Check my work please

[craiglamson]

I just finished this rebuttal to the latest Jack White study. I'm a photographer and not a writer. Any help or suggestions would be welcome.

www.infocusinc.net/apollo.htm

[wdmundt]

Here are a few spelling and punctuation issues:

a shadow may full in such circumstances

"fall"

Each time he introduces an different element

"a" different element

“photography expert”.

The period should be inside quotation marks.

“study”: as posted at the Education Forum

Colon goes at the end, not after "study."

Lets find out.

let's

it step by step with empirical photographic evidenced

evidence

So what’s’ wrong with the empirical evidence presented to debunk Whites claim?

what's (remove extra apostrophe) -- White's

I will see if I can proof more of it later.

[craiglamson]

Thanks...changes made.

[Joe Durnavich]

Craig, excellent work. That page is a nice reference for how the shadow angles change as the camera is rotated horizontally and vertically.

One insignificant point: You mention the horizontal field of view as 53.5 degrees. The image width on the film is 55 mm, giving a field of view of 49.25 degrees:

atan((55 mm / 2) / 60 mm) * 2 = 49.25 degrees

[craiglamson]

Thanks Joe,.

I got the AOV from Jay's site...which one of you are correct?

[Joe Durnavich]

Oh, boy. I hope this doesn't mean we have to be locked in a cage to wrestle this one out.

I believe Jay has some of the test film he shot on the TV show. Perhaps he can measure the width of the image. If it is 55 mm, then my figure is correct for a 60 mm lens.

[craiglamson]

I would pay to watch that

[wdmundt]

not away as photo at left. “

Extraneous quotation mark.

Of the NASA Apollo photos (un-numbered)

perhaps "non-numbered," instead.

“NASA parameters:

Extraneous quotation mark.

To find out if Whites claims were true I made

add comma after true White's

[craiglamson]

Would you please read everything I write?

Thanks.

[Tanalia]

Whites claim that the angle of the shadow is a problem is shown to be false.

Whites attempts to “debunk” the user photo he has posted fails.

White's

[JayUtah]

Joe's is the more practical measurement. The FOV page at Clavius is on the list to revise. The 71-degree diagonal is, I believe, the theoretical maximum field of view, so my computation for a square frame format is the theoretical maximum, not necessarily what is actually the case for a certain frame. The useful field of view must take into account the film format. This is actually an issue with my Canon 35mm systems: the digital sensor is actually smaller than a 35mm frame, so the field of view with the same lens is smaller on my digital than on any of my 35mm backs. I would use Joe's measurement as the practical one for the frame format in question.

[craiglamson]

Thank you Jay,

You need a 5D or the new 1DsMKIII

Heck even an old 1DsMKI is a super full frame camera and you can pick one up for less that 2 grand.

[JayUtah]

I have the 20D. Aside from the full-frame sensor, what other advantages does the 5D have over the 20D?

[echnaton]

Great work.

A few typos.

As we can see the shadow angle in the image changes in relation to the up/down angle of he camera.

the camera angle

White’s claim is false The photographers feet need not be at the bottom center of the image. See my tests above.

the photographers

7. White states any shadow of the photographer , if extended, must lead to his feet.

photographer,

That is totally false as can be seen ( and tested by anyone with a camera) by

(and tested

White and Percy both claim photography expert status .

status.

[Data Cable]

echnaton said:

( and tested

(and tested

Heh, I do that myself, occasionally, when I forget I'm writing english and not code.