Nice. Interestingly though, even though it looks at first glance like it's partly hidden, there's probably a lot less hidden than you think. Refraction is significantly compressing the bottom part of the ship.
Drag slider to compare. I've lined it up with the tops of the masts which will have the least refraction.
This comparison thingy you did here is quite remarkable, Mick. When I first slid the bar back and forth, it was obvious a great difference was going on, especially with the compressed appearance of the distant ship on the left. I would never have picked that out without your sliding comparison feature!
I would like to point out two things perhaps significant:
First, in the photo on the right, a white spray is prominent under the bow where the ship is cutting through the water, whereas there is no hint of this white water plume in the left photo, therefore that much at least of the ship's hull has been obscured by the apparent curvature of the earth from the vantage point near the high tide elevation. Secondly, while the height of the ship in the two views appears noticeably different, nonetheless, their LENGTH is precisely the SAME. Plus, since the ship is sailing laterally, it would not have moved significantly further AWAY from shore in the time it took cloudspotter to walk up the hill 230 meters. Therefore, any difference in the appearance from one view to the other must be entirely due to the elevation of the viewer and not from the distance from the viewer to the ship.
After sliding the bar, the compression/distortion becomes easy to spot in the original photos. That's surprising how one's perception changes after seeing through a fancy viewer.
Consequently, whatever is lost by having "a lot less hidden" as you say, is more than made up for, by recognizing how much effect distortion has on views of ships from greater distance over large bodies of water.
ETA: In the distance, the horizon line on the distant sea is clearly seen BEHIND the ship, appearing appearing halfway up its bow from the waterline in the second photo, whereas in the first photo the horizon line is clearly in FRONT of the ship because it covers up the lowest part of the hull where the waterline is located.
A very informative post, and thanks as well to cloudspotter, who posted this. My only request now would be if cloudspotter could provide some additional information such as date of photos, temperature of the air (approx.) and perhaps time of day (maybe an approximation of the time between
photos, too?). Temp. of water would also be helpful, but who knows what the water temp would have been a mile out to sea or whatever it was. Oh, right, how far out to sea was the ship??
We already have the 230m walk and 25m climb from the topo map -- VERY NICE!