Re: Analyzing position of sun in last photo

by **Tony Bennett** 10.11.14 14:15

BlueBag wrote:
Parallax is a reality perfectly demonstrated in the Apollo picture.

You want an Earth one?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

All the shadows in this picture are in fact parallel.

If you measure each individual one they would all be in the same direction.

That's photography for you.

Very helpful illustration of the shadow/parallax problem, many thanks, BlueBag.

When you have a moment, could you please respond in any way you see fit to the claim by a poster earlier (sarliv on this thread: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]) today that you and me are one and the same?

TIA

by Guest 10.11.14 14:16

daffodil wrote:@BB. Thank you a much clearer explanation of parallax (snifferdog also). I didn't realize it was so simple

I'm sorry to keep on but how can lens settings affect the direction of shadows ?

Focal length changes the field depth of the picture.

There's a brilliant scene in Jaws II where it's used to great effect (the background zooming away effect).

by Guest 10.11.14 14:22

Tony Bennett wrote:When you have a moment, could you please respond in any way you see fit to the claim by a poster earlier (sarliv on this thread: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]) today that you and me are one and the same?

TIA

Really?

That's a compliment.

My spelling and (non-existent) grammar are much worse than yours.

It'll just be the usual BS-stirrers.

Admin has my real e-mail and ip address.

by bobbin 10.11.14 14:45

BlueBag wrote:
daffodil wrote:@ BB. May I say pictures of an already controversial photo and shadows doesn't really explain things.!!
They are not controverial.

Parallax is a reality perfectly demonstrated in the Apollo picture.

You want an Earth one?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

All the shadows in this picture are in fact parallel.

If you measure each individual one they would all be in the same direction.

That's photography for you.

So when someone is banging on about shadows behind Gerry and the kids being "Correct" without reference to parallax they are talking out their backsides.

So, is the road a straight road and the lens has distorted the picture to make it look as though the road is curved or is there actually a curve in the road.
Where was this photo taken, an aerial view would be important to assess the straightness or 'curviness'.
At least with the pool photo we have an overhead view and can determine what is where and relate it to the information on the photo.

by rustyjames 10.11.14 14:47

Here is another one that backs up the previous one with regard to position. This time the inner two lines represent the direction to the shade's pole and the centre of the tree trunk, which happen to be equidistant from the edge of the frame. The outer ones are 19.6 degrees apart which is the field of view on that camera with a focal length of 21.7mm.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 10.11.14 14:47

bobbin wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
daffodil wrote:@ BB. May I say pictures of an already controversial photo and shadows doesn't really explain things.!!
They are not controverial.

Parallax is a reality perfectly demonstrated in the Apollo picture.

You want an Earth one?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

All the shadows in this picture are in fact parallel.

If you measure each individual one they would all be in the same direction.

That's photography for you.

So when someone is banging on about shadows behind Gerry and the kids being "Correct" without reference to parallax they are talking out their backsides.
So, is the road a straight road and the lens has distorted the picture to make it look as though the road is curved or is there actually a curve in the road.
Where was this photo taken, an aerial view would be important to assess the straightness or 'curviness'.
At least with the pool photo we have an overhead view and can determine what is where and relate it to the information on the photo.

Are you seriously going to argue this point without looking it up?

Really?

Type "shadows" in google images and enjoy yourself.

You've demonstrated your level of "science" here.

by Guest 10.11.14 14:49

@bobbin

by rustyjames 10.11.14 14:53

Take a look at the posts below ...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

To quote the site they are from (which is here - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] :

Drawing a line from top of head to tip of shadow will give you a true sun angle if, and only if, the shadow was photographed broadside-on. View it from any other angle and the shadow will be foreshortened (that perspective thing again), and the results will be utterly meaningless.

The posts' shadows in the above scene were pointing in the same direction and had the same length, but that was not how the camera saw them. If we're going to find the sun's height from the apparent shadow length, we first need to find out where the shadow is pointing, and by how much.

by **Jill Havern** 10.11.14 14:58

BlueBag wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:When you have a moment, could you please respond in any way you see fit to the claim by a poster earlier (sarliv on this thread: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]) today that you and me are one and the same?

TIA
Really?

That's a compliment.

My spelling and (non-existent) grammar are much worse than yours.

It'll just be the usual BS-stirrers.

Admin has my real e-mail and ip address.

