06-11-2015, 05:56 PM
Ray Mitcham Wrote:"Ray - if you want to claim those shadows work and are consistent with a same image, vanishing point shadow convergence... I think you're wrong.
I said in an earlier post "that what you say about the shadows converging too quickly could be right. I am not arguing that. (It may well be due to the camera angle and perspective) As I said earlier I think the photos are fake. Just that you think you have solved the mystery when you haven't."
"I think we should see a nice, dark post shadow laying in exactly the same angle from the post as the Oswald shadow is to Oswald."
That is not what you proposed in the opening post. You showed shadows which diverged. I pointed out that shadows never diverge.
I will repeat that due to perspective, sun shadows of vertical objects will converge whether the camera is facing the sun or away from the sun.
If you disagree with this, then we have no need for further discussion.
When you figure out the difference between Vanishing point physics and shadow behavior in a 10 foot circle we can continue this discussion.
The shadows in the BYP are at angles to each other which are completely unnatural and not possible in the real world.
I'm remain terribly sorry this main and important point seems less important to you than repeatedly telling me about vanishing point physics and then NOT applying it to the BYP and the incredibly short distances we are discussing.
I've asked you repeatedly to download the BYP I posted and draw in the post's shadow as it SHOULD be if this picture was not a composite. I've done it a number of times and even showed you how it conflicts with real shadows themselves...
So once again.. here are shadows which converge at the light source and does NOT converge in the direction of the shadow.
If one of those shadow lines was in the same direction as the post (in red) the image would be so obviously wrong it would jump of the page.
The inset of the BYP shadows and how absurd the child photo would look if all the shadows on the left in the inverted image were at the BYP Post angle bascially proves my point.
As you wrote: "I will repeat that due to perspective, sun shadows of vertical objects will converge whether the camera is facing the sun or away from the sun.
If you disagree with this, then we have no need for further discussion."
So tell me Ray... in the bottom image the sun is in front of the camera and those shadows will NEVER converge in the direction they are falling. IOW behind the camera.
If we can't agree on what we are both looking at then I agree, we're done with this.
The is a great example since the ROAD to the left illustrates the Vanishing Point optical illusion as well as the basic rule of light and shadow. The only way shadows will ever APPEAR to converge is if they stretch towards the horizon like the road on the left side of the boy image.
If the fence on the left was on the same level as the horizon, those red line would converge at the horizon under the sun.
If you are trying to challenge the conclusions I offered here, do so with something in the real world please.
Post any image from anywhere with the sun creating less than 10 foot shadows from behind generates shadows which are at angles to each other as opposed to nearly parallel...
Please do not post another image with the camera in the shadows themselves... that by default creates vanishing point illusions... The same can be said about shadows running virtually horizontally in a photo...
if the shadows fall in the direction AWAY from the camera, even slightly, the vanishing point illusion comes into play
Can you use an image similar in composition to the BYP to prove your point?
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter