off one should dismiss the shadow under LHO's nose.  It is unrelated to the picture and is a foreign object if you believe Oswald and most people who have looked at it and agree with Jack White.  I have used that as one of the examples of conflicting shadows.  Technically, that is correct since it is different.  But, probably not a good use since it is a foreign object pasted into the picture.

I see two times in the BYPs based upon the step shadows and the shadow of the Oswald figure.  By guessing I would say the step shadows are in the Morning.  Tom Wilson checking Jack White's work said the time was 9:12 AM.  The Oswald figure's shadow I see as an afternoon shadow of about 1 or 2 o'clock.  Chris Bristow says the time in the photo is about 1 o'clock.

Tony Krome's idea that the BYPs and the CBS reproduction of 1967 happened in different seasons base on the seasonality of the foliage on the shrub seen in both photos opens up new possibilities in the study of the BYPs.  There is a real probability the BYPs were shot in Sept. of 1963 rather than March, 1963 based on the condition of the shrub in the photos.  The Vernal and Autumnal Equinoxes allow for the same sunlight seen in the two photos. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only shadow which you can rely on is the shadow of the stair post. The shadows of "Oswald" are suspect because he may or not be standing vertically

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You can operationally define parallel lines to converge if you add the notion of infinity.  But, that is a special condition of math."

I should have added this to that sentence "but, not reality."

Why unreal?  The Universe as now described is not infinite but, finite.  There is a boundary to the Universe at something like 13 billion light years.  Beyond is Nothing.  That is Nothing with a capital N.  There is no known concept that can describe or be attributed to Nothing. 

The idea that parallel lines converge at any distance is nonsense.  It is not science, it is superstition.

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

The only shadow which you can rely on is the shadow of the stair post. The shadows of "Oswald" are suspect because he may or not be standing vertically

Is Oswald standing?  Or, is he laying on he ground or flying?

Standing vertically is simply a variation of standing and casting a shadow.  It would make some difference in the time but, it would not be a grand difference.  That is why I say about 1:00 or 2:00.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, John Butler said:

"You can operationally define parallel lines to converge if you add the notion of infinity.  But, that is a special condition of math."

I should have added this to that sentence "but, not reality."

Why unreal?  The Universe as now described is not infinite but, finite.  There is a boundary to the Universe at something like 13 billion light years.  Beyond is Nothing.  That is Nothing with a capital N.  There is no known concept that can describe or be attributed to Nothing. 

The idea that parallel lines converge at any distance is nonsense.  It is not science, it is superstition.

From definition of converge.
"incline toward each other"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Is Oswald standing?  Or, is he laying on he ground or flying?

Standing vertically is simply a variation of standing and casting a shadow.  It would make some difference in the time but, it would not be a grand difference.  That is why I say about 1:00 or 2:00.

Would the angle of his shadow be the same if he leaning sideways at an angle of 45˚?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Universe as now described is not infinite but, finite. " Where did you get that "fact" from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

David, I've explained this to you before. Vertical shadows from the sun always converge , not diverge, towards or away from the sun

Ray, I'll try to find time to post a couple of test samples later, I don't have time right now.  While your position on this is technically correct, it ignores a constant phenomena in our perception of the world: Perspective. 

 

Lines ALWAYS converge to a point on the horizon.  Always.  This overrides the rays coming from a single point.  I have two photos of a fence - parallel lines. If your thesis were correct, fron one side they would not converge going away from the viewer, but they do - from both sides, looking into and away from the sun.  Perspective.  Railroad tracks do not really converge, but they seem to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Michael Cross said:

Ray, I'll try to find time to post a couple of test samples later, I don't have time right now.  While your position on this is technically correct, it ignores a constant phenomena in our perception of the world: Perspective. 

 

Lines ALWAYS converge to a point on the horizon.  Always.  This overrides the rays coming from a single point.  I have two photos of a fence - parallel lines. If your thesis were correct, fron one side they would not converge going away from the viewer, but they do - from both sides, looking into and away from the sun.  Perspective.  Railroad tracks do not really converge, but they seem to.

"Lines ALWAYS converge to a point on the horizon.  Always.  This overrides the rays coming from a single point.  I have two photos of a fence - parallel lines. If your thesis were correct, fron one side they would not converge going away from the viewer, but they do - from both sides, looking into and away from the sun.  Perspective.  Railroad tracks do not really converge, but they seem to."

Agreed that they seem to,  (see my diary definition above ) and see my two photos of the poles above. Do you agree that they seem to converge birth awards and away from the sun?

Edited by Ray Mitcham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

"Lines ALWAYS converge to a point on the horizon.  Always.  This overrides the rays coming from a single point.  I have two photos of a fence - parallel lines. If your thesis were correct, fron one side they would not converge going away from the viewer, but they do - from both sides, looking into and away from the sun.  Perspective.  Railroad tracks do not really converge, but they seem to."

Agreed that they seem to,  (see my diary definition above ) and see my two photos of the poles above. Do you agree that they seem to converge birth awards and away from the sun?

No.  They converge to a point on the horizon away from the viewer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here's the thing: We should be discussing the consistency of shadows within a photograph.  If the sun is the light source shadows will fall in a consistent and predictable manner throughout the photo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...