Steve'sDigicams

In search of Syd · Mar 22, 2006, 7:07 PM

It seems perfectly clear that the legs are under the water causing the refraction and thus making the leg appear bent. I can also clearly see the water line. However, they are just as clearly not in the water for all the reasons given by Tigger. I think this is a bit of an enigma and believe the truth lies in the missing feet. :?

Looks pretty hot!

johnsonM86 · Mar 22, 2006, 8:40 PM

lol

JunixRose · Mar 22, 2006, 9:29 PM

To me it looks like the leg is underwater.
1) Water doesn't have to have ripples if it is moving or in a meniscus. See Breaking Point.
2&3) This assumes that the water has a flat surface. With waves such as that clearly breaking over his rear knee the water can be over one leg and yet under the other. The wave hasn't reached the fore leg yet.
4) Yes, his leg is straight. No question there.
5) See rear knee. Breaking crest over the knee. Lower leg could be already under the flow as it cascades down over the leg.
6) I personally can't see any droplets on the rear leg yet I can on the front leg. Further evidence of the two being different. Also, droplets could be the leading edge of the falling breaker over the leg if they were dynamic droplets and not staticly clung.

Either way it doesn't really matter. The image conveys the atmosphere quite while. Cloning out the swimmers was good but I'd leave the boat. The legs are very distracting so unless you want an odd anatomical photo I'd crop out the oddage. There already aren't feet...

Nate

VAtechtigger · Mar 22, 2006, 10:09 PM

ahh forget it......

Aumma45 · Mar 22, 2006, 10:50 PM

I am in with Tiger; those legs might be in the water but not clearly under the water.:G. Surely we don't need a microscope to see that.

Regards.

Jaki

DomCotton · Mar 23, 2006, 2:51 AM

This is so funny! I am so sorry Mike... didn't intend to hijack your thread with a discussion about physics!

So his legs MUST be underwater causing the refraction - I am sure if they weren't then Mike would have told us that his bro has a double-jointed knee and can bend his leg at an ackward angle whilst at the same time caning two coronas!

:?

In search of Syd · Mar 23, 2006, 3:06 AM

I agree with Dustin's comments below.

(hoping he returns soon). :-)

VAtechtigger · Mar 23, 2006, 10:19 AM

Dear god johnson I impolore you to upload a full res version of this photo somewhere before I pull my hair out so we can prove the laws of physics are not being violated in mexico.

frenchy · Mar 23, 2006, 11:12 AM

Are NOT!

frenchy · Mar 23, 2006, 11:13 AM

(under the water, that is!)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Mar 22, 2006, 7:07 PM	#21
In search of Syd Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 1,657	It seems perfectly clear that the legs are under the water causing the refraction and thus making the leg appear bent. I can also clearly see the water line. However, they are just as clearly not in the water for all the reasons given by Tigger. I think this is a bit of an enigma and believe the truth lies in the missing feet. :? Looks pretty hot!

Mar 22, 2006, 8:40 PM	#22
johnsonM86 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 723	lol

Mar 22, 2006, 9:29 PM	#23
JunixRose Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 155	To me it looks like the leg is underwater. 1) Water doesn't have to have ripples if it is moving or in a meniscus. See Breaking Point. 2&3) This assumes that the water has a flat surface. With waves such as that clearly breaking over his rear knee the water can be over one leg and yet under the other. The wave hasn't reached the fore leg yet. 4) Yes, his leg is straight. No question there. 5) See rear knee. Breaking crest over the knee. Lower leg could be already under the flow as it cascades down over the leg. 6) I personally can't see any droplets on the rear leg yet I can on the front leg. Further evidence of the two being different. Also, droplets could be the leading edge of the falling breaker over the leg if they were dynamic droplets and not staticly clung. Either way it doesn't really matter. The image conveys the atmosphere quite while. Cloning out the swimmers was good but I'd leave the boat. The legs are very distracting so unless you want an odd anatomical photo I'd crop out the oddage. There already aren't feet... Nate

Mar 22, 2006, 10:09 PM	#24
VAtechtigger Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 570	ahh forget it......

Mar 22, 2006, 10:50 PM	#25
Aumma45 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,940	I am in with Tiger; those legs might be in the water but not clearly under the water.:G. Surely we don't need a microscope to see that. Regards. Jaki

Mar 23, 2006, 2:51 AM	#26
DomCotton Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 490	This is so funny! I am so sorry Mike... didn't intend to hijack your thread with a discussion about physics! So his legs MUST be underwater causing the refraction - I am sure if they weren't then Mike would have told us that his bro has a double-jointed knee and can bend his leg at an ackward angle whilst at the same time caning two coronas! :?

Mar 23, 2006, 3:06 AM	#27
In search of Syd Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 1,657	I agree with Dustin's comments below. (hoping he returns soon). :-)

Mar 23, 2006, 10:19 AM	#28
VAtechtigger Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 570	Dear god johnson I impolore you to upload a full res version of this photo somewhere before I pull my hair out so we can prove the laws of physics are not being violated in mexico.

Mar 23, 2006, 11:12 AM	#29
frenchy Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 466	Are NOT!

Mar 23, 2006, 11:13 AM	#30
frenchy Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 466	(under the water, that is!)