This is a nice picture, so what's wrong with it?
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
10
-
28$\begingroup$ This is a huge pet hate of mine. I see it in computer games all the time. Most annoying! $\endgroup$– ChuckCommented Nov 18, 2017 at 12:32
-
2$\begingroup$ and that's with the blue pre-dawn? $\endgroup$– JasenCommented Nov 18, 2017 at 23:22
-
2$\begingroup$ The moon is not casting a reflection on the water. (I believe no-one has mentioned that yet.) $\endgroup$– N. VirgoCommented Nov 19, 2017 at 14:01
-
1$\begingroup$ @Nathaniel I think it is - see the three white marks on the sea? $\endgroup$– Beastly GerbilCommented Nov 19, 2017 at 14:57
-
5$\begingroup$ I want to add an answer that is also related to basic astronomy. If you look at the position of the moon over the horizon and what part of it is illuminated, the sun must be almost exactly behind it (a little to the bottom left from the viewer's position). This means that it should be actually be visible in the sky, or there should be at least dawn or dusk. Instead, the fact that stars are visible even just over the horizon indicates that we have total night, the sun at at least 18° below the horizon - and then the moon should be more full that it is now. $\endgroup$– Marie. P.Commented Nov 19, 2017 at 20:46
|
Show 5 more comments
10 Answers
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
19
I think the problem is
There are stars visible behind the moon.
In reailty
The dark part of the moon is still there - it doesn't become transparent and the stars shouldn't be seen as the moon would block them out.
So it should look like this (courtesy of @Chuck):
(There are a few other extra details being pointed out such as the fact that the outer moon is lighter than the inner moon - but I’d say this is the biggest an most obvious problem so I haven’t included the rest)
answered Nov 18, 2017 at 9:31
-
24$\begingroup$ I think they are not stars, they are fireflies $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 18, 2017 at 9:54
-
1$\begingroup$ In the explanation, you are mixing a (nearly) new moon (what this looks like) with a lunar eclipse. Usually the earth is not involved in the moon being mostly dark, the sun is just on the other side. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 18, 2017 at 10:14
-
7$\begingroup$ @Snow the stars can't be in front of the moon. Thats simple physics $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 18, 2017 at 10:44
-
24$\begingroup$ Obligatory xkcd (possible spoiler) $\endgroup$– LarsWCommented Nov 18, 2017 at 15:22
-
5$\begingroup$ Those are not stars, they're lights from the moon bases. $\endgroup$– JRNCommented Nov 20, 2017 at 2:54
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
4
In addition to other answers, palm trees don't natively grow under that geographical latitude, which is more than 46 degrees:
-
$\begingroup$ How did you determine the geographical latitude? $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 21, 2017 at 16:29
-
5$\begingroup$ @FreeAsInBeer Lets first make a slight simplification: that ecliptic is parallel to equator (equinox situation). In that case looking at Moon shape, we can determine where is the plane: earth-moon-sun. I marked it with the one of green lines on the picture. The angle between that line and horizon is our geographical latitude, which look like over 46 degrees. But what if given situation is not an equinox? Looking at the clear sky it must be hot summer, so our position shifts away from equator. (it works the same way in both hemispheres) So claim that palm tree cannot grow here is still valid. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 21, 2017 at 17:17
-
$\begingroup$ Of course, looking at the stars and comparing it with the moon, it could be possible to extract more data: what hemisphere it is, which implies what moon phase we have now, what time and what season it is. Going further, we could extract accurate coordinates (both latitude and longitude). But as someone mentioned in other answer: the stars don't represent any known constellation :) ...especially that 8-star pattern copy-pasted 3 times at the bottom of the picture :) $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 22, 2017 at 11:02
-
1$\begingroup$ Actually the moon could be up to 5 off the ecliptic, thus your limit is reduced to 41 degrees. Some hardy palms do grow at that latitude, however they look different than the date / coconut palms in the picture. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 26, 2017 at 11:12
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
There are lots of problems with the image.
1. Red and blue squared stars has been used a couple of times.
2. Yellow part of the sea has been used three times.
3. You cannot have stars inside the moon and the white blue area is added later and there is a clear blur in the photo as shown below.
To illustrate:
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
2
There's also a scary monster looking at you.
-
4$\begingroup$ @BeastlyGerbil It's been looking at you all along. $\endgroup$– isanaeCommented Nov 18, 2017 at 10:55
-
21$\begingroup$ @BeastlyGerbil To be clear, I only increased the brightness of the image, that feature was part of the original. $\endgroup$– isanaeCommented Nov 18, 2017 at 10:58
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
1
Beastly's answer does work. Here are some other things I noticed:
Explanation:
- There are three strange spots of luminescence near the horizon on the water
- The edge of the moon is much brighter than the inner parts, whereas the moon tends to be lit with a smoother gradient up to the shadow (see below image, sourced from here)
- The trees seem to be illuminated selectively, in some places but not others
answered Nov 18, 2017 at 10:01
-
$\begingroup$ i think the palm trees are the only thing that's slightly realistic $\endgroup$– RozzACommented Nov 21, 2017 at 6:30
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
I can
see illuminated tops and bottoms of tall trees but their shadows are totally missing given such separation between those trees.
As
illumination happens from the other side( on which the moon is located ), the trees also should cast sharp shadows, which are missing.
Another observation
The 3 patterns of stars immediately above the horizon are of type copy and paste, so not natural!
answered Nov 18, 2017 at 10:00
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
There's no dusk light in the sky.
With such a thin crescent moon, the earth-moon-sun angle is only slightly off 180 degrees, so the sun would be only just over the horizon, so there should still be some light from the sun in the sky. But there isn't.
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
1
Should
the water waves be moving towards the island, rather than moving away from island ?
-
14$\begingroup$ Seems to me it does provide an answer, though not necessarily a good one: the question was "what's wrong with this picture" and the answer suggested here is that the waves are unrealistic. $\endgroup$– Gareth McCaughan ♦Commented Nov 19, 2017 at 0:32
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
2
The other answers taking the image apart in discrete steps are right on the spot. However, having tried to create landscapes in Photoshop countless times, I can tell you I immediately knew this was artificial, even before noticing the three bands in the sea. The lighting, the lack of noise, how the waves don't play with the shore, the impossible exposure (you can't produce such image with a camera), the lack of the DOF...
It's about the holistic approach. All the little things could be overlooked if only the pieces worked together. If you look at the works of the old masters, they are also often "faulty" from up close.
-
4$\begingroup$ There's no claim that the image is a photograph, so exposure and depth of field aren't really an issue. (Also, you talk about a lack of depth of field but that's not what the term means. The image is in sharp focus from front to back, which indicates a lot of depth of field, not none.) $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 19, 2017 at 16:38
-
1$\begingroup$ Sorry, English isn't my first language. You are correct that the DOF is technically infinite. But since the picture represents a natural scenery where DOF is to be expected, I insist that it makes sense to judge the realness of the picture by its presence. Which was the topic. $\endgroup$– ZdenekCommented Nov 19, 2017 at 18:43