Would you fire the person who did this?

No, I don't see it. But I don't know too much about Chrysler, so... ;)
I don't know about the car either. Still I caught the thing right away.

Maybe because of the text alignment? The "and $1000 in gas" seems to be shifted slightly to the right...

- petter

Aha, the shadow... Aha, good catch. :thumb: Hm... don't know if I would fire the one who did it... That means I could be fire for every bug I code. ;)

Yeah, the shadow does seem a little off in relation with the position of the sun... (good catch Guido, Sahir).

I probably would not fire the person right away. But if he has done such error(s) a lot of times, even after being advised about it.. then that's another story. ;)

But I guess you actually meant the direction / length of the car's shadow, right? ;)
Yep! That's it. Maybe I'm picky, but to me that's just dumb. It also seems to me that the person who did it just pasted a stock image into the scene. After all, I can't believe anyone would actually go about adding a shadow like that.

It's also just artwork. Not photographs. Cheap..

And yeah wildfrog, now that you mention it, the text does seem a little off too.

Perhaps the fault is that the car is a Mercedes E series?

Are you sure that this is the sun and not the moon behind the car? :D

And that the shadow is not the result of another source of light... ?

Seriously, I dont know how many others have experienced this - but, in Bombay, in many evenings I have often seen the Sun set and the moon rise (in the opposite side of course), with both being in full view.

I don't want to credit that graphic artist with too much scientific acumen, but - look, at least to his credit - the what-you-presume-is-sun isn't really Orange - is it? ;)

I wouldn't fire that guy for sure... In fact, I dont mind that image at all. It's just too different to be adjudged scientifically right or wrong - IMO.
I considered this of course. The thing is, the moon doesn't have such a glow, nor does it have the color of the sun. The moon would be more like a gray color, very faint, and the edge more defined. Plus since it's a daytime scene, it is implied to be the sun, not the moon. Seems to me it would be difficult if not impossible to have such a shadow no matter what second light source there might be. Any good photographer knows that multiple light sources help diminish shadows.

To me this one is more annoying than the ad posted ( see the jagged white edge circled )

Maybe that isn't a shadow. It could be an oil leak.

I considered this of course. The thing is, the moon doesn't have such a glow, nor does it have the color of the sun. Well, observe a sunset once more - you may note that the color of the sun at sunset time or sunrise time (which is the only time when the sun can be that low), isn't really close to that in the image. The moon would be more like a gray color, very faint, and the edge more defined. I've seen the sun set and the moon rise together such that a round, white ( :D ), and bright moon exists in full view on the opposite side of the setting sun.

Plus since it's a daytime scene This is a contradiction to your assumption that it is a sun.

If that were to be the Sun, it either had to be a dawn or dusk shot.
Any good photographer knows that multiple light sources help diminish shadows.Even without knowing photography someone might tell you that the point you make suits that source you called as the Sun to be interpreted as the moon, and there was another source that cast the shadow but is not visible in the picture. The presence of this other more powerful source (at the object) diminished the shadow of what you called the Sun. ;)

I do know that even the headlamps of a car are more than enough to make the shadow cast by the moon invisible to the human eye such that one sees only the shadow cast by the headlamps as if the other source of light didn't exist. Besides, one doesn't need to know photography to understand shadow-physics. ;) A child is familiar with his shadow first and camera next. :D

Last but not the least, I am not one in favour of subjecting artistry to 3rd degree scientific perfection. If you scrutinize paintings - especially still-life by extremely famous artists - you be surprised to find shadow defects aplenty. Ditto for interpretation of one.

I am all OK with the idea that the artist has captured the scene of that car on a planet which is not the Earth, or even in an Universe where Shadows are cast next to the object and not behind it. :D

The thing of primary importance to me is that he's chosen the right car... A goof up on this count would be a more serious issue in my eyes.

Well, observe a sunset once more - you may note that the color of the sun at sunset time or sunrise time (which is the only time when the sun can be that low), isn't really close to that in the image. I've seen the sun set and the moon rise together such that a round, white ( :D ), and bright moon exists in full view on the opposite side of the setting sun.

Agreed, which is why it's implied to be daytime.

This is a contradiction to your assumption that it is a sun.

:ehh: ...well, it ain't no moon I ever saw, and what I'm referring to is the fact that the scene is brightly illuminated - moreso than dusk or dawn, which would also show the sun's gleam in the water. Sure, the sun is too low for mid-day, which one might suggest is yet another flaw!

If that were to be the Sun, it either had to be a dawn or dusk shot.
Even without knowing photography someone might tell you that the point you make suits that source you called as the Sun to be interpreted as the moon, and there was another source that cast the shadow but is not visible in the picture. The presence of this other more powerful source (at the object) diminished the shadow of what you called the Sun. ;)

Again, it is IMPLIED to be the sun.

I do know that even the headlamps of a car are more than enough to make the shadow cast by the moon invisible to the human eye such that one sees only the shadow cast by the headlamps as if the other source of light didn't exist. Besides, one doesn't need to know photography to understand shadow-physics. ;) A child is familiar with his shadow first and camera next. :D

There is no other light source expected in such a scene. That's really the point. It's not what might be possible under the known laws of physics, but what the target audience expects.

Last but not the least, I am not one in favour of subjecting artistry to 3rd degree scientific perfection. If you scrutinize paintings - especially still-life by extremely famous artists - you be surprised to find shadow defects aplenty. Ditto for interpretation of one.

I guess the art you speak of is not supposed to be a perfect reflection of reality. But in the case of the ad in question, it's supposed to be a real car on a real beach, etc, etc. It's supposed to be something the audience can relate to, and would want.

I am all OK with the idea that the artist has captured the scene of that car on a planet which is not the Earth, or even in an Universe where Shadows are cast next to the object and not behind it. :D

See above. It's implied to be Earth as well.