Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Real or Photoshop?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
Fast shutter speed = no blur.
 
sstearns2 said:
Looks like it's exactly at the height it would be in the landing gear were down. I vote photoshop.

Scott
Click to expand...
Photoshop, I did the same thing to a picture of a Lear 35 about 10 years ago, looked identical...
 
Even with an extreme shutter speed, the photographer would have to pan to get the shot. That would blur the background regardless of shutter speed.
 
Draginass said:
Even with an extreme shutter speed, the photographer would have to pan to get the shot. That would blur the background regardless of shutter speed.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly.
 
My vote is for photoshop. I dont even think the engines are running. No heat blur coming out of the back. I'd imagine that stripe on the taxiway directly behind the exhaust wouldnt even be visable let alone how sharp it looks in the picture.
 
Last edited:
Falcon Capt said:
Plus, do you realize how fast he'd have to be going to maintain level flight at that deck angle???

Photoshop, no doubt!
Click to expand...

That's the first thing I noticed. AOA approaching zero lift AOA. Either that, or he's still descending (YIKES!), or, like you said, flying at a heck of an IAS. I looked at a picture of another Su-30, and that appears to be the appropriate deck angle for landing gear, as well as ground clearance. Also, why would he have the refuelling probe out for a high speed pass?

Note that this low-flying SU-30 has a noticeably higher AOA.

http://www.cvl.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~kazmi/mil/tniau/Sukhoi/su-30_01.jpg

Put me in as a vote for Photoshop.
 
Last edited:
So LucyFurr...

You got banned as RJDC. I see you are back posting as one of your usernames that ISN'T currently banned...unlike the ones that ARE:

TheGuat, Rhoid, IHaveAPension, E170GuppyKiller, TheGuppyKiller, GuppyKiller, FreightNazi, TheMissingLink, OUT, 410Dude, EasyMac...
 
Being the great dissenter and devil's advocate sometimes, I'll just chime in with...hard to tell. All we can do is assume that it's photo-shop. Although I do lean with you guys, I wouldn't bet money that the picture is or is not real...not enough evidence either way.

I would have to say more proof would be needed to say it is real photo and not a fake, if I was on a jury.
 
He could be doing a low pass over a runway that is closer to the camera than the one in the shot. That would be very unlikely though, as it would have to be a huge coincidence that there's a dark spot (or another, higher, airplane's shadow) right across from it, looking like it's its real shadow.

But... if it really is doing that low pass "as intended to be seen," it would seem like the shadow would need a much higher definition, rather than a general blob. Look at the plane in the background on the ground... you can see that there is no shadow between the wing and the HS. So, if it's that low and has that level of clarity, then we should reasonably expect that the one in the air (being equally low) to have an equal level of clarity.
 
If it is a photo on airliners.net you can take it to the bank that it is real. Those photos are the most scrutinized in the world. The shadow is correct under the aircraft and there is no indication of any photoshop work done to the photo even when I adjust the levels, and brightness/contrast in photoshop. There was no gear removed, that is sure. Besides, look what the plane is over. If he had the gear out the right main would be in the grass. I know russian planes are tough but I doubt they taxi around like that. Also if you compare it to other photos you can see that he is slightly too high to have the gear out anyway. He is just a few feet higher than other photos of these planes taxiing around. Also to me, he looks to be slightly pitched up when compared to taxiing. I vote real!
 
Photoshop...if engines are running (and at high thrust) why no heat distortion on the area aft of the exhaust.
 
tej823 said:
Photoshop...if engines are running (and at high thrust) why no heat distortion on the area aft of the exhaust.
Click to expand...

I think that totally depends on lighting conditions and a host of other photographic factors relating to lenses, focal distance, etc. I probably can't even think of.
 
tej823 said:
Photoshop...if engines are running (and at high thrust) why no heat distortion on the area aft of the exhaust.
Click to expand...

If the photoshopper can remove the landing gear and make it look THAT good, you better believe they would have blurred the area behind the engines. That's a pretty hefty detail to overlook when you're that talented at photoshop.
 
Found on the web (it must be true)- apparently this same pilot is the one who flew his jet through the Tianman Cave the same weekend. I remember somewhere on this site I saw a thread where someone mentioned tickets were being sold to watch that. I wanna see a picture of that!

http://www.szed.com/szdaily/20060322/ca2232823.htm


Actually I found other news reports that said they gave it up and didn't fly through the hole. Couldn't get it up I guess.
 
Last edited:
I vote photoshop. If I was gonna beat up some airfield at 300kts, you'd better believe I'd be right over the centerline of the runway. Looks like he's taxiing in a two ship formation. (Thus the offset.)

Perhaps some of the large watch/larger ego/questionable genitalia size fighter dudes would care to pipe in.
 
I can agree with comments made by all of you guys...the comment on the shadow, the comments on whether the photo or the background would be blurred, the comment on whether or not the landing gear would be in the dirt, the comment on whether or not there would be a heat signature, the comment made by F9 Buff about adjusting the levels when he/she viewed the picture.

I believe that all of those points are valid arguments as to whether or not the picture is real or altered.
 
Falcon Capt said:
The horizontal stab is in a "nose down" position... Like a relaxed, stick forward of neutral position...

This is fake...
Click to expand...

You're assuming the Sukhoi's stabilator has a traditional mode of operation. On the F-16 for instance, the stabilator with a trailing edge deflected up is actually nose down due to some combination of CG and aerodynamics. (Correct me if I'm wrong here fellas, but I'm pretty certain.)
 
LJDRVR said:
You're assuming the Sukhoi's stabilator has a traditional mode of operation. On the F-16 for instance, the stabilator with a trailing edge deflected up is actually nose down due to some combination of CG and aerodynamics. (Correct me if I'm wrong here fellas, but I'm pretty certain.)
Click to expand...
I'd have to go back and look at the picture again, but if you're fighting ground effect, you'd have a "nose down" stab effect. Plus, if you were taxiing, you'd have the same thing, if your hand wasn't on the yoke, stick or whatever.
 
FN FAL said:
I'd have to go back and look at the picture again, but if you're fighting ground effect, you'd have a "nose down" stab effect. Plus, if you were taxiing, you'd have the same thing, if your hand wasn't on the yoke, stick or whatever.
Click to expand...

I have no idea if the Sukhoi's stabilator is reversed like the F-16, I'm saying any use of that parameter as a tool to authenticate this picture had best be left up to somebody who understands fighter aerodynamics. (Not me)

My point is there's more than meets the eye.
 
LJDRVR said:
I have no idea if the Sukhoi's stabilator is reversed like the F-16, I'm saying any use of that parameter as a tool to authenticate this picture had best be left up to somebody who understands fighter aerodynamics. (Not me)

My point is there's more than meets the eye.
Click to expand...
I agree...for the first time in FI history, I agree with all of you dudes. Take a poloroid. :laugh:
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

SS at RC.PNG
Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom