Analemma with the Erechtheion ... #4/11

my tripod and camera up to the Erechtheion on a regular basis with the
sun blazing down (or is that just me getting old?

Do you really want us to comment on you getting old Martin?

I'd love to have the time and patience to take an analemma pic in Cumbria,
but I'm sure the weather would be against me if nothing else.

Graeme

"Martin Frey" wrote in message
...
"wijsneus" wrote:

I think your work is awesome, but I have a few questions about these
pictures:

1. the shadow cast on the temples does not seem to match the position(s)
of
the sun, it makes the photo look fake. How did you edit them? paste the
scenery into the picture? also, the sun seems too small on the pictures
2. you say the angle of the analemma is determined by the geographical
position, but you have two analemmas over Athens, with different angles!
So
what else influences the angle?

2. The time of day alters the angle - Anthony's analemmas are (I
think) intended to be for every available hour.

ok

1a) The shadow will always look wrong: the Sun can't be in the
foreground picture without wrecking it!

yes, I knew that. that's why I asked about how he edited the pictures. So I
ask again: anthony how did you edit your pictures? did you paste the scenery
into it? and what about my question about the size of the sun?

1b) And if the Sun is in the picture - which of the 40 odd Suns should
be the one that casts the shadows?

exactly, that's what makes the pictures look a bit faked (which in fact they
are).

I don't think there is a way round this - Anthony's solution is the
same as Dennis Ciccio used in the first analemma picture I ever saw
(back in the 80s) and it is certainly the most beautiful solution.

tell me about that solution?

"Martin Frey" wrote in message
...
"wijsneus" wrote:

I think your work is awesome, but I have a few questions about these
pictures:

1. the shadow cast on the temples does not seem to match the position(s)
of
the sun, it makes the photo look fake. How did you edit them? paste the
scenery into the picture? also, the sun seems too small on the pictures
2. you say the angle of the analemma is determined by the geographical
position, but you have two analemmas over Athens, with different angles!
So
what else influences the angle?

2. The time of day alters the angle - Anthony's analemmas are (I
think) intended to be for every available hour.

ok

1a) The shadow will always look wrong: the Sun can't be in the
foreground picture without wrecking it!

yes, I knew that. that's why I asked about how he edited the pictures. So I
ask again: anthony how did you edit your pictures? did you paste the scenery
into it? and what about my question about the size of the sun?

1b) And if the Sun is in the picture - which of the 40 odd Suns should
be the one that casts the shadows?

exactly, that's what makes the pictures look a bit faked (which in fact they
are).

I don't think there is a way round this - Anthony's solution is the
same as Dennis Ciccio used in the first analemma picture I ever saw
(back in the 80s) and it is certainly the most beautiful solution.

tell me about that solution?

"Martin Frey" wrote in message
...
"wijsneus" wrote:

I think your work is awesome, but I have a few questions about these
pictures:

1. the shadow cast on the temples does not seem to match the position(s)
of
the sun, it makes the photo look fake. How did you edit them? paste the
scenery into the picture? also, the sun seems too small on the pictures
2. you say the angle of the analemma is determined by the geographical
position, but you have two analemmas over Athens, with different angles!
So
what else influences the angle?

2. The time of day alters the angle - Anthony's analemmas are (I
think) intended to be for every available hour.

ok

1a) The shadow will always look wrong: the Sun can't be in the
foreground picture without wrecking it!

yes, I knew that. that's why I asked about how he edited the pictures. So I
ask again: anthony how did you edit your pictures? did you paste the scenery
into it? and what about my question about the size of the sun?

1b) And if the Sun is in the picture - which of the 40 odd Suns should
be the one that casts the shadows?

exactly, that's what makes the pictures look a bit faked (which in fact they
are).

I don't think there is a way round this - Anthony's solution is the
same as Dennis Ciccio used in the first analemma picture I ever saw
(back in the 80s) and it is certainly the most beautiful solution.

tell me about that solution?

"Martin Frey" wrote in message
...
"wijsneus" wrote:

I think your work is awesome, but I have a few questions about these
pictures:

1. the shadow cast on the temples does not seem to match the position(s)
of
the sun, it makes the photo look fake. How did you edit them? paste the
scenery into the picture? also, the sun seems too small on the pictures
2. you say the angle of the analemma is determined by the geographical
position, but you have two analemmas over Athens, with different angles!
So
what else influences the angle?

