DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Is this real?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 26, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/07/2006 02:39:04 PM · #1
Just got an email with the below text and image in it but something just doesn't seem real about it. Since I am no expert on this I am asking if it would really be possible for the moon and sun to be like this...well other than an eclipse I suppose, but I would think even that would look different. Isn't the darkness of the moon actually the earths shadow? Oh now I'm even more confused. Maybe some of our Northern friends can shine some light on it (puns intended :) )

North Pole sunset
A scene you will probably never get to see, so take a moment and enjoy.
This is the sunset at the North Pole with the moon at its closest point.
And, you also see the sun below the moon. An amazing photo and not one
easily duplicated. You may want to save this and pass on to others.
304047.jpg

Message edited by author 2006-03-07 14:40:05.
03/07/2006 02:42:39 PM · #2
i'm no astronomer but how is that possible? isn't the shadow on the moon caused the sun on the opposide side of the earth? dunno.....
03/07/2006 02:43:53 PM · #3
You are correct in your assumption. This is not a real photo.

Message edited by author 2006-03-07 14:44:37.
03/07/2006 02:45:42 PM · #4
lol ... if the moon was that close, rather than high tide - the ocean would just get sucked off the planet into space :)
03/07/2006 02:49:20 PM · #5
This is NOT supposed to be an eclipse. It is supposed to be a photo of the moon in the sky near the sun. But the sun and the moon are about the same size in the sky as seen from the earth, so if that is a real image of the tiny crescent moon, the bright spot underneath cannot be the sun. It might, however, be a tiny cloud on the horizon or even Venus. The sun is still well below the horizon in this image. [All this assumes that the shot is real and not created in Photoshop.]
03/07/2006 02:51:57 PM · #6
snopes.com doesn't know either.
03/07/2006 02:53:16 PM · #7
This image discards all astronomical knowledge. The crescent in moon is caused by the sun shinning on it and the earth obtruding. They need to be in a linear configuration. This is more a parallel presentation which does not exist.

Message edited by author 2006-03-07 15:00:10.
03/07/2006 02:58:53 PM · #8
One other discreptency that indicates a fake is the "swells". They are radiating out from the center of the photo. While swell wave do generally radiate outward from their fetch area they do not do so in a perfectly spherical manner as depicted nor could you capture the entire area on a non satellite mouted camera if they did.
03/07/2006 02:59:24 PM · #9
I asked the same question a while ago.

//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=329536&highlight=real%20moon


03/07/2006 03:07:55 PM · #10
That is clearly a fake.
Take a look at Terragen to find out how to make such images.
03/07/2006 03:09:46 PM · #11
<edit message to start over>

Such a view would only be possible if the moon were 6-7 times closer than it actually is. As far as a north pole view, is that liquid water?? Unlikely at the N. Pole. Ice?? Unlikely without a thick snowpack on top.

Sunset at the N.Pole??Even less likely at a region that experiences 6 months daylight, 6 months dark (crude simplification).

IF the moon were 6-7 times closer than it really is, this would be a possible view, from a location near the equator, just before sunset, a day or two after new moon, as the thin crescent begins to grow. In actual practice, that close to the sun, the moon's actual crescent would be eyelash thin.

Hopper's point on tides is a good one though. That much closer, the moon would raise some incredible tides, possibly flooding lots of landmass, and possibly having lots ot tectonic and volcanic consequences too.

Message edited by author 2006-03-07 15:17:29.
03/07/2006 03:25:04 PM · #12
Originally posted by KarenNfld:

I asked the same question a while ago.

//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=329536&highlight=real%20moon


Oh sorry I guess I should have searched first.

I figured it was fake just from the size of the moon alone and it's shadow. Now to break the heart of the person that sent it to me. lol Too bad to cause it is a nice image.
03/07/2006 04:02:07 PM · #13
Originally posted by greatandsmall:

snopes.com doesn't know either.

Make no mistake... this is a fake and not a particularly good one.

The relative size of moon and sun in the sky is always the same no matter where the picture is taken from. That is why total solar eclipses result in the moon barely covering the sun. There is nothing exceptional or special about a picture of them taken at the North Pole. As you can plainly see in this faked image, the crescent moon is much larger than the sun. You can even see banding resulting in the fakery effort.

I have a degree in astononmy and physics and know something about these things, even if snoops.com does not.
03/07/2006 04:10:13 PM · #14
Originally posted by stdavidson:

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

snopes.com doesn't know either.

Make no mistake... this is a fake and not a particularly good one.

The relative size of moon and sun in the sky is always the same no matter where the picture is taken from. That is why total solar eclipses result in the moon barely covering the sun. There is nothing exceptional or special about a picture of them taken at the North Pole. As you can plainly see in this faked image, the crescent moon is much larger than the sun. You can even see banding resulting in the fakery effort.

I have a degree in astononmy and physics and know something about these things, even if snoops.com does not.


Well, I certainly don't want to give the impression that I believe snopes.com is the "gospel". I was simply pointing out that they do not have any information about that image.

Perhaps they (and the people who visit their site) would benefit from your expertise. I believe that they get their information from people just like you.

Message edited by author 2006-03-07 16:10:52.
03/07/2006 04:15:37 PM · #15
one would also think that the real moon would show some detail rather than just being a white crescent.

