Starship Asterisk*

My bad--The Big Dipper is fine!--Ella

AW... wadda nice puddy tat

Lynxes are so cute!!!

So yes, thanks for the Lynx!












Ann

Nuitsacrees wrote:
I also had an annotated version that I have not had time to send:

And a larger version here:
http://www.nuitsacrees.fr/DP/AP/apskoga ... otated.jpg

Thanx for the Lynx, Stephane.

I understand your uncertainty, watch24, to the river that seems leaning. The reason is simple. As you read my post above, you would have seen that the picture is taken with a 24X36 camera and a ultra wide angle lens (18 mm), which causes a significant distortion in the picture. The purpose of this photo is to show the Big Dipper, the moon bow and the waterfall. Framing with the waterfall on the right necessarily tipped it. During the shooting, the camera has been tilted so that the waterfall is vertical. I think you would have been even more shocked if the water of the waterfall would not have flowed vertically ... . Of course, we could correct this distortion with software, but in this case the frame would be severely reduced.
PeturGauti and watch24, before you say that this photo is, or may be, a fake, it would be agreed to look at the two time-lapse attached to my post above.
I also had an annotated version that I have not had time to send:

And a larger version here:
www.nuitsacrees.fr/DP/AP/apskogar_1200annotated.jpg
Thank you to everyone who liked this picture and who informed me by mail or on this thread.
Stephane

watch, just look at the other photos of the place which have been conveniently linked in this thread. The foreground isn't water, it's some kind of sandy or gravel surface... otherwise known as a shore.

If anyone else posts here claiming the photo is a fake (it clearly is not) then you'd better have some extremely compelling evidence in your post or I'm going to remove the post and issue a ban for being extremely rude to the photographer.

The wierdest thing to me about this photo is the dark forground surface. It appears to be water but it slopes towards the waterfall. If you juxtaposition the photo so the surface is horizontal then the water wouldn't be falling straight down. If it's not water then where is the water from the waterfall going? Between that and the lighting, I suspect this photo's a fake, but somebody clue me in if I'm wrong.

This photo is probably legit, at least I have seen similar photos by others that I know are not photoshopped.
Here is one:
http://nilli.vefalbum.is/index.php/Hitt ... kogafoss_d



and here is a link to a photo of the waterfall in daylight so you can see the surroundings.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zanthia/3892526363/

@GECKZILLA Sorry to have been so harsh with my comment. jojo was irritating==and I felt insulted as a long-term admirerer of the APOD. Very poor excuse to snipe at jojo; therefore, I apologize for my ire. Thanks for noticing my faux pas and your counsel to be more discreet and tolerant. As a respected solonic contributor==which you are from your numerous postings==I will follow your advise and I will leave the pettiness unwritten henceforth..

Please don't resort to insulting other posters. I know jojo came off as insulting but I feel that he / she should at least be allowed to look at Stephane's post and be given a chance to apologize without being called names.

@ NUIT SACREES Stephane==

those of us who visit this site daily appreciate your superb work. Every now and then, we get a dodo like JOJO who wants to be noticed. However, very few people can fool such experts as Chris P. and others who know their stuff "backwards and forwards." I am not such a savant==I come to see and learn. Your work is exquisite and I thank you for your contribution and the opportunity to visit your great site. JOJO the dodo is a voice in a void of his own mind whose comments are unworthy of the Asterisk*

Those are great, Stephane. Thanks for showing them to us. I hope jojo is less confused, now, too.

Nice pictures, Stephane!! I especially like this one-->And if it is not enough, another camera further back, was taking pictures every 30 seconds, a time lapse of 83 images of 22h30 to 23h14:
http://www.nuitsacrees.fr/DP/Islande201 ... kingOf.mov<--. It covers the whole area. I've never seen sheep graze so fast. I take it that that was you in the lower right, with the little round shinny reflection, that disappeared toward the falls? It's amazing just how much it looks like daytime. I don't have Quicktime, so i couldn't view the first one you listed. I tried it once, but couldn't figure it out, so i just deleted it.

