Question. Are you sure this is showing a true
Brocken spectre? Given the size of the shadow in relation to the surrounding features, it looks rather just like a normal elongated shadow taken in a fog or mist. (Are you around Mbz1?) --
jjron (
talk)
13:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
If I may, I'd like to answer your question please. IMO the size of the shadow alone cannot be a good indicator, if this is or it is not
Brocken spectre. IMO the size of the
Brocken spectre excatly as the size of a normal shadow deppeneds very much on the position of the sun and on how far down compare to the observer the fog is. Here are two examples of the
Brocken spectre: and . The second image was taken at night time and instead of the sun I've used headlights of my car (that's why there are two Specters). Both images were taken with the same 8 mm fisheye lens and both for sure show the
Brocken spectre, but see how different the size of
Brocken spectre is. IMO
Brocken spectre is more about how the shadow looks. In both samples that I provided you might see that the shadows look more like the rays, which is a very clear indicator that it is
Brocken spectre. I'm not sure about the nominated image, but I believe it does show
Brocken spectre. In any case I'd like to Support the image before
User:Froth would say "Oppose. Technical quality is, well, pretty terrible " without slightest understanding of the nature of the picture.--
Mbz1 (
talk)
15:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
I don't know much about this, but isn't the key feature that the shadow forms on the cloud/mist rather than the ground, thus giving the viewer the suggestion of a 'spectre' as the shadow moves around with the moving cloud/mist? The key aspect of the size is then I suppose that the bigger the shadow, and the further from the ground, the better that optical effect would appear. That is where a better representation would seem to involve bigger shadows forming away from the ground as described in the article where you had the opportunity to see this (and if I may add, as I think better displayed in Mbz1's Golden Gate Bridge picture); the shadow in this image looks to be mainly formed on the ground. --
jjron (
talk)
22:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
I'm no expert (thanks for improving the caption) but the shadow remains equally distinct in the distance as the ground is lost in the fog. So it appears to me that the shadow is cast upon the fog, not the ground. As for moving with the clouds, that depends on cloud consistency, an independent factor. Examples using wide open spaces would be more encyclopedic, but leave little room for such beautiful composition :v) .
Potatoswatter (
talk)
04:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I'd never heard of this term until now, but it appears from the article that what separates it from a mere shadow on an uneven distant surface is the fact that it is projected onto mist/cloud below, and this image doesn't do that... I'm not sure that any of the images in the article are ideal to illustrate the concept, and incidentally, I found it difficult to understand from the article until re-reading it a few times. It didn't seem to clearly state that the phenomenon occurs when your shadow is projected downwards onto the cloud. I was confused as I could not understand how your shadow could be projected upwards onto the cloud. I know it does explain that in the article, but it could be a bit clearer.
Diliff |
(Talk)(Contribs)15:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Note: Due to there being no votes although the 7 day period is now up, I am resetting this nomination, and will bump this to the top. Please await a further seven days ( from 13:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC) ) before closing this nomination. 13:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Microchip80 (
talk •
contribs)
I strongly disagree with this practice. Lack of comments show lack of interest. I might as well just oppose it then. --
Dschwen14:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Question. Are you sure this is showing a true
Brocken spectre? Given the size of the shadow in relation to the surrounding features, it looks rather just like a normal elongated shadow taken in a fog or mist. (Are you around Mbz1?) --
jjron (
talk)
13:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
If I may, I'd like to answer your question please. IMO the size of the shadow alone cannot be a good indicator, if this is or it is not
Brocken spectre. IMO the size of the
Brocken spectre excatly as the size of a normal shadow deppeneds very much on the position of the sun and on how far down compare to the observer the fog is. Here are two examples of the
Brocken spectre: and . The second image was taken at night time and instead of the sun I've used headlights of my car (that's why there are two Specters). Both images were taken with the same 8 mm fisheye lens and both for sure show the
Brocken spectre, but see how different the size of
Brocken spectre is. IMO
Brocken spectre is more about how the shadow looks. In both samples that I provided you might see that the shadows look more like the rays, which is a very clear indicator that it is
Brocken spectre. I'm not sure about the nominated image, but I believe it does show
Brocken spectre. In any case I'd like to Support the image before
User:Froth would say "Oppose. Technical quality is, well, pretty terrible " without slightest understanding of the nature of the picture.--
Mbz1 (
talk)
15:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
I don't know much about this, but isn't the key feature that the shadow forms on the cloud/mist rather than the ground, thus giving the viewer the suggestion of a 'spectre' as the shadow moves around with the moving cloud/mist? The key aspect of the size is then I suppose that the bigger the shadow, and the further from the ground, the better that optical effect would appear. That is where a better representation would seem to involve bigger shadows forming away from the ground as described in the article where you had the opportunity to see this (and if I may add, as I think better displayed in Mbz1's Golden Gate Bridge picture); the shadow in this image looks to be mainly formed on the ground. --
jjron (
talk)
22:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
I'm no expert (thanks for improving the caption) but the shadow remains equally distinct in the distance as the ground is lost in the fog. So it appears to me that the shadow is cast upon the fog, not the ground. As for moving with the clouds, that depends on cloud consistency, an independent factor. Examples using wide open spaces would be more encyclopedic, but leave little room for such beautiful composition :v) .
Potatoswatter (
talk)
04:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I'd never heard of this term until now, but it appears from the article that what separates it from a mere shadow on an uneven distant surface is the fact that it is projected onto mist/cloud below, and this image doesn't do that... I'm not sure that any of the images in the article are ideal to illustrate the concept, and incidentally, I found it difficult to understand from the article until re-reading it a few times. It didn't seem to clearly state that the phenomenon occurs when your shadow is projected downwards onto the cloud. I was confused as I could not understand how your shadow could be projected upwards onto the cloud. I know it does explain that in the article, but it could be a bit clearer.
Diliff |
(Talk)(Contribs)15:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Note: Due to there being no votes although the 7 day period is now up, I am resetting this nomination, and will bump this to the top. Please await a further seven days ( from 13:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC) ) before closing this nomination. 13:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Microchip80 (
talk •
contribs)
I strongly disagree with this practice. Lack of comments show lack of interest. I might as well just oppose it then. --
Dschwen14:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)reply