"That's a lot of typing just to prove that you don't know what "irony" means."
I spent two days drawing a storyboard of Jobs, thinking about shading, perspective, etc; then somebody posts a 'shopped' photo of him on the internet the day the assignment is due and I see the posting on Twitter...
Okay, I guess you 'had to be there' to find coincidence ironic.
I guess I had been thinking all along, "gee, I wonder if anybody else is drawing Steve Jobs right now".
You get paid to combat the sheer ignorance of the people that apparently have too many opinions for their own sake? That's what I quoted and what you responded to.
Don't be a dick. Obviously you haven't learned your place or any common civility.
There are no requirements to be here except having access to a computer.
We both have a place here as long as there is at least a bit of respect.
Well, in this case, it happens to be that my knowledge corresponds to reality. But other-than-that I guess there is no good reason. I could give my credentials, but why should you believe those any more than my reasoning?
Here are my credentials (no need to believe them, I understand how easy it is to type the following without a shred of truth):
1) Human who has observed environment over the last several decades. (Most important one in this case)
2) PhD in physics, MS in Mathematics
3) Work with military targeting systems including image processing which requires knowledge of light sources and how they effect images for noise and over exposure.
I like a person who could demand a seat because of his station but chooses to wait in line with the rest. Good for him! Even better that he did not have a cow when they were full and had to ask him to wait or come back another time. This is called class!
I respect them for not cutting him in front of other customers just because he is a celebrity. I'm visiting San Fran in about a month. Maybe I will try a book a table.
I respect them for not cutting him in front of other customers just because he is a celebrity. I'm visiting San Fran in about a month. Maybe I will try a book a table.
FYI: In San Francisco refer to it as the Bay Area, SF (ess eff) or San Francisco, but never San Fran. I was schooled on that localized faux pas the first time I went there. As I recall, SF was the most common phrasing.
I like a person who could demand a seat because of his station but chooses to wait in line with the rest. Good for him! Even better that he did not have a cow when they were full and had to ask him to wait or come back another time. This is called class!
Why is he entitled to "demand a seat because of his station"? Just because someone is rich does not mean they have the right to be an asshole. I remember a few years ago when then president Bill Clinton booked a meal at Jamie Oliver's restaurant in London. Jamie Oliver left the restaurant and went home when several of the female entourage requested unreasonable modifications to his menu at the last minute because of some ridiculous fad diet they started that day.
** trust me folks, Drow & LuisDias are 100% correct and all other arguments
But that, unfortunately, is not the point. What they have said, and what you have reiterated are all quite correct. We all grasp the fundamental laws of physics (optics and light) here. The problem is, these facts don't account for what appears to be a problem in the picture. Most of the shadows seem consistent with the sun being above and behind the camera. Steve's shadow, the guy who is the subject's, the gal to his right's, and even the telephone lines' shadows all behave as we all agree they should. They converge in perspective away from the viewer to a vanishing point on the horizon. The fact that the sun's rays are almost parallel to the side of the building is evident from the shadows cast by the window sills and cornices. Everything lines up accordingly.
The problem is that the most prominent shadow in the pic, the one that starts at the center of the left side of the photo and goes diagonally to the building wall seems inconsistent. If it were the shadow of the telephone pole that sits on the corner to the left of our subject, shouldn't it be close to same angle as the shadow of the guy standing next to it? Allowing for perspective, it should never cross the angles of other shadows of perpendicular objects--only converge to a vanishing point on the horizon. If we draw lines through the shadows of the figures in the foreground they will converge at such a place, the pole shadow doesn't appear to. The only thing that can account for this would seem to be that whatever is casting it isn't perpendicular.
The horizon line in this pic is at about the height of the tip of Steve's nose. The vanishing point, established by the position of the camera, is at that height about halfway between the line of phone poles and the side walls of the block of buildings. If the object casting the shadow were perpendicular, its shadow should vanish to that point. But it misses it by a substantial margin. As I have said before, I am doubting that this photo is faked, but I still cannot account for this anomaly. Can you?
It's not a matter of stupidity, just a matter of trying to account for all the elements.
Well, in this case, it happens to be that my knowledge corresponds to reality. But other-than-that I guess there is no good reason. I could give my credentials, but why should you believe those any more than my reasoning?
Here are my credentials (no need to believe them, I understand how easy it is to type the following without a shred of truth):
1) Human who has observed environment over the last several decades. (Most important one in this case)
2) PhD in physics, MS in Mathematics
3) Work with military targeting systems including image processing which requires knowledge of light sources and how they effect images for noise and over exposure.
Accepting your credentials as true, can you explain what appears to be an aberrant shadow in my previous post. I genuinely would like to hear what you have to say about that particular element in the pic.