Yes, I can confirm that you are not Tony.

Sarliv is actually many-times-banned troll viaveritas/pleader/capstik/mariola/gcampbell/gerrylovesjellies/janders aka Travis Macbickle from Troll Central. oh go on

by bobbin 10.11.14 15:05

rustyjames wrote:I'm working so can't try and address all of bobbin's points until this evening at the earliest.

However Tony I posted my view on the positioning on the "Another look at the Last Photo" thread starting around page 24, but that was immediately derailed onto "suit photo".

I've reproduced the summary picture below of the direction I believe.

This takes into account:

A calculation of the distance of the photographer from Gerry detailed on that thread. I hold my hand up that it is an approximation of the distance due to the assumptions that have to be made, but should be the right order of magnitude, and on plotting it looks to be reasonable
Taking into account a direct line from the photographer, "through" the pole of the shade, should line up with the corner of the paved area of the main pool
And taking into account a line to the right of the tree should be just to the left of one of the main pool shades
Note the image used is June 2007

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
rustyjames, thankyou. I had seen your post and it was that which made me go looking further.
I add, above, the site for the last photo.
I agree your camera (wo)man position as pretty spot on.
With Maddie looking over her left shoulder, sitting on the edge of the pool, her face would be pretty well southerly facing. Gerry's line of vision being just fractionally to the left of Maddie's line of vision.
I look forward to your independent observations later.

by Woofer 10.11.14 15:10

BlueBag wrote:@bobbin

Blue Bag - how insulting is this to Bobbin. She has discussed this topic in a polite manner throughout and you have just replied with rude, spiteful posts. At least try and be polite in your discussions - rudeness just brings the forum down to sewer levels.

by bobbin 10.11.14 15:13

BlueBag wrote:
bobbin wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
daffodil wrote:@ BB. May I say pictures of an already controversial photo and shadows doesn't really explain things.!!
They are not controverial.

Parallax is a reality perfectly demonstrated in the Apollo picture.

You want an Earth one?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

All the shadows in this picture are in fact parallel.

If you measure each individual one they would all be in the same direction.

That's photography for you.

So when someone is banging on about shadows behind Gerry and the kids being "Correct" without reference to parallax they are talking out their backsides.
So, is the road a straight road and the lens has distorted the picture to make it look as though the road is curved or is there actually a curve in the road.
Where was this photo taken, an aerial view would be important to assess the straightness or 'curviness'.
At least with the pool photo we have an overhead view and can determine what is where and relate it to the information on the photo.
Are you seriously going to argue this point without looking it up?

Really?

Type "shadows" in google images and enjoy yourself.

You've demonstrated your level of "science" here.

So, is it a straight road or a bent one ?

by Guest 10.11.14 15:15

bobbin wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
bobbin wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
daffodil wrote:@ BB. May I say pictures of an already controversial photo and shadows doesn't really explain things.!!
They are not controverial.

Parallax is a reality perfectly demonstrated in the Apollo picture.

You want an Earth one?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

All the shadows in this picture are in fact parallel.

If you measure each individual one they would all be in the same direction.

That's photography for you.

So when someone is banging on about shadows behind Gerry and the kids being "Correct" without reference to parallax they are talking out their backsides.
So, is the road a straight road and the lens has distorted the picture to make it look as though the road is curved or is there actually a curve in the road.
Where was this photo taken, an aerial view would be important to assess the straightness or 'curviness'.
At least with the pool photo we have an overhead view and can determine what is where and relate it to the information on the photo.
Are you seriously going to argue this point without looking it up?

Really?

Type "shadows" in google images and enjoy yourself.

You've demonstrated your level of "science" here.
So, is it a straight road or a bent one ?

The road/path is obviously curved.

Why does that matter?

(Careful now).

by Guest 10.11.14 15:17

Woofer wrote:
BlueBag wrote:@bobbin

Blue Bag - how insulting is this to Bobbin. She has discussed this topic in a polite manner throughout and you have just replied with rude, spiteful posts. At least try and be polite in your discussions - rudeness just brings the forum down to sewer levels.

But that's the level of "science" that was being offered here and elsewhere on this forum.

The truth hurts.

by Guest 10.11.14 15:20

bobbin wrote:I was fully expecting some sort of response from you because I was sure you wouldn't let this sleeping dog sleep lie, as it were, but please don't try to over-wash it all with silly deflective arguments about focal lengths etc.

