Why are reflections curved in this long exposure shot over a river?

sabrina81 said:

Tony Jay said:

I didn't read the analysis, but ...

However, the OP image was shot a long way from that water. And the buildings from which the light emanates are further away still.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Tony, you said earlier it was shot with 18-55mm lens using 18mm. Now you say he is a long way from the water. Looks to me like he is right at or near the shore, which I cannot see. Am I missing something? gc

Sagittarius said:

Tony Jay said:

The physics of light (what the light is doing before it reaches the camera) do not explain the bent reflections - however the physics of optics (within the lens) probably do.

Click to expand...

If you mean barrel distortion, explain why is it in one direction only? Usually barrel distortion around the center of the image. Otherwise what physics of the lens do you mean?

Click to expand...

Yes. And if you mean pincushion distortion, same question.

Add to the link i posted earlier:

The river current is likely moving faster in the center.

The waves might be moving with the current, or diagonal to it, certainly not perpendicular to the shore like at the ocean or a large lake.

Ripples might be moving in a different direction.

Over a twenty second exposure this could certainly make for interesting changes to what we expect.

Here is a segment of a recent photo of mine. Notice the bottom portion - the low rolling wave is not perpendicular to the light - and the reflection is curved. With a longer exposure, or a slower rolling wave, I would expect that there might be a longer / larger curve especially if there were limited light sources.





Looks like lots of photographers have bad lenses:

bmike said:

Looks like lots of photographers have bad lenses:

Click to expand...

And notice that in some of those photos (and also in several that I posted earlier), some of the vertical reflections are bent while others are perfectly straight. Not just bad lenses but really weird lenses.

sabrina81 said:

bmike said:

Looks like lots of photographers have bad lenses:

Click to expand...

And notice that in some of those photos (and also in several that I posted earlier), some of the vertical reflections are bent while others are perfectly straight. Not just bad lenses but really weird lenses.

Click to expand...

Maybe lens poltergeist?

sabrina81 said:

bmike said:

Looks like lots of photographers have bad lenses:

Click to expand...

And notice that in some of those photos (and also in several that I posted earlier), some of the vertical reflections are bent while others are perfectly straight. Not just bad lenses but really weird lenses.

Click to expand...

Off topic; but anyone who thinks they know how the world should look should read links posted by Sabrina in another thread on color and memory, as well as looking at the work of Albers, Turrel and read some of what Robert Irwin wrote.

In addition this is also fascinating:

sabrina81 said:

Tony Jay said:

I didn't read the analysis, but ...

However, the OP image was shot a long way from that water. And the buildings from which the light emanates are further away still. Only light coming from those buildings and reflecting off the water in the same plane as the incident light reaches the camera. Light that is reflected on different planes off the water misses the camera.

Click to expand...

You didn't read the analysis, but you reject the analysis. How is that supposed to contribute to the discussion?

Member said:

The physics of light (what the light is doing before it reaches the camera) do not explain the bent reflections - however the physics of optics (within the lens) probably do.

Click to expand...

How does the physics of optics within the lens explain why the light from the water is bent but light from the buildings is not bent? Doesn't that suggest that perhaps the water is the variable that accounts for the bending? Until you can answer that, you haven't explained anything.

Click to expand...

I have now read the explanation - and the conclusions are wrong. Simple as that! Nothing he explained accounts for the bending of the line of light coming from the building.

This explanation only seems plausible to those who don't understand simple physics and geometry...

Tony Jay said:

I have now read the explanation - and the conclusions are wrong. Simple as that!

Click to expand...

If that is a sufficient rebuttal, then I have one for you: I have read your comments, and you are wrong. Simple as that. :-D

Just guessing but inclined to believe it's more to do with the length of the exposure and a somewhat fairly consistent current path. None of the somewhat similar sorts of images I have show this effect much, if at all. Perhaps a bit on the Merced River in Yosemite which has a marked current, no similarity at all on some L.A. Harbor shots which doesn't have much distinct current.

I think the extreme reflection curves shown in a sample up there someplace come from the wake ripples, so to speak, being a lot larger and closer when compared to these other shots?

It wouldn't be too difficult, assuming a convenient location with river type currents and another with limited current consistent current flow, to set up a series of test shots checking different shutter speeds. One could swap lenses out as well but I think it's time related not lens distortion.

Harbors, I've got, sort of close, but nothing with distinct tidal or river currents.