To IQ78 and others: It never ceases to amaze me that the experiences and qualifications of my fellow posters are so varied and rich. Some odd coincidences as well. At 64 I too have had sufficient time to observe the world. In one life I was in the Navy and was a gunfire control technician--used radar and computers to track targets for the ship's guns (Vietnam). Some years later got Master's in stage scenery and lighting design, and again later a PhD in theatre history from the University of Southern California. I had a successful career and am now retired. I've raised a kid to be a well adjusted and successful adult, and have messed up a first marriage and succeeded wonderfully in a second.
I mention this not to aggrandize myself, but only to make the point that most people here are not stupid, naive, or inexperienced in life. Yet it is disturbingly common that posters refer to each other as "morons," "stupid," and a myriad of other derogatory and humiliating ways.
I am suggesting that we give each other the benefit of the doubt. Assume we are sincere and intelligent people who simply want to exchange ideas. It is quite possible to disagree with someone without heaping abuse upon them.
PS: I use my real name on this forum because it keeps me honest. I am more likely to be correct, civil and accountable when not hiding behind a pseudonym. Something to consider.
But that, unfortunately, is not the point. What they have said, and what you have reiterated are all quite correct. We all grasp the fundamental laws of physics (optics and light) here.
He. Empirical evidence by the reading of this thread alone points otherwise.
Quote:
The problem is, these facts don't account for what appears to be a problem in the picture. Most of the shadows seem consistent with the sun being above and behind the camera. Steve's shadow, the guy who is the subject's, the gal to his right's, and even the telephone lines' shadows all behave as we all agree they should. They converge in perspective away from the viewer to a vanishing point on the horizon. The fact that the sun's rays are almost parallel to the side of the building is evident from the shadows cast by the window sills and cornices. Everything lines up accordingly.
The problem is that the most prominent shadow in the pic, the one that starts at the center of the left side of the photo and goes diagonally to the building wall seems inconsistent.
"Seems inconsistent" to whom? To you? Even after placing the red helpers for handicapped people who apparently will not ever understand geometry even if it was imprinted on their faces, you still fail to recognize what is evidently true. What can one express but bewilderement? I feel like I'm inside a room with half of the people claiming that 2 and 2 should not be 4, because it seems "inconsistent".
Quote:
If it were the shadow of the telephone pole that sits on the corner to the left of our subject, shouldn't it be close to same angle as the shadow of the guy standing next to it?
No. It should follow the red lines towards the shadow vanishing point. As it does.
Quote:
Allowing for perspective, it should never cross the angles of other shadows of perpendicular objects
This is profoundly mistaken. If the lit objects are perpendicular, there is no geometrical law that requires its shadows to have any particular angle between them. IOW, they can be perpendicular, or they can be something else completely diferent, eg. the shadows of a cube.
Quote:
--only converge to a vanishing point on the horizon. If we draw lines through the shadows of the figures in the foreground they will converge at such a place, the pole shadow doesn't appear to. The only thing that can account for this would seem to be that whatever is casting it isn't perpendicular.
Wait a minute. Are you, perchance, talking about the shadow on the wall?
Because if you are, I have a come back. You won't like it.
He. Empirical evidence by the reading of this thread alone points otherwise.
"Seems inconsistent" to whom? To you? Even after placing the red helpers for handicapped people who apparently will not ever understand geometry even if it was imprinted on their faces, you still fail to recognize what is evidently true. What can one express but bewilderement? I feel like I'm inside a room with half of the people claiming that 2 and 2 should not be 4, because it seems "inconsistent".
No. It should follow the red lines towards the shadow vanishing point. As it does.
This is profoundly mistaken. If the lit objects are perpendicular, there is no geometrical law that requires its shadows to have any particular angle between them. IOW, they can be perpendicular, or they can be something else completely diferent, eg. the shadows of a cube.
Wait a minute. Are you, perchance, talking about the shadow on the wall?
Because if you are, I have a come back. You won't like it.
I have examined the "red line" photo again. I didn't appreciate the function of the perpendicular white lines when I looked at it before. I see now he is corroborating the positions of his red guides on the shadows with their corresponding positions on the actual figures. Seeing that, I now can see that things do line up. It is now clear to me that there is no anomaly.
I wish I could say the same thing about your demeanor. I fear the appeal I made in my later posting has fallen on deaf ears in your case. Or perhaps you hadn't read it yet. I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are a decent and respectful guy who just got frustrated that others couldn't see what was obvious to him.
I wish I could say the same thing about your demeanor. I fear the appeal I made in my later posting has fallen on deaf ears in your case. Or perhaps you hadn't read it yet. I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are a decent and respectful guy who just got frustrated that others couldn't see what was obvious to him.
