09-11-2015, 10:13 PM
Drew Phipps Wrote:David Josephs Wrote:Tell me please... I can see your head's shadow by the left pole.
No such shadow exists in the BYP. Would you say that's a fair comparison?
That is a completely ridiculous objection. In addition, I believe you asked for him to produce such a photo. Come on David! Don't pull an Albert.
I'm not Drew.
The image Ray posted shows the shadow of the photographer in the image - which means a certain distance and a certain focal length
If the images are similar we should see a shadow of Marina extending to the post when in fact there is no shadow of the photographer at all.
Give the distances we SHOULD see the photographer's shadow... it's not there.
If we are to compare apple to apples - take a photo showing these shadows doing what they do from a distance and focal length that matches...
Ray's photo appears to be a 35mm from a very short distance away.
Every image I've seen with the photographer's shadow in it appears to exentuate the shadow angles - these same impossible shadow angles given the properties of light.
If you think those two shadows are part of the same image - fine. When you add in the ghost, the 133-C discovery, the loss of the negatives, what transpired at the Paine's over 2 days and the BS with Robert and the camera
I think we can conclude these images were created from two or more different source negatives.
I'm perfectly fine presenting the info and conclusions that way... if you both want to keep going round and round with these dis-similar comparisons... whatever.
Shadows do not converge in the direction of the shadow unless there is something misrepresenting reality in the photo... or the shadows stretch to a vanishing point.
Maybe go read Jeff Carter's work as well on the BYPs at CTKA... seems to me you're both spitting into the wind.
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