The Sun & The Moon
I have a friend upon whom I can rely to send me, with some regularity, unbelievable photos and incredible stories, most of which turn out in the end to be fabricated photos and urban legends. Someplace in the forwarding of these things, someone will often add a wishy-washy "I don't know if this is true, but…." and then carry on anyway.
Sure enough, the last photo I got from him was a beauty: an arctic landscape with a bright, tiny sun hovering on the horizon and, above it, an enormous crescent moon. It was quite a lovely image. The text with it said
This is the sunset at the North Pole with the moon at its closest point. And, you also see the sun below the moon. An amazing photo and not one easily duplicated. You may want to save this and pass on to others.
"…not easily duplicated" is correct! While the image is pretty, it's a complete fabrication, and I'd like to think that should have been obvious to anyone seeing it. But then, I'd like to think a lot of things that turn out to have nothing to do with reality.
Happily, snopes.com says plainly that the photograph is a fabrication, created digitally by a German astrophysics student. (Follow the link for the details and to see the image.)
However, Snopes missed their chance to state the obvious: the photograph could not possibly be a real image of "sunset at the North Pole" for one simple reason that everyone should be able to spot — the image of the moon, compared to the image of the sun, is far, far too large.
But how could anyone be expected to know this*, you ask? Well, I claim, nearly everyone knows the cause of total solar eclipses, even if they've never seen one: the moon passes between the Earth and the sun and exactly covers the disk of the sun for a short time.
The simple deduction, then, is that the apparent size of the moon, as seen from the Earth, is very nearly the same as the apparent size of the sun. Thus we know that this image, in which the moon is some 20 times the size of the sun, must be a fabrication.
———-
* This is an interesting question, particularly since in films, night scenes are often created with a looming, full moon shot with a telephoto lens; the same is rarely done for the sun, unless it is near the horizon into which the movie's heroes are riding. People often seem ready to accept that the apparent size of the moon is substantially larger than it is in reality, whereas they seem to imagine the apparent size of the sun to be rather smaller than it actually is. These mistaken notions are exploited in the north-pole "sunset" image.
2 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Saturday, 8 April 2006 at 00.14
Permalink
Very interesting.
More broadly, digital photo editing is making photo fakery readily doable by almost anyone with the implements and a willingness to develop the necessary skills. You don't even have to lay out hundreds for Photoshop, although that's the weapon of choice for those most serious about editing images.
During the 2004 presidential campaign, some jerk faked a photo of John Kerry beside Jane Fonda at a Vietnam veterans' antiwar rally in the early 1970s. The fakery was verified when someone dredged up a copy of the original photo, in which one of them (Kerry, I think) was missing.
I expect to see more of this in future years.
on Saturday, 8 April 2006 at 01.27
Permalink
No doubt that photo-fakery will become more widespread and sophisticated in the future. I should point out, though, that I've seen no indication that the woman who created this image set out to deceive as such, rather than simply to make an arresting image, which it is.