The defensiveness of this guy is a bit annoying "if you don't believe, you know zero about digital photography and superzooms" (paraphrased).

One of the first red flags I saw was the visibility at such a distance through the atmosphere close to earth. It's very common for long zooms, even at a few miles, to get a wavy distortion effect from atmospheric differences, and there seems to be little of it at 75 miles, which is very unusual. Not impossible, but raises a 'caution' flag about believability.

Another key to an aerial shot composited with the original would be anything in the photo that's near or behind Half Dome, that is not actually higher in altitude, being higher in the photo. I don't see anything that I can specify with any certainty that is out of place like that.

Another interesting comment, after he made the "knows nothing about digital or superzooms" comment, was that this was a 10x "magnification" and that the 67 mile distance was therefore equal to 6.7 miles. This statement clearly shows HE doesn't know as much about "digital photography and superzooms" as he thinks he does. 10x as far as magnification means that the object will be 10x the pixel size (each dimension) in the original image than it would have been with a "1x". The 10x-12x-18x figures you see for zoom lenses have nothing to do with apparent distance...they refer to the ratio between the shortest focal length and the longest of the lens, nothing more. The "magnification" used in things like binoculars doesn't really translate to cameras and lenses, though a 50mm lens (25 on his camera) would cover what most see as a "normal" angle of view, so if anything, a 500mm lens on that camera would be called "20x", though it's irrelevant.

What is confusing people is the perspective, and perspective is dependent on distance. Seeing Half Dome from Glacier makes it appear much higher than anything behind it, because it's so close. As distance increases, the angle of Half Dome's top becomes less and less, until it's so low that the higher peaks in the back begin to appear higher than the top of Half dome, which they are. It's simply because you're seeing it from so far away, that the perspective seems so odd.

When the view is so far, the distance between normally far-apart objects appears less, because it's a smaller percentage of the total distance viewed. A mile, in a two-mile photograph, is a lot, and the objects at two miles will appear a lot smaller than the ones at a mile. But at 70 miles, a 3-4 mile distance between objects is next to nothing (percentagewise) so they appear more in actual proportions, rather than how we normally see them in perspective, with distant objects appearing smaller. It's sometimes called 'telephoto effect' but really is just perspective.

And then he tells people to "just hush", as though it's not totally understandable that in such a perspective and unusual distance shot, it would look unbelievable to many. I ran across this issue a year or so ago, when I happened to get some photos of a Coast Guard boat getting knocked over and down by a wave; some were skeptical, but I certainly never told them to shut up...it was an unusual thing to catch in a photo and the skepticism was understandable...and I knew that it was a real incident, and had the original shots, just as this guy should know that anyone going to that spot on a clear enough day would be able to see that it's legitimate.

So, mixed feelings...yeah, it's most likely a legitimate shot.

Could this be what Plato was talking about in the cave?

Doug Sr: Could this be what Plato was talking about in the cave?

Yup -- don't mess with my illusion, man!

I unwittingly exported this whole photo conversation to a Yosemite discussion board and its starting to get, um, dicey. Thought I'd run for cover over here for a while.

B

This was all discussed thoroughly on the Summitpost thread. The computer generated image (done by a friend of mine) from USGS elevation data confirms the image is possible. The high power zoom makes the image look odd but it matches closely with the computer image.

-Rick

We're talking about a distance of 67 miles, not 8,000.

All the talk about its being a fake, you guys crack me up.     Check these pictures, all taken by other photographers. I gave links to them yesterday (above):
From somewhere farther west (Patterson area).  Please read the photographer's blog here.  It is worth your time.


Taken by "The Big YZ" from the same location as Tony's:


Taken by Mike Matenkosky from the same location:


And check this one out from the Lick Observatory on Mt. Hamilton (just above San Jose):

I accept that such a photo is possible, although I leave the specifics to experts.

However, I have a problem with some of the statements being made:
"It definitely is Half Dome, happy to say. My family lives on West Taylor Road, just north of Turlock town, and they’ve seen Half Dome at various times over the years. Sorry that EC doesn’t believe in this beautiful granite piece being viewed with the camera and the naked eye. I’ve tried looking for it when we’re down there, but just haven’t been lucky enough to get this exciting view of it."

I am POSITIVE that NO ONE can see a view like that with the naked eye. It is simply too far away. All of these photographs are HIGHLY magnified. "A hint" of HD, I'll concede.

I am also highly amused by the "proof" of computer modeling. Unless I'm mistaken, computer modeling confirms the certain fact that bees cannot fly, and that rockets will fly into space without problems.

As for professional photogs: I use the standard definition: one makes one's living from the occupation. We've had some drop in from time to time, would be interested in their take.

Steve, I just noticed in the bottom pic from Lick...

Mt. Dana, 13,185
Mt. Lyell, 13,090

So this means I don't have to go up Mt. Lyell after all, to get to Yosemite's highest point? 8^)

Mt. Lyell is listed at 13,114, and Mt. Dana (13,053-057-061 depending on where you look)

Well, I even wondered if that is really Dana. Isn't Gibbs almost as high and just to the south? Elevations are difficult to nail down given the number of different maps and surveys out there. And I suspect that is a very old photo, too. So give 'em a break.

agreed. Funny that he would call a dinky mirror tele a "super zoom" which first of all isn't even a zoom lens, as it doesn't allow you to vary the focal length. Doesn't sound to me like a pro (I used to work as a pro in motorsports for many years and nobody there would call any lens a "super zoom" but we used glass this guy can only dream of)

here's an example, taken with the canon 600f4 + 1.4x teleconverter, so about 840mm, cropped to 50% of what was on the slide - just to give you an idea of what a big lens can do right off the front porch of your house:

Moonshot - Not taken with a telescope



about his photo of Half Dome - I assume it's possible, but not having been there myself and looked through the lens I can't really comment on the validity of the image. If it's photoshopped, it's very well done from images that would take quite an effort to obtain. That he didn't take a wider angle shot of the actual view is a bit strange. I sure would have, on a rare day like this.

GMike - you make a good point - I meant to only exagerate to make a possible point, and I know I could be wrong - So how about the actual math - I can't do it, but here is how I perceive the problem:

It's a two part problem – or maybe two separate but relevant aspects of a problem – that I think could be solved with math that would shed light on the issue.

Part 1 (the disappearing or blocking effect):
If the entire earth were 1 foot above sea level and a 2-foot-tall man stood facing an 80-foot-tall man, and they both started walking backwards, how far away from each other would they be when they could only see each other from the neck up due to the earth’s curve (granted they would probably need a telescope to see each other from the neck up) - I thought from one of Wayne's posts long ago that it is between 200 to 300 miles at the same elevation that things start to disappear - if so, maybe 67 miles could have some significance?

Part 2 (regarding the angle):
If they each walked backward until they were exactly half way around the world from each other, and then someone drilled a hole between the 2-foot-tall man’s feet to between the 80-foot-tall man’s feet (i.e., a hole drilled along a straight line through an approximate 8,000 mile diameter of the earth), and then the 2 foot tall man looked down between his feet (with a very high powered telescope) he would be looking directly up the nostrils of the taller man (who would be about 8,000 miles away)

Now, considering what I am trying to picture conceptually, can someone do the math for the small man (Denair) and the tall man (Half Dome) who just walked 67 miles away from each other to determine how many feet of Half Dome could be seen (please consider any hills in between) and what about the angle of its appearance (or how much of the face would replace the top)?

Thanks, Tony B

Tony,

When Steve C sent me the photos from Tony Immoos, the photographer, I did all that math. Like I said up above, I was skeptical. However, I did do the math on all the peaks, and my skepticism turned to amazement.

Your height problem can be solved by a simple formula. The distance to the horizon on the level one foot surface you describe can be found by multiplying 1.22 times the square root of the height in feet, and the answer comes out in miles. When two heights are involved, you have to add the results from calculations for both of the heights added together. So, your 2-foot guy and 80-foot giant would lose sight of each other on your described surface in 12.3 miles. To see the top of their heads from the neck up, they would be about 10.1 miles from one another.

The drop in height due to the curvature of the earth in 67 miles is 3,000 feet! The angle from the photo spot to Half Dome is only about 0.9 degrees--a little less than GigaMike's rough 1.5 degrees he mentions above.