2. The time of day alters the angle - Anthony's analemmas are (I
think) intended to be for every available hour.

ok

1a) The shadow will always look wrong: the Sun can't be in the
foreground picture without wrecking it!

yes, I knew that. that's why I asked about how he edited the pictures. So I
ask again: anthony how did you edit your pictures? did you paste the scenery
into it? and what about my question about the size of the sun?

1b) And if the Sun is in the picture - which of the 40 odd Suns should
be the one that casts the shadows?

exactly, that's what makes the pictures look a bit faked (which in fact they
are).

I don't think there is a way round this - Anthony's solution is the
same as Dennis Ciccio used in the first analemma picture I ever saw
(back in the 80s) and it is certainly the most beautiful solution.

tell me about that solution?

wijsneus wrote:

"Martin Frey" wrote in message
.. .


"wijsneus" wrote:



I think your work is awesome, but I have a few questions about these
pictures:

1. the shadow cast on the temples does not seem to match the position(s)


of


the sun, it makes the photo look fake. How did you edit them? paste the
scenery into the picture? also, the sun seems too small on the pictures
2. you say the angle of the analemma is determined by the geographical
position, but you have two analemmas over Athens, with different angles!


So


what else influences the angle?


2. The time of day alters the angle - Anthony's analemmas are (I
think) intended to be for every available hour.



ok



1a) The shadow will always look wrong: the Sun can't be in the
foreground picture without wrecking it!



yes, I knew that. that's why I asked about how he edited the pictures. So I
ask again: anthony how did you edit your pictures? did you paste the scenery
into it? and what about my question about the size of the sun?

Yes, each photo is a sum of two photos: the first photo is the analemma
itself whereas the second is the foreground (see the reference to layers
in the specs for each photo on my website). As for the size of the sun,
I noticed it as well and I do not know what caused it - the sun was
higher for this particular analemma relative to the other one by
9.97-deg and may represent a perspective issue with my 24mm lens (just
guessing).

1b) And if the Sun is in the picture - which of the 40 odd Suns should
be the one that casts the shadows?



exactly, that's what makes the pictures look a bit faked (which in fact they
are).

In theory, not only there should be shadows but they should approach the
viewer of the photo. Now, as to how one would produce such a foreground
photo is beyond me unless we do some more trickery by shooting the
foreground with the sun directly in front and above and then cut and
paste a blue sky into the photo and is something I would prefer not to do.

I don't think there is a way round this - Anthony's solution is the
same as Dennis Ciccio used in the first analemma picture I ever saw
(back in the 80s) and it is certainly the most beautiful solution.



tell me about that solution?

You shoot the foreground at a time when the sun is not in the field of
view. I have always pursued the foregrounds at a time when there is
something like a 90 to 135-deg angle between the foreground, myself and
the sun and to do so during the heart of winter when the sun is lower
and the sky much bluer.

Anthony.

wijsneus wrote:

"Martin Frey" wrote in message
.. .


"wijsneus" wrote:



I think your work is awesome, but I have a few questions about these
pictures:

1. the shadow cast on the temples does not seem to match the position(s)


of


the sun, it makes the photo look fake. How did you edit them? paste the
scenery into the picture? also, the sun seems too small on the pictures
2. you say the angle of the analemma is determined by the geographical
position, but you have two analemmas over Athens, with different angles!


So


what else influences the angle?


2. The time of day alters the angle - Anthony's analemmas are (I
think) intended to be for every available hour.



ok



1a) The shadow will always look wrong: the Sun can't be in the
foreground picture without wrecking it!



yes, I knew that. that's why I asked about how he edited the pictures. So I
ask again: anthony how did you edit your pictures? did you paste the scenery
into it? and what about my question about the size of the sun?

Yes, each photo is a sum of two photos: the first photo is the analemma
itself whereas the second is the foreground (see the reference to layers
in the specs for each photo on my website). As for the size of the sun,
I noticed it as well and I do not know what caused it - the sun was
higher for this particular analemma relative to the other one by
9.97-deg and may represent a perspective issue with my 24mm lens (just
guessing).

1b) And if the Sun is in the picture - which of the 40 odd Suns should
be the one that casts the shadows?



exactly, that's what makes the pictures look a bit faked (which in fact they
are).

In theory, not only there should be shadows but they should approach the
viewer of the photo. Now, as to how one would produce such a foreground
photo is beyond me unless we do some more trickery by shooting the
foreground with the sun directly in front and above and then cut and
paste a blue sky into the photo and is something I would prefer not to do.

I don't think there is a way round this - Anthony's solution is the
same as Dennis Ciccio used in the first analemma picture I ever saw
(back in the 80s) and it is certainly the most beautiful solution.



tell me about that solution?

You shoot the foreground at a time when the sun is not in the field of
view. I have always pursued the foregrounds at a time when there is
something like a 90 to 135-deg angle between the foreground, myself and
the sun and to do so during the heart of winter when the sun is lower
and the sky much bluer.

Anthony.

wijsneus wrote:

"Martin Frey" wrote in message
.. .


"wijsneus" wrote:



I think your work is awesome, but I have a few questions about these
pictures:

1. the shadow cast on the temples does not seem to match the position(s)


of


the sun, it makes the photo look fake. How did you edit them? paste the
scenery into the picture? also, the sun seems too small on the pictures
2. you say the angle of the analemma is determined by the geographical
position, but you have two analemmas over Athens, with different angles!


So


what else influences the angle?


2. The time of day alters the angle - Anthony's analemmas are (I
think) intended to be for every available hour.



ok



1a) The shadow will always look wrong: the Sun can't be in the
foreground picture without wrecking it!



yes, I knew that. that's why I asked about how he edited the pictures. So I
ask again: anthony how did you edit your pictures? did you paste the scenery
into it? and what about my question about the size of the sun?

Yes, each photo is a sum of two photos: the first photo is the analemma
itself whereas the second is the foreground (see the reference to layers
in the specs for each photo on my website). As for the size of the sun,
I noticed it as well and I do not know what caused it - the sun was
higher for this particular analemma relative to the other one by
9.97-deg and may represent a perspective issue with my 24mm lens (just
guessing).

1b) And if the Sun is in the picture - which of the 40 odd Suns should
be the one that casts the shadows?



exactly, that's what makes the pictures look a bit faked (which in fact they
are).

In theory, not only there should be shadows but they should approach the
viewer of the photo. Now, as to how one would produce such a foreground
photo is beyond me unless we do some more trickery by shooting the
foreground with the sun directly in front and above and then cut and
paste a blue sky into the photo and is something I would prefer not to do.

I don't think there is a way round this - Anthony's solution is the
same as Dennis Ciccio used in the first analemma picture I ever saw
(back in the 80s) and it is certainly the most beautiful solution.



tell me about that solution?

You shoot the foreground at a time when the sun is not in the field of
view. I have always pursued the foregrounds at a time when there is
something like a 90 to 135-deg angle between the foreground, myself and
the sun and to do so during the heart of winter when the sun is lower
and the sky much bluer.

Anthony.

wijsneus wrote:

"Martin Frey" wrote in message
.. .


"wijsneus" wrote:



I think your work is awesome, but I have a few questions about these
pictures:

1. the shadow cast on the temples does not seem to match the position(s)


of


the sun, it makes the photo look fake. How did you edit them? paste the
scenery into the picture? also, the sun seems too small on the pictures
2. you say the angle of the analemma is determined by the geographical
position, but you have two analemmas over Athens, with different angles!


So


what else influences the angle?


2. The time of day alters the angle - Anthony's analemmas are (I
think) intended to be for every available hour.



ok



1a) The shadow will always look wrong: the Sun can't be in the
foreground picture without wrecking it!



yes, I knew that. that's why I asked about how he edited the pictures. So I
ask again: anthony how did you edit your pictures? did you paste the scenery
into it? and what about my question about the size of the sun?

Yes, each photo is a sum of two photos: the first photo is the analemma
itself whereas the second is the foreground (see the reference to layers
in the specs for each photo on my website). As for the size of the sun,
I noticed it as well and I do not know what caused it - the sun was
higher for this particular analemma relative to the other one by
9.97-deg and may represent a perspective issue with my 24mm lens (just
guessing).

1b) And if the Sun is in the picture - which of the 40 odd Suns should
be the one that casts the shadows?



exactly, that's what makes the pictures look a bit faked (which in fact they
are).

In theory, not only there should be shadows but they should approach the
viewer of the photo. Now, as to how one would produce such a foreground
photo is beyond me unless we do some more trickery by shooting the
foreground with the sun directly in front and above and then cut and
paste a blue sky into the photo and is something I would prefer not to do.

I don't think there is a way round this - Anthony's solution is the
same as Dennis Ciccio used in the first analemma picture I ever saw
(back in the 80s) and it is certainly the most beautiful solution.



tell me about that solution?

You shoot the foreground at a time when the sun is not in the field of
view. I have always pursued the foregrounds at a time when there is
something like a 90 to 135-deg angle between the foreground, myself and
the sun and to do so during the heart of winter when the sun is lower
and the sky much bluer.

Anthony.