"silly defective arguments about focal lengths".

Really.

So.. maybe you see where I'm coming from my dear woofer.

by bobbin 10.11.14 15:50

BlueBag wrote:
bobbin wrote:I was fully expecting some sort of response from you because I was sure you wouldn't let this sleeping dog sleep lie, as it were, but please don't try to over-wash it all with silly deflective arguments about focal lengths etc.
"silly defective arguments about focal lengths".

Really.

So.. maybe you see where I'm coming from my dear woofer.

The sun shines from its predestined, and hence measurable, angles, relative to a spot on earth, regardless of whatever focal length is set on a camera. It has done so since the beginning of time and modern day artifacts don't negate the laws of nature.

My posts have been about the angle of attack relative to the sun and the geographical orientation of an object and a fixed time.

Once those points are established one can work out what light will be shining where and what shadows will be cast.

Any 'modern day playing' with photography /distortion in photo/picture finish may be due to a curvature in a lens or some other 'artistic intervention or technically distorting trick' but as I said this is a bog standard family photo, or would like to appear as a family photo, without any other evidence of distortion either within the picture or around the edges of the picture to indicate specialist lenses with distorting curvature.

The only things that are 'distorting' are primarily the long shadow on Gerry's T shirt when his stance, his angle towards the sun, his geographical orientation, determine his shadow to NOT be the way it is presented.

For that I summise that some manipulation has occurred to the photo and in layman's terms, that is called 'photo-shopping'.

The importance of determining whether the picture has been interfered with is to be able to have free run to determine what exactly happened to Madeleine and not try to fit facts into a fixed but possibly incorrect timeline which may implicate the wrong person and lead to a breach of justice.

The reason I asked if the road was curved or straight was that if it is curved then the shadows are completely compatible with a light-source somewhere behind the fence, the shadows fanning out as they respect the curve of the road.

If however the road were straight, then something like the fairground hall of mirrors would have had to have been involved in the production of shadows that fall from an apparently vertical barrier with parallel, juxtaposed bars or wooden posts, and yet do not respect the expected travel of shadow which according to the laws of physics would be estimable.

by biggles 10.11.14 16:14

Thankyou for the replies so far everyone.. I hadn't quite anticipated the direction the discussion would be taking :)

@rustyjames - thankyou for the 'findmyshadow' link - I hadn't seen that one before.

@bobbin, thanks for your reply, and confirming the angle of the sun was 68deg - thats certainly what the suncalc software seems to be telling us it was on 3/5/07.

Just wanted to comment on a couple of assumptions I think I'm seeing in the comments. Primarily, that the camera settings would affect the picture being taken, or would affect 'parallex', perspective, angles, that kind of thing:

It is my understanding that camera settings do *not* affect the perspective of an image, so are not important to the analysis being proposed. Specifically, the focal length of a lens has no effect on the resulting perspective of the image being captured. All that happens when you zoom in/out, is that your angle-of-view changes (i.e. how much of the 'image' you can see).

For example, you can take a photo of a subject with a wide-angle lens (i.e. zoomed out), and then take the same picture again with a telephoto lens setting (zoomed in). If you crop the image that came from the wide-angle lens so that it includes the same area that was captured with the telephoto lens - and then enlarge it so the pictures are the same size - the resulting images will be the same. That's right, no change in perspective, by my understanding. They will look like they were taken at the same focal-length, ignoring any loss of quality because of the enlarging process. To reiterate, a wide-angle lens will capture a wider field of view only (i.e. more 'stuff' will be in the photo) but it does not change perspective.

The only time perspective will change, is when the camera's distance to its subject is changes. i.e. when you walk towards/away from the subject. If you use a wide-angle lens, you need to be closer to a subject for it to 'fill' the viewfinder. That's why the resulting picture looks like it comes from a wide-angle lens - because you are closer to the subject.

I will continue studying this topic, it would be good to know either way if such an analysis could prove useful, and will report back if I get anywhere :)

by Guest 10.11.14 16:20

bobbin wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
bobbin wrote:I was fully expecting some sort of response from you because I was sure you wouldn't let this sleeping dog sleep lie, as it were, but please don't try to over-wash it all with silly deflective arguments about focal lengths etc.
"silly defective arguments about focal lengths".

Really.