Message edited by author 2006-03-07 16:17:11.
03/07/2006 04:20:41 PM · #16
Also, there are no mountains at the North Pole - it's just ice up there.
03/07/2006 05:10:06 PM · #17
Originally posted by graphicfunk:

This image discards all astronomical knowledge. The crescent in moon is caused by the sun shinning on it and the earth obtruding. They need to be in a linear configuration. This is more a parallel presentation which does not exist.


I completely agree that the image is fake and against all astronomical facts, simnply because the moon can't be that large in relation to the sun. But I don't understand your reference to the earth "obtruding" to create a crescent moon. Are you referring to eclipses? We DO get tiny slivers of crescent moons when the moon is near to setting just after the sun sets.

Robt.
03/07/2006 05:31:40 PM · #18
Heck, I only zoomed in once and you can see all theobvious marks left from sloppy PS-ing like mine :)) The latest DQ in Fashion did a wa-ay better job at photoshoping!
03/07/2006 06:02:53 PM · #19
What bothers me is that there are two "reflections." One seems to be of the appropriate brightness of the sun, but the other is so hot it is inconsistent with the luminosity of the original source of light. Neat concept, but I'm not terribly impressed with the technical execution of the image.
03/07/2006 06:05:29 PM · #20
Originally posted by PaigeS:

What bothers me is that there are two "reflections." One seems to be of the appropriate brightness of the sun, but the other is so hot it is inconsistent with the luminosity of the original source of light. Neat concept, but I'm not terribly impressed with the technical execution of the image.


Obviously it's not real but couldn't the reflection intensity you referenced just be something produced because of the camera/graduated ND filter used?
03/07/2006 06:08:28 PM · #21
I received this email as well. Along with it was text as to the "fact" that it was shot at sunset over the North Pole. In addition to the photo being obviously manufactured, there isn't any liquid water at the North Pole.
There was an article in a recent issue of American Photo which dealt with how to make celestrial bodies appear larger which involves multiple shots with fixed telephoto lens and zoom lens. Then of course, a bunch of clone and layer work.

By the way, it is a really cool image, don't ya'll think?
03/07/2006 10:51:53 PM · #22
Originally posted by Rae-Ann:

Heck, I only zoomed in once and you can see all theobvious marks left from sloppy PS-ing like mine :)) The latest DQ in Fashion did a wa-ay better job at photoshoping!


while I do believe it is a fake, I'm sure the sloppy edges you are referring to have more to do with the fact that it is a small jpg that has probably been saved and compressed more than once. You zooming in on it is of course going to show the jaggies it has.
03/07/2006 11:10:33 PM · #23
There isn't just no visible water at the north pole, there isn't any visible water within hundreds of miles of the north pole.

There is a dotted line on most maps and some globes that indicates the area of permanently frozen pack ice. It's not accurate to the year of course, but it gives you an idea of the general size of the area of ice that NEVER freezes at the pole.

The poles are COOLLLLDDDD people. COLD!

My father did a "mission" up near the edge of the pack ice on the Louis St. Laurent, a fairly average sized Icebreaker in the Canadian Coast guard and they were actually unable to go anywhere NEAR the north pole.

What is interesting though is that they DO get sunsets up that far. And they last a LOOONNNNGGG time. My dad did a certain number of night shifts and spent some time on deck during these shifts and he said that the sun just dipped in to sunset range for like 7 hours, then went right back on up to where it had been before.

Obviously, this was in the summer and probably still a good 15-20 degrees off of the pole at the bare minimum. I think they were near the Northwest Passage area, well north of the artic circle.

However, this pic is obviously two exposures. The sun is quite small on the horizon too.

What I don't know is if the sliver of moon around the same time as a sunset occur anywhere near the same area of sky?

anyone?
03/25/2006 01:43:55 PM · #24
It's pretty picture, but it's a fake.
Besides the simple fact that no matter where you are on the earth the moon and the sun always appear to be the same relative size, which is why the moon eclipses barely cover the sun in solar eclipses even when the moon is "at its closest point". Even if there was a visible moon out at the time it would not be the size the alien ship in "Independence Day"
There is unlikely to be any open water at the North Pole (global warming notwithstanding). However, even if there was some sort of freak weather condition that allowed a patch of open water at the north pole, it would most certainly have to happen in summer. But the sun never sets from mid-March to mid-September. I know because that's when Santa takes his holidays.
Finally and this is the most obvious problem with the image the north pole's in the middle of the Arctic Ocean there are no land masses for hundreds of miles in any direction. The north pole consists of 2-3 meters of solid ice covering about 4000 meters of deep water. Every now and then you see photos of US submarines popping up at the north pole. There is certainly nothing like those rolling hills shown the image. That would make submarine travel extremely difficult.
03/25/2006 02:01:00 PM · #25
I actually used the original image in this thread (though the pic seems to have now been removed) with my astronomy club at the high school where I work. I like to show the kids faked pictures with the astronomy theme and challenge them to explain why the photo is not possible. The kids did pretty well.

I have a poster of the below linked image (regrettably, I could only find a thumbnail on the web) hanging in my office. Not only is it a very cool shot, but it's also a good (beginner level) test of "explaining the fake."

Enjoy.

pom1213_a.jpg
Total Solar Eclipse over Stonehenge
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/20/2019 02:13:41 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 04/20/2019 02:13:41 AM EDT.