Hello,
I am Stephane, the author of this picture. Thank you all. I feel sorry for those who doubt, but this image is a single shoot. It was made October 9, 2011 at 23:30 UT with a Nikon D3 and a Nikkor 14-24mm/2.8 at 18mm, 10 seconds at 800 ISO and full aperture.
Especially for jojo, a time lapse of 46 images of 23h23 to 23h34 (Quicktime required):
http://www.nuitsacrees.fr/tlskogarfoss/index.html

And if it is not enough, another camera further back, was taking pictures every 30 seconds, a time lapse of 83 images of 22h30 to 23h14:
http://www.nuitsacrees.fr/DP/Islande201 ... kingOf.mov

I spent seven days in Iceland from October 3 to 10, mainly for shooting Moonbow, here's a preview:
http://www.nuitsacrees.fr/icelandicmoonbow/index.html

The most significant with some nice auroras:
http://www.nuitsacrees.fr/octobre2011/index.html

Sorry for my broken English and good night to you .
Stephane

What an image! Who knew that such a beautiful sight could be imaged?
jojo, maybe you could learn a bit more about imaging before coming to a site like this. You don't want to sound silly (or odd, for that matter). This exposure must have been about thirty seconds. It should have been taken on Earth, or else some kind of spacecraft would have been reported. The title reads that the picture was taken in Iceland, which has been the site for many pictures taken and displayed on the APOD website. So, as said many times before, your analysis is incorrect. You just have to use common sense here.

NoelC wrote:

jojo wrote:Sorry, I thought I was talking to people who are interested in science and truth and what is real and what is fake.

Those of us who actually DO know a thing or two about photos and optics and such know not only these things, but also when a person really knows what they are talking about, and when a person is somehow just trying to serve himself.

Please stop fouling this thread with your bogus "analysis". You don't know what you're talking about.

-Noel

and those of us who know where to find the light source with respect to the camera location and bow center point will tell you it's neither right nor left.

jojo wrote:Sorry, I thought I was talking to people who are interested in science and truth and what is real and what is fake.

Those of us who actually DO know a thing or two about photos and optics and such know not only these things, but also when a person really knows what they are talking about, and when a person is somehow just trying to serve himself.

Please stop fouling this thread with your bogus "analysis". You don't know what you're talking about.

-Noel

jojo wrote:A composited picture of lies or fakery only costs the intelligence of some people.

Virtually every astronomical image is a composite of various exposures through different filters, designed to enhance the available information over what the eye alone can detect.

If you don't understand this simple truth, you should not be visiting the APOD site- or any other sites that feature scientific imagery.

Sorry, I thought I was talking to people who are interested in science and truth and what is real and what is fake.
obviously not. To composite a picture and want people to believe that this is real is the equivalent of President Bush claiming that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The only difference is that weapons of mass instruction cost 4000, lives. A composited picture of lies or fakery only costs the intelligence of some people. their are must be truth in the Scientific method otherwise we just might as well call it science fiction. Anyway this is the ed of the discussion.
you must also believe in UFO and yeti and....................... ................. .............. ...... ......


"How much would you expect the stars to move in an exposure lasting only a few seconds? More than the angle subtended by a pixel? Do you know how to calculate this?
Of course, while there is nothing about this image that points strongly to it being a composite, what if it is? What if Photoshop was used to combine several images made at different exposures? That is commonly done to capture in an image something otherwise visible only to the eye. There is nothing wrong with such processing at all
Chris"
"geckzilla » Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:28 pm
I think it's just a wide angle shot. It's very easy to get seemingly nonsensical lighting going on with those. That, and night exposures always mess with one's head.geckzilla Ocular Digitator"

geckzilla wrote:I think it's just a wide angle shot. It's very easy to get seemingly nonsensical lighting going on with those. That, and night exposures always mess with one's head.

I agree, like a light post or any source of light behind the photographer. Night exposures are very sensitive to any source of light, I often get shadows here and there in a single exposure.

Beautiful image Stephane!! I so desperately want to go to Iceland some day, for now I'll have to make do with this as my new desktop background.

jojo wrote:unless their are two suns or two Moons on this earth
this is a fake images please see notes
their are other mistakes in this image
this is to just name the most obvious

APOD: Waterfall, Moonbow, and Aurora from... (2011 Nov 14)


See my mobile me page

http://gallery.me.com/artist17#100914 for diagram and indications of photoshop manipulation

This is hysterically bad analysis... you wouldn't happen to be a conspiracy theorist, would you? Wow, haha, you've given me my laugh for the day, thanks.

I think it's just a wide angle shot. It's very easy to get seemingly nonsensical lighting going on with those. That, and night exposures always mess with one's head.

jojo wrote:and the stars in the sky did not move during this long exposure with no sun, so you mean the earth stood still for several minutes.?

How much would you expect the stars to move in an exposure lasting only a few seconds? More than the angle subtended by a pixel? Do you know how to calculate this?

Of course, while there is nothing about this image that points strongly to it being a composite, what if it is? What if Photoshop was used to combine several images made at different exposures? That is commonly done to capture in an image something otherwise visible only to the eye. There is nothing wrong with such processing at all.

APOD: Waterfall, Moonbow, and Aurora from... (2011 Nov 14)



P.S.
and the stars in the sky did not move during this long exposure with no sun, so you mean the earth stood still for several minutes.?
Their is a bridge i would like to sell you its located in Brooklyn NY