So.. maybe you see where I'm coming from my dear woofer.
The sun shines from its predestined, and hence measurable, angles, relative to a spot on earth, regardless of whatever focal length is set on a camera. It has done so since the beginning of time and modern day artifacts don't negate the laws of nature.

My posts have been about the angle of attack relative to the sun and the geographical orientation of an object and a fixed time.

Once those points are established one can work out what light will be shining where and what shadows will be cast.

Any 'modern day playing' with photography /distortion in photo/picture finish may be due to a curvature in a lens or some other 'artistic intervention or technically distorting trick' but as I said this is a bog standard family photo, or would like to appear as a family photo, without any other evidence of distortion either within the picture or around the edges of the picture to indicate specialist lenses with distorting curvature.

The only things that are 'distorting' are primarily the long shadow on Gerry's T shirt when his stance, his angle towards the sun, his geographical orientation, determine his shadow to NOT be the way it is presented.

For that I summise that some manipulation has occurred to the photo and in layman's terms, that is called 'photo-shopping'.

The importance of determining whether the picture has been interfered with is to be able to have free run to determine what exactly happened to Madeleine and not try to fit facts into a fixed but possibly incorrect timeline which may implicate the wrong person and lead to a breach of justice.

The reason I asked if the road was curved or straight was that if it is curved then the shadows are completely compatible with a light-source somewhere behind the fence, the shadows fanning out as they respect the curve of the road.

If however the road were straight, then something like the fairground hall of mirrors would have had to have been involved in the production of shadows that fall from an apparently vertical barrier with parallel, juxtaposed bars or wooden posts, and yet do not respect the expected travel of shadow which according to the laws of physics would be estimable.

You just don't get it.

by Guest 10.11.14 16:24

biggles wrote:It is my understanding that camera settings do *not* affect the perspective of an image, so are not important to the analysis being proposed. Specifically, the focal length of a lens has no effect on the resulting perspective of the image being captured. All that happens when you zoom in/out, is that your angle-of-view changes (i.e. how much of the 'image' you can see).

Oh how wrong can you be.

Totally absolutely and utterly wrong.

Even without changing any settings on a camera, you ALWAYS have the issue of parallax and that varies from camera to camera depending on lens curvature.

I've given enough information in this thread for anyone really interested in the truth to dig in to.

Some just don't want to hear.

You can lead a horse to water... etc.

by bobbin 10.11.14 16:28

BlueBag wrote:
bobbin wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
bobbin wrote:I was fully expecting some sort of response from you because I was sure you wouldn't let this sleeping dog sleep lie, as it were, but please don't try to over-wash it all with silly deflective arguments about focal lengths etc.
"silly defective arguments about focal lengths".

Really.

So.. maybe you see where I'm coming from my dear woofer.
The sun shines from its predestined, and hence measurable, angles, relative to a spot on earth, regardless of whatever focal length is set on a camera. It has done so since the beginning of time and modern day artifacts don't negate the laws of nature.

My posts have been about the angle of attack relative to the sun and the geographical orientation of an object and a fixed time.

Once those points are established one can work out what light will be shining where and what shadows will be cast.

Any 'modern day playing' with photography /distortion in photo/picture finish may be due to a curvature in a lens or some other 'artistic intervention or technically distorting trick' but as I said this is a bog standard family photo, or would like to appear as a family photo, without any other evidence of distortion either within the picture or around the edges of the picture to indicate specialist lenses with distorting curvature.

The only things that are 'distorting' are primarily the long shadow on Gerry's T shirt when his stance, his angle towards the sun, his geographical orientation, determine his shadow to NOT be the way it is presented.

For that I summise that some manipulation has occurred to the photo and in layman's terms, that is called 'photo-shopping'.

The importance of determining whether the picture has been interfered with is to be able to have free run to determine what exactly happened to Madeleine and not try to fit facts into a fixed but possibly incorrect timeline which may implicate the wrong person and lead to a breach of justice.

The reason I asked if the road was curved or straight was that if it is curved then the shadows are completely compatible with a light-source somewhere behind the fence, the shadows fanning out as they respect the curve of the road.

If however the road were straight, then something like the fairground hall of mirrors would have had to have been involved in the production of shadows that fall from an apparently vertical barrier with parallel, juxtaposed bars or wooden posts, and yet do not respect the expected travel of shadow which according to the laws of physics would be estimable.
You just don't get it.

