Jump to content
The Education Forum
Tony Krome

Backyard Photo Observation

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

1. The shadow under the nose appears to land directly under the nose as if the Sun was directly above. But the tip of the nose is not centered because Oswald is looking to his left about 2 degrees. So if you draw a line from the tip of his nose to the tip of the shadow you will find  a 4 degree angle. Furthermore his head is tilted 3 or 4 degree to the side(Towards the Sun) That eliminates 3 or 4 degrees of shadow angle.
       The elevation was about 50 degrees but what determines the shadow angle is less about elevation and more about whether you are facing towards the Sun or not. When you turn 90 degrees away from the Sun you will see all 50 degrees of elevation represented in a nose shadow. But if you turn 90 degrees to face the sun it will be directly above the nose and you will see zero shadow angle. It will fall directly below the nose if all else is equal(No head tilt). So Oswald was facing about 9 degrees away from the Sun and should show about 9 degrees shadow angle under the nose(The increase from zero to 50 degrees shadow as you turn away from the Sun is not proportional. It is about doubled for the first 20 degrees or so. Oswald facing 9 degrees away from the Sun create about 9 degrees of shadow. 4 degrees are visible from nose tip to shadow tip. 3 or 4  more degrees are neutralized because of his head tilt. that is 7 or 8 degrees accounted for and we should see 9, so there is only one degree missing.

2. Oswalds right arm is drawn back a bit and that creates more shadow on the biceps from the fold in his short sleeve. 

3 and 4. The shadow of the telephone lines cross Oswalds lower body and cross his right hip near his holster. Also his hip is angled back by about 20 degrees which may cause more shadow on his right.

6. The rifle stock and part of the scope were modified by Life Mag because the image was not contrasted well. So we can't really know what was there originally. The telephone line shadows also cross the rifle in that area.

5. Looks like the telephone line shadow on the upper right leg.

5a. I find it hard to evaluate the arm brightness because the exposure, film stock and printing can all distort relationships of dark and light.

Not sure if you were aware, but LIFE retouched that image quite extensively...

You may wish to compare what you see with what they did...  other magazines also took liberties and retouched this image for publication...

WH_Vol21_0240a%20%20where%20LIFE%20retou

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't get my photos uploaded at the moment - too big and I don't have time.  But regardless, this will always happen.  Consistency is the issue.

perspective.jpg

Edited by Michael Cross

Share this post


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

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

i.e. away from the sun and towards the sun.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 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.

perspective.jpg

"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."

Precisely my argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is that your point?  You say away from the sun and towards the sun?  What if the sun is not the light source Ray? 

 

This isn't about the sun.  The sun is too far away for you to perceive the divergence of light rays.  This is about perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I'll drop out because this is pointless.  Your shadows converge to a point on the horizon away from the viewer in BOTH photos.  If you were to view glow in the dark lines with NO LIGHT SOURCE THEY WOULD CONVERGE TO A POINT ON THE HORIZON AWAY FROM THE VIEWER.

 

And if you put any other parallel lines in a photo looking across the direction of the sun rather than into or away from it - they also converge to a point on the horizon AWAY FROM THE VIEWER.  Always.  Always.  Always.

 

Consistency.  You're arguing the wrong point. Are the shadows consistent and predictable? 

Share this post


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

How is that your point?  You say away from the sun and towards the sun?  What if the sun is not the light source Ray? 

 

This isn't about the sun.  The sun is too far away for you to perceive the divergence of light rays.  This is about perspective.

We are talking about shadows out in the open air, i.e sun light, not about some imaginary light source. You've already admitted that the shadows of the poles converge away from the viewer whether they are facing the sun or not.

Edited by Ray Mitcham

Share this post


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

 

Consistency.  You're arguing the wrong point.

No, I was correcting David's point made seventeen hours ago.

Edited by Ray Mitcham

Share this post


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

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

Ray...

In the bottom image, there must be something about the details of the photo which cause the shadows to appear as if they are converging OPPOSITE the light source...

Shadow%20example_zpsgbwcc3ir.jpg

 

 

Where are you putting the source of light in the bottom image of yours?

I mean we have to agree that - putting aside what we SEE - the physical reality of light and shadow tells us that a shadow will lead to the light source when traced back thru that which is creating the shadow...

It would appear that perspective, focal length, and distance play a part in changing that physical fact when looking at 2d images of 3d space...

A shadow cannot emanate from an opaque object without a source of light.... how we see that light in its representative form does not change the fact that the shadows MUST converge back to the source of that light... light doesn't work any other way...

So if you'd like to explain the visual phenomenon of shadows appearing NOT to converge toward the light in a photograph - have at it...  kinda like the RR tracks... they do not and will never converge - they only APPEAR to do so based on visual perspective ...  I have to assume the same thing is happening in the bottom image of yours...

Light simply doesn't work any other way... and here's the math behind it....  1) parallel lines never meet & 2) shadows ALWAYS converge to the source of light in 3d space.

The%20math%20of%20the%20BYP%20shadows_zp

 

"The light rays are actually parallel, but appear to converge to the sun due to "perspective", the same visual effect that makes parallel railroad tracks appear to converge in the distance." http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/opt/air/crp.rxml

"Convergence of the rays will only tell you where the Sun is located on the two-dimensional photograph. To tell where the rays would converge in three-dimensional space, you would need all of the 3D information that is typically concealed by a 2D representation"

 

 

 

shadow%20study_zpstyhdfg6i.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Ray...

In the bottom image, there must be something about the details of the photo which cause the shadows to appear as if they are converging OPPOSITE the light source...

Shadow%20example_zpsgbwcc3ir.jpg

 

 

 

Rare for me to disagree with you, but the photo above is irrelevant if I understand it.  The view is from above.  You'd have to have a view from on the plane of the letters to be relevant.

 

These lines never converge:

railroad-tracks-aerial-view-aerial-view-

But these lines APPEAR to:

116_NEW-YORK_CENTRAL_AND_HUDSON-RIVER_RA

 

Edited for clarity of point.

Edited by Michael Cross
Clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"In the bottom image, there must be something about the details of the photo which cause the shadows to appear as if they are converging OPPOSITE the light source."

You mean you think it is fake?

David you are forgetting that the light source is the sun which is 864thousand  miles wide,93 million miles away,  not some imaginary light bulb behind the camera.

Light radiates in all directions from any source of light. the sun is no exception. The sun is so far away that by the time the light reaches earth, it is essentially parallel Everything on earth you see lit by the sun is illuminated from the same direction.

 

Edited by Ray Mitcham

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...