undefined

points

[-]

> This also applies for much shorter distances: despite what the publicity photos suggest, you can't see the Alps from Munich most of the time (or only as slightly darker shapes on the horizon)

You won't usually see them from the ground of course but from a couple floors up with a clear line of sight you do see them quite often.

by ofrzeta10 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

In the northwest of Munich we can see the alps quite often (around 100km from there), and sometimes they appear quite huge. It's due to the Föhn that makes the atmosphere act as a magnifying lens. Interestingly the explanation is not in the English Wikipedia

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%B6hn#Optischer_Vergr%C3%B...

Sure, you can see the mountains only as "slightly darker shapes" as the parent put it but you could identify individual summits I think.

by avisser11 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Putting on my pedantic hat, does this qualify as a picture of the mountains? As in, is there any light hitting the mountains, then hitting the film/sensor?

Or is this just an elaborate silhouette?

Is that a difference? I don't know.

by tshaddox10 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Is a silhouette not a "picture"? Perhaps "picture" isn't the best term to quibble over, since it is quite broad (arguably its primary use is referring to paintings or drawings).

But if we instead quibble over the term "photograph," I'd argue that a photograph of a silhouette of a mountain is absolutely a photograph of a mountain. Similarly, I'd argue that X-ray photography is indeed photography.

by bratbag10 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Its a really interesting question.

Lets take it to its farthest extent: can you take a picture of a black hole?

by tshaddox8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Or how about this: can you take a photograph of a shadow?

by ColinEberhardt11 hours ago|

prev|