I think you should read rustyjames' post above. Perhaps you will then 'get' that people don't accept what you are saying.

by biggles 10.11.14 16:34

BlueBag wrote:
biggles wrote:It is my understanding that camera settings do *not* affect the perspective of an image, so are not important to the analysis being proposed. Specifically, the focal length of a lens has no effect on the resulting perspective of the image being captured. All that happens when you zoom in/out, is that your angle-of-view changes (i.e. how much of the 'image' you can see).
Oh how wrong can you be.

Totally absolutely and utterly wrong.

Even without changing any settings on a camera, you ALWAYS have the issue of parallax and that varies from camera to camera depending on lens curvature.

I've given enough information in this thread for anyone really interested in the truth to dig in to.

Some just don't want to hear.

You can lead a horse to water... etc.

Please review this article. This is just the first that came up in a quick google search:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

edit: added another link:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

'Some just don't want to hear'... ahem.

I suggested a simple experiment to prove what I am saying. Would you like to try it? If you have a camera with a zoom, take 2 pictures, one at a wide-angle setting, and one fully zoomed in. Stay where you are for both pictures, that's the important bit. You can review the pictures on the back most cameras these days. Zoom in on the wide-angle picture until the same area is being displayed. It'll look the same as the picture that was taken fully zoomed-in.

All I can say is... try it if you don't believe me.

by Guest 10.11.14 16:35

bobbin wrote:I think you should read rustyjames' post above. Perhaps you will then 'get' that people don't accept what you are saying.

OK baby steps.

Did you understand the point of the picture with the shadows of railings?

by Guest 10.11.14 16:46

biggles wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
biggles wrote:It is my understanding that camera settings do *not* affect the perspective of an image, so are not important to the analysis being proposed. Specifically, the focal length of a lens has no effect on the resulting perspective of the image being captured. All that happens when you zoom in/out, is that your angle-of-view changes (i.e. how much of the 'image' you can see).
Oh how wrong can you be.

Totally absolutely and utterly wrong.

Even without changing any settings on a camera, you ALWAYS have the issue of parallax and that varies from camera to camera depending on lens curvature.

I've given enough information in this thread for anyone really interested in the truth to dig in to.

Some just don't want to hear.

You can lead a horse to water... etc.

Please review this article. This is just the first that came up in a quick google search:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

'Some just don't want to hear'... ahem.

I suggested a simple experiment to prove what I am saying. Would you like to try it? If you have a camera with a zoom, take 2 pictures, one at a wide-angle setting, and one fully zoomed in. Stay where you are for both pictures, that's the important bit. You can review the pictures on the back most cameras these days. Zoom in on the wide-angle picture until the same area is being displayed. It'll look the same as the picture that was taken fully zoomed-in.

All I can say is... try it if you don't believe me.

Oh yeah?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"Wide angle lenses can help reduce parallax effects because a wide angle lens accentuates perspective"

Anyway.

Are you ignoring the point about parallax?

This IS the key issue as I have been saying over and over and over.

Parallel lines are not parallel in photographs - (see the shadows of railing picture that confused you).

Shadows from a subject in the centre of a picture are going to appear to be different angle to those further to the sides whilst in reality they are not.

Any "science" based on "angles should be the same" is bunk.

Saying the last photo is photoshopped because Gerry's shadow is at a different angle to the tree and background is pure rubbish.

by rustyjames 10.11.14 16:50

bobbin wrote:I think you should read rustyjames' post above. Perhaps you will then 'get' that people don't accept what you are saying.

Not sure what's being attributed to me here, but for the most part I generally agree with BlueBag, although I may disagree a little in the post after this one.

For example please see my post on posts (so to speak) earlier showing how the apparent angles of a row of identical posts are different, both in respect to the shadow they cast on the ground, and the apparent angle to the ground. The sun appears as a relatively small disc in the sky and the shadow and the thing making the shadow has to be tracked back to that position.

by rustyjames 10.11.14 16:55

The issue of perspective is the one I (mostly) disagree with. The biggest factor is movement towards or away from the subject whilst changing the focal length, i.e. keeping the subject the same size. In that case perspective will change.

Staying in the same place, changing the focal length and then cropping will give very similiar results - although for example a very wide angle lens will distort the image in a fish eye effect.

Some decent examples here - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and here - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]