Thats absolutly the right answer. First off there is no reason
whatsoever to fake that photo. And if you look closely the distortion
Wide angle. Quite close.
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:15:23 -0000, "Mike Hunter"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>"Owamanga" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> 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
Sorry Mike, I missed responding to you in detail last time.
>Could it be that the "sun" is in fact a reflection off something - a cable
Then where is the cable car?
>The "sun" is completely lacking yellow : I know its burnt out but I would
>have expected some yellowness.
Okay, think. Why does sun appear yellow when we in fact know it to be
white? It is the sun that actually defines our concept of white. Think
of all the NASA space footage of our planet & the sun. The sun is
White, minus some blue (the scattering that our atmosphere causes)
gives us yellow. Now, go up a mountain, and you have less atmosphere
between you and the sun. The sky around the sun starts to look a much
paler blue, and the sun looks a lot whiter.
>I'm sceptical about the fisheye lens hypothesis because if you ignore the
>"sun", then everything else looks OK.
I believe the simple answer is the most likely. Such lenses exist, and
they are a cool choice for this type of shot.
Looks like a full frame fisheye to me. The lack of straight lines hides th
effect pretty well, but the guy on the right looks pretty bent.
Owamanga <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> 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).
The first picture is not taken with a fish eye and
it is not all that extreme wide angle. It looks
impossible to me. To me it looks like the sun should be
higher up and further to the left, i.e. way ouside
In article <OqdJd.44978$(E-Mail Removed)>, Alan Browne wrote:
> What!!!!??? R U nuts? You'd let facts get in the way of speculation and
> I never thought I'd see the day ...
I admit it - I'm a sad case.
In article <41f5711a$0$74609$(E-Mail Removed)> , Tafkab
> the guy on the right looks pretty bent.
You can tell that from a photo? Remarkable.
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> the 2nd picture on http://tinyurl.com/6cbsc looks strange.
> how can you make such pictures?
Just shoot it? Those shadows are natural ... no faking in that shot.
Andrew Koenig wrote:
> "Dr. Georg N.Nyman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Again me, to be very precise - the sun is behind the right person
> > can see on the photo. The left person has got the sun on the cheek
> > shadow is directed towards the left side - for that person, there
> > have been another sun which was positioned much more on the right
> > 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
> 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
> most distortion), so although the sun appears to be almost in front
> photographer, it is really off to the side because of the extreme
Yes. That's clearly the case.
So with all that court experience, you did not know about the
distortion from use of extreme wide angle or fish eye lenses? Yeah,
right. If so, you might want to revisit some cases...
The position of the Sun and those shadow angles are certainly within
the realms of possibility, once you get down to say 21mm wide or less.
The image could also be cropped more to one side, which would make the
effect even worse.
The lighting is also consistent with bright reflection off snow, or use
of fill-flash maybe dialled in to say -1 stop.
IMO - definitely NOT faked.