Like I said, I did do the math for all the peaks in the panorama, and if anyone would like to see all the compass directions in true north and magnetic north, plus the exact distances to two decimal places, and the vertical angles to each peak, I would be happy to email you the figures, and you can do your own checking in the photos as I did. Just PM me to let me know.

I did discover that the magnification was not perfectly uniform, especially in the vertical dimension, but my figures were close enough to identify the peaks. The eye-effect of this is what is bothering everyone, as there appears to be some stretching in the vertical dimension, as compared to the horizontal, which has less stretching. I need to have a talk with one of our expert photographers why there appears to be a lack of uniformity in the panorama. For example, Dale Dalrymple has such superb lenses, my calculations seem to match his photos perfectly horizontally and vertically.

Wayne wrote:
I did discover that the magnification was not perfectly uniform, especially in the vertical dimension, but my figures were close enough to identify the peaks.

Wayne, remember that the panorama we worked on is a composite of four photos stitched together. Might some of the distortion have been introduced in that process? Also, I don't know if you noticed, but what we originally labeled as Sunrise Mtn, Quartzite Pk, and Mt. Starr King turned out to be others. I changed the annotations to match what Mike C's images reported. Were those mountains some of the mismatched figures?

Steve, all I had to go by was my list of NAMED peaks, and the only way I find unnamed peaks is by poring over the topos or Google Earth, or have someone clue me in, like you and your DEM expert. I did have a tough time calculating the vertical dimensions based on pixel counts.

I want to pore over Tony's panorama and see if I can develop a mathematical model that will perfectly fit his images. It's just a hobby of mine, and I have fun doing it.

And, yes, Steve, I did notice your changes, making me appreciate the effectiveness of a Digital Elevation Model. I sure would like to have access to that capability.

I wrote this final conclusion on another board, but copy it here:
--------------------
I believe the photo is real.

However, I believe the photo is a misrepresentation, although not a deliberate one on the part of the photographer.

When I say misrepresentation, I refer to the way I think about nature photography: representing the natural world, and what you would see if you were there. This photo does not, although the author never made a claim that it did.

If you look at the "subject photograph", you see the silo, about 2 miles away, and HD, about 60 miles away. The magnification give the appearance of the silo, as it would look, 0.2 miles away, and HD, about 6 miles. (ten-fold magnification) The appearance is that if you walk the 0.2 miles to the silo, that when you look beyond, you will see this scene, without the silo. You will not, because HD is not 5.8 miles beyond the silo, it is 58 miles. (please forgive my use of approximate/rounded mileage)

So, can you see HD from the location? I think yes, although not easily.
Can you see the view presented in the "subject photo"....absolutely not.

I don't think that anyone was trying to pull a fast one, or a hoax.
But you can't see that view.
--------------------
Another way of saying this: if you go out into the field, and stand where the silo is of the size of what is shown in the subject photograph, will you see the background of the Sierra with HD, like you see in the photograph? NO.

That doesn't change that the photo is real, or the amazement of it all.

What I imagine will happen, is that this will join the ranks of the shots that people clamor to get: the Adams photo of the moon, that brought thousands to repeat the shot this last year, for example. I will bet this becomes used in advertising for the area. It is, in fact, an amazing discovery.

I think the photographers involved, Tony Immoos, Elias Funez, are to be highly congratulated for this discovery. I also think that some of our own have helped with computer assisted info that confirmed the possiblity of such a photograph.

Several years ago, on a rare clear day driving south in the Central Valley when the Sierra peaks loomed in the distance but looked so close, I was startled to see what looked like domes at one point. I remember telling my wife what I saw as she watched the road as she drove. I guess I was right. They looked nothing like the high zoom photo, but not unlike the wideangle views. I now believe I saw the Yosemite area domes from the highway that day.

This from the guy with that handle?

I am inwardly grinning at this point, because despite the vitriol, the secret is out:

On a certain day, in a certain place, from a landscape flat as a pancake (and about as interesting as one) Alice's looking glass has been unveiled and a secret revealed: our beloved Yosemite seems that much closer! (thanks Tony Immoos)

B

My guess is that Bill was using sonar. (Bat joke.)

Wayne thanks ... I now believe - and thanks Tony I. That's incredible. The photographer knew it was true and accurate all along. And all of you guys helped to prove it technically. That is very cool.