geckzilla wrote:Ok, I'll try to explain why this image bothers me so much aside from just the clouds, sky, and the landscape seeming not to match. Here, I've attached an image with some lines drawn on in order to question what they are. I assume that they are actually painted/airbrushed onto the image and not real, but I can't be 100% sure. What would be remarkable and fascinating if it was real is reduced to something that is either confusing at best (if intended as an art piece, but not mentioned) or deceptive at worst (if intended to represent reality).
See the top arcing shadow line that crosses the syzygy, marked in green. Why is it curved? How could it be curved? Is it real? Almost certainly not. How could it be?
Next, check the shaded region of the hills, marked in magenta. Are we to take this as a shadow cast by the moon onto the landscape? Why it it also curved? Is it real? I highly doubt it.
Thanks Geck for giving your impression. Your experience with images and image processing cause me to further ponder. However,
I view the shadows and apparent curvatures as purely coincidental and resulting from the extreme intensity ranges, i.e. overexposed Sun limb, to underexposed terrain. The reduced solar irradiance on the ground, forward scatter from the thinner cloud edges coupled with ground shadows from the clouds makes the scene plausible to me.
Now regarding the new description, I wonder why the telephoto?
Within a few percent that I can measure, the eclipse is the correct size on the image for a D5300 sensor using a 19mm f.l. lens, and I don't see how spatial resolution benefits from a telephoto. Unless the wide-angle image of the sun was so ever bad that telephoto image helped? Even so, the solar image size would have to be reduced to properly match the FoV of the 19mm f.l. image. Base on my interpretation of this image, the description makes less sense to me now. However
, I'm having some problem making sense of the eclipse disk and an apparent double image along the dark edge
Another case of wanting some details - for me it's not to prove misrepresentation, just to understand it.