Apologies accepted, captain. Do not fail me again.
Comments
** trust me folks
Why should we trust you?
Also, one can be correct but still be an asshole.
I spent two days drawing a storyboard of Jobs, thinking about shading, perspective, etc; then somebody posts a 'shopped' photo of him on the internet the day the assignment is due and I see the posting on Twitter...
Okay, I guess you 'had to be there' to find coincidence ironic.
I guess I had been thinking all along, "gee, I wonder if anybody else is drawing Steve Jobs right now".
And somebody apparently was.
As I explained to my Art professor: at the time the source photo was taken, Steve had a kind of orangeish skin tone...
You get paid to combat the sheer ignorance of the people that apparently have too many opinions for their own sake? That's what I quoted and what you responded to.
Don't be a dick. Obviously you haven't learned your place or any common civility.
There are no requirements to be here except having access to a computer.
We both have a place here as long as there is at least a bit of respect.
Your lack of faith disturbs me.
Waiting for DED to write a long article debunking the 10 myths of why Flour + Water is an excellent restaurant...
*snicker*
Your lack of faith disturbs me.
Chris, God has spoken. We have naught but to listen and obey.
The reality distortion field is only bending the light in this photo.
Why should we trust you?
Also, one can be correct but still be an asshole.
Well, in this case, it happens to be that my knowledge corresponds to reality. But other-than-that I guess there is no good reason. I could give my credentials, but why should you believe those any more than my reasoning?
Here are my credentials (no need to believe them, I understand how easy it is to type the following without a shred of truth):
1) Human who has observed environment over the last several decades. (Most important one in this case)
2) PhD in physics, MS in Mathematics
3) Work with military targeting systems including image processing which requires knowledge of light sources and how they effect images for noise and over exposure.
I respect them for not cutting him in front of other customers just because he is a celebrity. I'm visiting San Fran in about a month. Maybe I will try a book a table.
FYI: In San Francisco refer to it as the Bay Area, SF (ess eff) or San Francisco, but never San Fran. I was schooled on that localized faux pas the first time I went there. As I recall, SF was the most common phrasing.
I like a person who could demand a seat because of his station but chooses to wait in line with the rest. Good for him! Even better that he did not have a cow when they were full and had to ask him to wait or come back another time. This is called class!
Why is he entitled to "demand a seat because of his station"? Just because someone is rich does not mean they have the right to be an asshole. I remember a few years ago when then president Bill Clinton booked a meal at Jamie Oliver's restaurant in London. Jamie Oliver left the restaurant and went home when several of the female entourage requested unreasonable modifications to his menu at the last minute because of some ridiculous fad diet they started that day.
** trust me folks, Drow & LuisDias are 100% correct and all other arguments
But that, unfortunately, is not the point. What they have said, and what you have reiterated are all quite correct. We all grasp the fundamental laws of physics (optics and light) here. The problem is, these facts don't account for what appears to be a problem in the picture. Most of the shadows seem consistent with the sun being above and behind the camera. Steve's shadow, the guy who is the subject's, the gal to his right's, and even the telephone lines' shadows all behave as we all agree they should. They converge in perspective away from the viewer to a vanishing point on the horizon. The fact that the sun's rays are almost parallel to the side of the building is evident from the shadows cast by the window sills and cornices. Everything lines up accordingly.
The problem is that the most prominent shadow in the pic, the one that starts at the center of the left side of the photo and goes diagonally to the building wall seems inconsistent. If it were the shadow of the telephone pole that sits on the corner to the left of our subject, shouldn't it be close to same angle as the shadow of the guy standing next to it? Allowing for perspective, it should never cross the angles of other shadows of perpendicular objects--only converge to a vanishing point on the horizon. If we draw lines through the shadows of the figures in the foreground they will converge at such a place, the pole shadow doesn't appear to. The only thing that can account for this would seem to be that whatever is casting it isn't perpendicular.
The horizon line in this pic is at about the height of the tip of Steve's nose. The vanishing point, established by the position of the camera, is at that height about halfway between the line of phone poles and the side walls of the block of buildings. If the object casting the shadow were perpendicular, its shadow should vanish to that point. But it misses it by a substantial margin. As I have said before, I am doubting that this photo is faked, but I still cannot account for this anomaly. Can you?
It's not a matter of stupidity, just a matter of trying to account for all the elements.
Well, in this case, it happens to be that my knowledge corresponds to reality. But other-than-that I guess there is no good reason. I could give my credentials, but why should you believe those any more than my reasoning?
