201–210 of 219 posts
If two photographers shoot the same millisecond in time, who owns the copyright? In this example, there were discernible differences, but what if the differences were below our level (or care) to discern them?
No one would likely have copyright over the actual event (or if they did, it would be a separate discussion). Each photographer could have copyright over their image they took.
Reminds me of the time when my sister and I took pictures with very similar composition of the sky - and you can see the same clouds in each photo. https://jetholt.com/connected-minds/ I love things like this.
Sorry but this is not coincidental or crazy in the slightest! You both snapped a picture of the sky minutes apart on your way home because the sky looked nice. Okay, so what? There is nothing unusual about that. The photos are different. Clouds in different positions, different focal length... I don't see "connected minds". I see "hey, cool sky" [whips out smartphone, snaps photo].
I'm not a photographer. I don't claim to be. Maybe this event I experienced seems much more common for someone who describes themself with 'dev/design/photo/animation', but for me it seemed pretty unlikely. I don't take photos often (The last photo I took in my gallery of my smartphone is dated December 2017).
The crazy thing for me and my experience was how close in time the two images were (considering neither of us are photographers/regularly take photographs), and how you can match the patterns in the sky to estimate my position relative to hers. Something like this had never happened to me before.
One man's junk is another's treasure and all. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but the chance that any two photographers, anywhere, would do so is, I bet, pretty big Not necessarily, but the the chance of any crazy coincidence happening and reaching HN homepage is quite big. Next time it might be two people with same name writing the exact same tweet independently. Or perhaps one guy winning the World Series of Poker two times in a row with the same winning hand. When there's a million "kinds…
I'm curious about your WSOP mention - did you single this one out because it (remarkably) did happen before? Or were you speculating it could happen again in the future?
This has always been one of my favorite photographic coincidences. https://calculatedimages.blogspot.com/2013/05/3d-lightning.h...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author addresses the displacement of the foreground waves: "I know those things are easily moved using the clone stamp in Photoshop", and he demonstrates it in the accompanying video.
Yeah, but that is related to the photo being a rip off. Manipulating the bars in the tower would be even simpler.
With that background, it's apparent there should be enough parallax, even given the long distance to the subject due to the claimed distance between photographers to create a stereo pair using the two images (some photographers make hyper-stereo images of mountains and clouds). If one image were derived from the other, it should be obvious -- the differences between the images would only be skin deep, e.g. the waves in the foreground, the different position of the bars at the top of the tower, but the entire body of the wave would be identical.
Overlaying them and subtracting the difference, it can be seen that there are slight variations across the entire image, and when viewed as a stereo pair, there is an obvious stereo effect, the platform in front of the tower appears in space in front, the wave appears to wrap around the tower.
What we're left with is the story that these two photographers didn't coordinate their images. I see no reason to disbelieve this. Like was stated elsewhere in this thread, the title is incorrect and the images weren't taken the same millisecond, so that makes the story less remarkable.
Things move a lot in a millisecond, although it's certainly easier to see that in small-scale images rather than this lighthouse one. https://sib.smugmug.com/Sports/Baseball/SEA-DET/i-jhrMkC3/A This is a picture that I took in 2009; you can see the ball coming off Ken Griffey's bat after breaking it. A major league fastball comes off the bat at 100+ miles per hour (45 m / s). The shutter speed was 1/640s (about 1.5 m…
Nice example. To make your point clearer: that motion blur is how much the ball moved in just 1.5ms
And also why I was shooting with single shots to try to time the ball close to the bat. Given a camera that took about 5 frames per second (200msec between frames), the ball would move about 29 feet (8.8m) in between frames.
The breaking bat was a nice surprise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry but this is not coincidental or crazy in the slightest! You both snapped a picture of the sky minutes apart on your way home because the sky looked nice. Okay, so what? There is nothing unusual about that. The photos are different. Clouds in different positions, different focal length... I don't see "connected minds". I see "hey, cool sky" [whips out smartphone, snaps photo].
Compared to the source article, it's relatively mundane. I don't claim otherwise. I'm not a photographer. I don't claim to be. Maybe this event I experienced seems much more common for someone who describes themself with 'dev/design/photo/animation', but for me it seemed pretty unlikely. I don't take photos often (The last photo I took in my gallery of my smartphone is dated December 2017). The crazy thing for me and…
> I don't claim otherwise
You kind of did by making a web page called 'connected minds', saying "something crazy happened today", describing the photos as same clouds and "near identical", then sharing the link.
Be prepared for feedback when you do that! This isn't about me asserting myself as photographer in the room. We all carry cameras.
It sounds like you both live at same location, you were on way home, snapped photo of sky at similar times, as probably others in your neighborhood did. I'm not calling that "junk", I'm just not sure the claims you make equal the event! But let's move on.. all the best, take more photos! I checked out your homepage... Wow, now that is crazy! :)
Alternate title: two photographers learn about the birthday paradox...
Not really. The birthday paradox is a paradox because it describes a circumstance that seems unlikely but actually is not. In this case it both seems unlikely and IS unlikely. If it were not unlikely we would see it happen more often.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're missing the other dimension to this: it's not that two photographers took pictures at the exact same time, I'm sure that happens frequently. It's that they took the exact same picture. There were definitely not 10 trillion photos take of this lighthouse in new england.
They don't have to be photos of this lighthouse. Two photos of Old faithful showing the same spray and cloud patterns could be mistaken for copy's of each other. Another way of thinking about it, what are the odds that out of the ~1,000 photos taken of the same moment they are of the same subject? Now repeat that question 10 million times and the odds don't seem as low.