Fake Pic off airliners.net??

[nptguy]

Something doesn't look right with this pic off of airliners.net.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=575318

 

[ShawnC]

If you look at his other photos, he likes to take pictures from airplanes, so it could in real if you factor in perspective.

 

[EMBATP]

i actually flew with this guy not too long ago. he does take pics from a cessna 150 i believe. someone else flys while he takes the pics. he says he does get a lot of crap about his pics being real. send him a message and he will tell you how he does it.

 

[52Vincent]

It is not as strange as it seems. He is more than likely flying through the VFR Corridor over LAX. It is more of a matter of timing than anything, he has to be over the airport at the time a plane is departing, and considering it is LAX even that should not be a problem.

 

[AxisVDP]

i actually flew with this guy not too long ago. he does take pics from a cessna 150 i believe. someone else flys while he takes the pics. he says he does get a lot of crap about his pics being real. send him a message and he will tell you how he does it.

That's because he posts pictures like these that look pretty fake... Link

 

[Swass]

What looks fake about those?

 

[pilot141]

This one of an AA MD-80 looks fake. The shadow on the ground looks like it was Photoshopped in to make the aircraft appear lower than it actually is.

 

[U-I pilot]

i could say the same about your avatar except for it is low.....probably like the actual plane in the picture is

 

[Pilot124]

Swass

That picture of that cat creeps me out...

 

[Timebuilder]

All you need to take pictures like this is enough light and a long lens.

When you use a long, or "telephoto" lens, you get a very "deep" depth of filed. This means that the range of distance from your camera that is "in focus" can be many thousands of feet. The other aspect of camera setting that affects this depth of field is the aperature setting, or "F-stop". If you have insufficient light, and are forced to use a lower F-number, depth of field can be compromised. Lots of light allows you to use a high number, like F-22, and supports a very large focal range.

All this means is that all objects in the range are sharply in focus, and they appear to be within a few feet of each other. This is an optical illusion caused by the tremendous depth of field.

You or I can take pictures just like these. All you need is the right equipment and a little experience.

 

[ShawnC]

Actually Timebuilder it's the opposite, the longer the lens the smaller the depth of field at the same f-stop.

That's why those digicams even at full zoom and smallest f-stop (well at least on the ones that you can control stuff like that) have huge depth of field, because in reality their lens is 30mm.

 

[Jedi_Cheese]

If there are shadows, you can check to see if they all line up. His two oldest pictures look like the aircraft shadow and the object on the ground shadows don't match up (IMHO, I suck at this technique [sp?]). Adding a shadow of an airplane is easy, getting the shadows to line up is a bitch.

 

[PA28/C172 Flyer]

Why did the Beech Starship fail ?

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=540580

 

[Jedi_Cheese]

Noone bought them (from airliners.net). I was wondering the same thing, those look like pretty neat aircraft.

My major questions are who owns them, are they willing to be sold, how much would they go for, and since it is a very limited production run how much would maintence cost (arm and leg, soul, fabricate parts from scratch, ect?)?

 

[dmspilot00]

Why did the Beech Starship fail ?

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=540580

From Avweb, April 5 2004:

Last year [Raytheon] decided support for the fleet of 50 Starships was too costly and offered owners a King Air in exchange. Raytheon is now the registered owner of 41 of those aircraft but spokesman Tim Travis said his understanding is that there are only six private owners who intend to keep flying their Starships and one of them might be waffling.

 

[Timebuilder]

Actually Timebuilder it's the opposite, the longer the lens the smaller the depth of field at the same f-stop.

That's why those digicams even at full zoom and smallest f-stop (well at least on the ones that you can control stuff like that) have huge depth of field, because in reality their lens is 30mm.

At the same F-stop, yes.

However, with enough light for a high number, like F/22, the depth of field is literally thousands of feet.

I wasn't comparing the telephoto to a normal lens. Sorry if I failed to make that clear. You'll always get teriffic depth of field with a short lens, but plenty of light and a telephoto tends to compress reality and make objects behind the object of interest appear very close to that object, like the ground appearing to be really close to the airplane. In that situation, you have plenty of depth to capture the airplane and the ground or runway hundreds of feet below it.

 

[VNugget]

I am usually the last person to start picking apart photos, and this horse seems to have been beaten pretty close to death, but... why would the shadow of the MD-80 be pitch black like that?

 

[Timebuilder]

On a really BRIGHT day, with a couldless sky over desert terrain on the approach, we could be too busy squinting from all the brighness of light to see much of anything. In a photo, everything is less "bright." Grays become much darker as everything else becomes much darker throughout the picture.

You can try this for yourself by going outside on a bright afternoon, and then looking at some shadows for detail. Then darken everything a little by putting on a pair of sunglasses. Suddenly, the shadows seem VERY dark.

 

[TRLpilot]

i think the shadow is so dark because he likely had the shutter speed turned up to real fast (1/1000) to eliminate shake from the plane and long lens, and thus the darker areas didn't have time to develop on the film. it's hard to get anything to appear in shadows when you are setting your aperture and speed for the sunny/bright areas.

 

[Timebuilder]

You are correct. Thank you.

It has been a very long time since I picked up the old Nikon, and everything now has auto shutter speeds and aperature.

Good point.