Why do I get these Strange shadows
Mar 19, 2012 11:51:03 #
Bloomfield Ron wrote:
This makes absolute sense and would explain something that kept puzzling me: the DOF did not match the picture clarity..../...
Speed 1/8s Aperture 22
I had not see this before, live and learn.
Thank you.
Mar 19, 2012 12:47:56 #
Mar 19, 2012 13:29:58 #
The more I look at it the more puzzled I am. A flash lasts a fraction of second as in thousands of a second so with a speed of 1/8 it should not have created this effect...
Speed synchronization means only this: the shutter is fully open when the flash fires.
The shadows should not be that dark and pronounced where the sky is.
Something else is at play.
PS. Flash interrupts itself when it
1) spends all the stored energy
2) detects a return
Here the over blown (not that much if you ask me):
1) Is set by a measurement in a darker zone, likely the wood
2) Does not detect a return
Another 'scratch' if this is a contrail, why is it sharp when the tree line is not?
Speed synchronization means only this: the shutter is fully open when the flash fires.
The shadows should not be that dark and pronounced where the sky is.
Something else is at play.
PS. Flash interrupts itself when it
1) spends all the stored energy
2) detects a return
Here the over blown (not that much if you ask me):
1) Is set by a measurement in a darker zone, likely the wood
2) Does not detect a return
Another 'scratch' if this is a contrail, why is it sharp when the tree line is not?
Contrail???
Tree line
Mar 19, 2012 13:47:59 #
Mar 19, 2012 13:58:24 #
Looking at it at 700% I found a detail that makes no sense:
The shadow is in line. If this was about moving after the flash, the shadow projection would not have been on line at all as addressing a different plan...
The shadow is in line. If this was about moving after the flash, the shadow projection would not have been on line at all as addressing a different plan...
Also the shadow is sharp,...
Mar 19, 2012 14:13:36 #
English_Wolf wrote:
Looking at it at 700% I found a detail that makes no sense:
The shadow is in line. If this was about moving after the flash, the shadow projection would not have been on line at all as addressing a different plan...
The shadow is in line. If this was about moving after the flash, the shadow projection would not have been on line at all as addressing a different plan...
Were these shots taken at Area 51? :mrgreen:
Mar 19, 2012 14:20:57 #
rpavich wrote:
Seems like it. You are now entering the twilight zone, don't touch that dial!Were these shots taken at Area 51? :mrgreen:
Mar 19, 2012 14:25:05 #
English_Wolf wrote:
The more I look at it the more puzzled I am. A fl... (show quote)
I think your contrail is actually a thread of a spider web.
Mar 19, 2012 14:26:56 #
English_Wolf wrote:
Can you repost this image w/o Photoshop Element interference?
I posted the one I think I posted last night plus one other taken last night. These have had nothing done to them other than downloaded onto the computer.
Mar 19, 2012 14:32:11 #
The very first image was post processed, I compared the thumbnails....
err, with the original to download? Please?
err, with the original to download? Please?
Mar 19, 2012 14:40:34 #
What was your shutter speed on this shot?
I'm willing to be it was slow enough for you to move and have (in effect) two exposures....that's the only explanation that makes sense to me.
It looks like it's on a surface because the background is a light sky but the flash of course doesn't reach out.
EDITED TO ADD:
THAT'S IT.
Your shutter speed was 1/8 second.
Plenty slow to move and have two exposures...one black due to no light...(aka silhouette against the lighter sky) and the other the frozen "flash" branches.
It happens all of the time.
Only due to the compression and optical illusion do we see the dark part as "laying on" the other layer of sky.
I'm willing to be it was slow enough for you to move and have (in effect) two exposures....that's the only explanation that makes sense to me.
It looks like it's on a surface because the background is a light sky but the flash of course doesn't reach out.
EDITED TO ADD:
THAT'S IT.
Your shutter speed was 1/8 second.
Plenty slow to move and have two exposures...one black due to no light...(aka silhouette against the lighter sky) and the other the frozen "flash" branches.
It happens all of the time.
Only due to the compression and optical illusion do we see the dark part as "laying on" the other layer of sky.
Mar 19, 2012 14:44:00 #
English_Wolf wrote:
The very first image was post processed, I compared the thumbnails....
err, with the original to download? Please?
err, with the original to download? Please?
I forgot to click store original, so the replacements are on their way. With my internet troubles lately this could take awhile. It has already posted an error message once. I am on take two.
Mar 19, 2012 14:56:59 #
rpavich wrote:
Only one problem the sensor: is not fooled unlike our eyes and when blowing the magnification the optical illusion goes away... So, with the fractional duration of the flash and the long exposure, the sky should pass through the original place of the object, at least partially... I do not see it..../... Only due to the compression and optical illusion do we see the dark part as "laying on" the other layer of sky. .../...
The later can be explained by the post processing done to the image*, hence the importance to have the original w/o any manipulation to create interferences. This includes the 'contrail/spider web/scratches' that are sharpened as the sharp mask loves to work with bright, well defined areas.
So a wild goose chase that looked more and more like a setup. I should have paid attention to the photo element signature long before.
Bloomfield Ron Was right, his statement was not supported because the evidence lied due to PP.
Mar 19, 2012 15:15:50 #
English_Wolf wrote:
Can you repost this image w/o Photoshop Element interference?
Shoot forgot to check store original. Good thing I am at the end of the data plan cycle. Here we go try number 3 lets hope it goes this time.
Mar 19, 2012 15:22:32 #
Problem solved, all the details I was looking at as deceptive are gone. The shadows are not uniform and show motion.
There are consistent with Bloomfield Ron's statement.
There are consistent with Bloomfield Ron's statement.
Original, shadows are progressive
Post Processed (way over, you killed the DOF!!!) Shadows have no depth.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.