Durn it! Stop confusing me with facts!
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>>My main criticism isn't the color. I wasn't there and have never been
>>to Yosemite let alone this particular spot. It looks unreal to me
>>because the sky is too dark. Regardless of the sun angle or the
>>altitude of the rocks vs the foreground the sky can't be less bright
>>than what it's illuminating. The sky is that big diffuser thingy up
>>above and the source of the light. Gotta be brigher there.
>
> As a matter of theory, I have to disagree with you. To go far afield,
> the sunlit surface of the Moon is brightly lit, so bright that it still
> seems bright as reflected light over 360,000km away, and yet, the sky is
> black. The illumination here also comes entirely from the sun. Certainly
> quite a bit of it is bounced around by the atmosphere, the amount
> depending on how much of it is above and how much below the subject. The
> higher you go, the darker the sky. No, 6,000 feet doesn't have much
> effect, at least to our eyes, but look at the variation in sky
> brightness in your panorama at sea level. Perhaps it doesn' take much to
> be apparent in a photo.
>
> Consider a lone tree in a desert in the middle of the day. The tree's
> shadow is very dark compared to the surrounding ground. If the sky as a
> whole were anywhere near as strong a light source as the sun, the shadow
> would be washed out by that light coming from all other directions.
>
> I'm not disagreeing with your contention that the sky in my shot is too
> dark, only with your stated reason for saying so.
>
> How about if I pretend that I used a polarizer? :-)
>
> Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|