Here are my credentials (no need to believe them, I understand how easy it is to type the following without a shred of truth):
1) Human who has observed environment over the last several decades. (Most important one in this case)
2) PhD in physics, MS in Mathematics
3) Work with military targeting systems including image processing which requires knowledge of light sources and how they effect images for noise and over exposure.
Accepting your credentials as true, can you explain what appears to be an aberrant shadow in my previous post. I genuinely would like to hear what you have to say about that particular element in the pic.
I mention this not to aggrandize myself, but only to make the point that most people here are not stupid, naive, or inexperienced in life. Yet it is disturbingly common that posters refer to each other as "morons," "stupid," and a myriad of other derogatory and humiliating ways.
I am suggesting that we give each other the benefit of the doubt. Assume we are sincere and intelligent people who simply want to exchange ideas. It is quite possible to disagree with someone without heaping abuse upon them.
PS: I use my real name on this forum because it keeps me honest. I am more likely to be correct, civil and accountable when not hiding behind a pseudonym. Something to consider.
But that, unfortunately, is not the point. What they have said, and what you have reiterated are all quite correct. We all grasp the fundamental laws of physics (optics and light) here.
He. Empirical evidence by the reading of this thread alone points otherwise.
The problem is, these facts don't account for what appears to be a problem in the picture. Most of the shadows seem consistent with the sun being above and behind the camera. Steve's shadow, the guy who is the subject's, the gal to his right's, and even the telephone lines' shadows all behave as we all agree they should. They converge in perspective away from the viewer to a vanishing point on the horizon. The fact that the sun's rays are almost parallel to the side of the building is evident from the shadows cast by the window sills and cornices. Everything lines up accordingly.
The problem is that the most prominent shadow in the pic, the one that starts at the center of the left side of the photo and goes diagonally to the building wall seems inconsistent.
"Seems inconsistent" to whom? To you? Even after placing the red helpers for handicapped people who apparently will not ever understand geometry even if it was imprinted on their faces, you still fail to recognize what is evidently true. What can one express but bewilderement? I feel like I'm inside a room with half of the people claiming that 2 and 2 should not be 4, because it seems "inconsistent".
If it were the shadow of the telephone pole that sits on the corner to the left of our subject, shouldn't it be close to same angle as the shadow of the guy standing next to it?
No. It should follow the red lines towards the shadow vanishing point. As it does.
Allowing for perspective, it should never cross the angles of other shadows of perpendicular objects
This is profoundly mistaken. If the lit objects are perpendicular, there is no geometrical law that requires its shadows to have any particular angle between them. IOW, they can be perpendicular, or they can be something else completely diferent, eg. the shadows of a cube.
--only converge to a vanishing point on the horizon. If we draw lines through the shadows of the figures in the foreground they will converge at such a place, the pole shadow doesn't appear to. The only thing that can account for this would seem to be that whatever is casting it isn't perpendicular.
Wait a minute. Are you, perchance, talking about the shadow on the wall?
Because if you are, I have a come back. You won't like it.
He. Empirical evidence by the reading of this thread alone points otherwise.
"Seems inconsistent" to whom? To you? Even after placing the red helpers for handicapped people who apparently will not ever understand geometry even if it was imprinted on their faces, you still fail to recognize what is evidently true. What can one express but bewilderement? I feel like I'm inside a room with half of the people claiming that 2 and 2 should not be 4, because it seems "inconsistent".
No. It should follow the red lines towards the shadow vanishing point. As it does.
This is profoundly mistaken. If the lit objects are perpendicular, there is no geometrical law that requires its shadows to have any particular angle between them. IOW, they can be perpendicular, or they can be something else completely diferent, eg. the shadows of a cube.
Wait a minute. Are you, perchance, talking about the shadow on the wall?
Because if you are, I have a come back. You won't like it.
I have examined the "red line" photo again. I didn't appreciate the function of the perpendicular white lines when I looked at it before. I see now he is corroborating the positions of his red guides on the shadows with their corresponding positions on the actual figures. Seeing that, I now can see that things do line up. It is now clear to me that there is no anomaly.
I wish I could say the same thing about your demeanor. I fear the appeal I made in my later posting has fallen on deaf ears in your case. Or perhaps you hadn't read it yet. I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are a decent and respectful guy who just got frustrated that others couldn't see what was obvious to him.
I wish I could say the same thing about your demeanor. I fear the appeal I made in my later posting has fallen on deaf ears in your case. Or perhaps you hadn't read it yet. I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are a decent and respectful guy who just got frustrated that others couldn't see what was obvious to him.
Apologies accepted, captain. Do not fail me again.
Apologies accepted, captain. Do not fail me again.
Ditto.