Contestmaster: I concur with (2) as a clue. I must offer an alternative for (1) since only one exposure of the foreground scene would have been needed. Any more than that would have overexposed the scene. Consequently, only one chimney shadow would be seen, even if the foreground had been exposed concurrently with a sun shot.
Speaking of sun shot, wouldn't the entire piece of film have been overexposed and ruined if, even only once, the (nearly opaque) sun filter had been removed in order to catch the foreground scene? Remember, the sun is looking straight in at the film. One more piece of evidence that the foreground must have been added at a different time, a time when the sun was not in the picture. Cheers, Tom Egan 33.642 N 117.943 W Ron Anthony wrote: > I love that picture. I have a 16"x20" color photo of it in my office. It's > clear that the foreground was added: 1). There is only one shadow for the > chimney, 2) the sun is behind the house, but the shadow of the chimney is > cast by a sun that would be in the foreground. > > > I once read Dennis di Cicco's description of his superb analemma image > > in which he points out that the foreground was put in later. > > > > He mentioned that there are two clues to this in the image. Both involve > > the sun, neither are technical. > > > > Can you find them? > > > > Bob Terwilliger > >
