[MrB]

Hello again, Rolf.

Assuming that your explanation is correct for your example image, it still does not explain what is happening in Wendy's image. By following your reasoning and comparing Wendy's with your example, the effect causing the distortion of the reflections in Wendy's photo should have turned them away from vertical, but in the opposite direction.

I suspect the effect is actually to do with Ed's observation that the shutter was open for nearly 15 seconds. During that time the sensor captured, in one image, many different reflections from the mass of ever-changing ripples on the water, moving in a particular direction, again as Ed suggests, due to the wind.

An apology for this post is probably unnecessary, as it seems that Wendy has found it all quite interesting.

Cheers.
Philip

[Rolf]

Hello - again Philip! If the camera Wendy used was on a tripod... which I would be entitled to believe as the image overall was acceptably sharp... the shutter open for 15 seconds would record everything that was there... so, non moving imagery would be written and over written constantly and would be the same data... anything that moved in the same time would have data written and over written too... but in different positions on the sensor (or film) It is that principle that we as photographers have used to create the blur effect of moving water.... If the water was moving at such a speed in whatever direction, all of the reflections and the boats that would be subjected to the same movement, would have looked blurry (as in the effect of camera shake or the wind moving leaves on an otherwise sharply focused tree) and even smother than the water in a recent submission by EnglishBob, who used only 13 secs. ( http://www.shuttertalk.com/forums/Thread...-the-Water . They are all acceptably sharp and the other reflections appear straighter... even if the wind was somehow able to target just those bent reflections... the water would have looked Vaseline or smoke like ... and it does not.
I think this has run it's course and people may make of it as they wish. Still, if it encourages others to research and look more into photography and the medium we use to achieve our images then a little controversy is not a bad thing.

I was not apologising for the content... merely the usurping of the vehicle...

Have a great day

Kind regards

Rolf

[Moriarty]

Hello Philip... I fear I may be in danger of hijacking Wendy's post so I will keep this short. My point... looking at reflection in the first pic I used as an example, the white light reflections from the shooters position... appear from that location (as the light is omnidirectional) as a line directly below the light... and directly below from that perspective is seen to be at an angle from the quay... ergo it looks bent. The law of reflection (Normal line, Reflected line and Line of Incidence are still obeyed, only changing if the Object cannot be seen from which the light reflected is travelling) If the shooter were to go to the bank opposite the source... that same light would still be directly below the source but because the shooter has moved relative to the quay, it would now appear to be straight to him... I have many shots of night reflections that do the same... If I didn't like them - I would reshoot from another perspective... If that didn't get the scope I wanted and I changed to a wider angle lens... well now I have lens distortion to consider... now it's PP or a T&S lens... we are essentially arguing the same point... the difference is I am happy to accept the reality. As always... thank you for taking time to engage with me.


Anyway, Wendy... your images are good subjects that as you may have gathered, need just a little correction as a consequence of, in my opinion, the settings that were applied at the time of shooting... In my day... that would have been a disaster... wasted time, film and processing costs and no recourse to reshoot.... today we can rescue an image in previously unimaginable ways that may sometimes border on deception... (have you ever wondered why the image of the meal on the menu doesn't come close to the meal you see served? ). but as Ed says... to each his own!
Kind regards

Rolf

Hi Rolf
Thank you for all the comments & discussion, Wendy