> rgds George
> PS: Now I shall read the replies...
Alan Browne <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> Wide angle lenses like a 20mm cover over 90ř horizontally (landscape
> orientation). The camera is quite close to the skiers.
That means that the wide angle lens cover 45 degrees to the left and 45
degrees to the right. In the first picture, the sun has to be 90 degrees
to the left to cast those shadows. This would mean a fish eye with more
than 180 degrees in order to catch the sun several degrees into the
picture. This is impossible - so the sun is faked.
> Finally ... why would anyone want to fake anything in this shot?
The photographer maybe just added a sun there because he/she
found it attractive. I think this added sun is a rather innocent
> Something else is bizzare ... the blue is darker in the middle than at
> the left and right of the frame ... a contrast issue with the lens,
Niemas problemas - a polarizing filter - thats all.
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:55:49 -0500, Alan Browne
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> the 2nd picture on http://tinyurl.com/6cbsc looks strange.
>> how can you make such pictures?
>> picture: http://tinyurl.com/6jlj4
>Wide angle lenses like a 20mm cover over 90° horizontally (landscape
>orientation). The camera is quite close to the skiers.
>Notice the rim lighting of the guy on the right ... the cheek lit on the guy on
>Look at the shaddow detail of some of the small lumps of snow on the far left,
>middle of the frame ... they follow the shaddow of the fellow on the left...
>Finally ... why would anyone want to fake anything in this shot?
Indeed, there is no reason to fake it.
>Something else is bizzare ... the blue is darker in the middle than at the left
>and right of the frame ... a contrast issue with the lens, perhaps.
If he used a polarizer, I would expect exactly this from the sky. I
don't know of anyone crazy enough to make a polarizing filter for a
20mm lens however...
I think it's something to do with the horizon scattering light, the
effect can be seen in this 180deg photo, the edges are brighter than
Crownfield <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:(E-Mail Removed):
> try the idea of a wide angle lens.
In the first picture, this wide angle lens must be more than
180 degrees, i.e. it has to be a super fisheye at e.g. 220
degrees. Otherwise it could not both catch the sun a bit into
the picture at the same time as the people cast shadows straight
to the right. But - looking at the picture you see that it is a
rather moderate wide angle lens.
The first picture definitely has a faked sun.
The second picture is harder to judge - but it sure looks like
the sun is faked there also.
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:55:49 -0500, Alan Browne
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>Something else is bizzare ... the blue is darker in the middle than at the left
>>and right of the frame ... a contrast issue with the lens, perhaps.
> If he used a polarizer, I would expect exactly this from the sky. I
> don't know of anyone crazy enough to make a polarizing filter for a
> 20mm lens however...
me! I do it all the time with mixed results, sometimes very good sometimes not
so good and the other times I'd rather not talk about.
Yeah, I thought of that, so if it is so, then the lens is much wider than a 20mm
lens (94°) as 90° is the angle over which a polarizer will show polarized and
non polarized light when it is set for max polarization.
The rule of thumb for a polarizer is to point your index finger at the subject
with your thumb jutting out. If your thumb can point at the sun while your
finger points at the subject (down the lens axis) then the polarizer can be used
up to maximum effect. eg: when the light crosses the lens axis at 90°. So a
wide angle will show a mix of effect levels when the pol is set to filter.
On 24 Jan 2005 20:38:28 GMT, Roland Karlsson
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Crownfield <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:(E-Mail Removed):
>> try the idea of a wide angle lens.
>In the first picture, this wide angle lens must be more than
>180 degrees, i.e. it has to be a super fisheye at e.g. 220
>degrees. Otherwise it could not both catch the sun a bit into
>the picture at the same time as the people cast shadows straight
>to the right. But - looking at the picture you see that it is a
>rather moderate wide angle lens.
Disagree, the lens is 180deg or less. It has the sun (just in frame to
the right), but also the shadows are going out of frame, not directly
left (remember it's a fisheye, so the lines are being bent round - In
reality, the ground is almost flat, sloping down slightly to the
right, but not up to the left as it would seem).
I also think it is an off-center crop from the fisheye.
>The first picture definitely has a faked sun.
>The second picture is harder to judge - but it sure looks like
>the sun is faked there also.
No, that's our real sun, I'd recognize it anywhere.
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:53:38 GMT, Roger Whitehead
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>At the risk of being a party pooper, wouldn't it be easier to email the
>site's owner and ask him?
Not a bad idea, because if you let a discussion like this run for more
than a few hours there will be at least one person who claims the
whole thing was rendered in Bryce3D. I'm already thinking I can see a
yetti or two on one of those outcrops.
I've searched the *entire* internet, and can't find a single photo
that someone took of this photo being taken, with lighting diagrams
and sworn affidavits etc that the man on the left wasn't busy burying
So unless someone who can speak German?/Swedish? contact's the site,
we can let the democracy of opinions decide if that bright orb on the
right is really our favorite star, or is it, in fact, the result of (a
very good) lens-flare plugin. If so, I want to know where to buy it
Mike Hunter wrote:
> "Owamanga" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:25:09 GMT, "Andrew Koenig" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>"Dr. Georg N.Nyman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>Again me, to be very precise - the sun is behind the right person as one
>>>>can see on the photo. The left person has got the sun on the cheek and
>>>>shadow is directed towards the left side - for that person, there must
>>>>have been another sun which was positioned much more on the right side
>>>>that his cheek is in sunlight and the shadows towards the left.
>>>I don't think so. I think a more likely explanation is that the picture
>>>taken with an extreme wide-angle lens, perhaps even a fisheye lens
>>>no identifiable objects are in the parts of the image that would show the
>>>most distortion), so although the sun appears to be almost in front of the
>>>photographer, it is really off to the side because of the extreme
>>Definitely. This is not a fake. There is no point to faking it. A
>>fisheye lens can easily include the sun in the frame when it's almost
>>90 degrees to the direction that the camera is facing.
>>For the sake of argument lets imagine this is an off-center crop from
>>a 180degree fish-eye (I don't think it's quite that wide, but anyway),
>>the camera is looking East, the sun is dead South and on the left edge
>>of the frame we are seeing almost due North. All shadows are pointing
>>North, and the Southern sides of the faces of both men are lit by the
>>Characteristic darkening of the image in the middle (the sky in
>>particular) fits this lens type too.
>>The man on his knees is most likely straight, just being bent by the
> Could it be that the "sun" is in fact a reflection off something - a cable
> car perhaps?
> The "sun" is completely lacking yellow : I know its burnt out but I would
> have expected some yellowness.
> I'm sceptical about the fisheye lens hypothesis because if you ignore the
> "sun", then everything else looks OK.
I think it's just the effect of a very wide lens.
Look at the shadow of the person on the right.
Close to his legs it's positioned about where it
would normally be, and then it "bends" over as you
follow it towards the left of the picture.
Looks like how an ultra-wide normally behaves, to me.