Can someone explain how this pic was taken? [Archive]

akerosid

18th Aug 2004, 19:28

As ETOPS says, these photos were taken from a light aircraft, flying over LAX.

If you look in A.net under the name of Sam Chui, you'll find more photos like this, but WOW - this one is breathtaking! I'm sure there are others from Mr. Warner as well.

Just goes to show that no matter how much airport & aviation security tries to suppress it (not that they're going to have much luck at 2,000'!), there will always be a passion for aircraft photography as long as there are aircraft. :ok:

IDENTING

18th Aug 2004, 20:39

Who cares how it was taken! its a truely awesome photo and can only help strengthen our passion for aviation. Thanks for pointing it out, who knows when i would have fallen apon that corker!

av8boy

19th Aug 2004, 04:06

I believe this is a perspective/distortion issue. Once upon a time I knew a lot more about barrel and pincushion distortion, among other things... :( The clue for me was that, in photographs, generally, things that are closer to the camera look larger. However, the runway behind the aircraft appears wider than that in the foreground. For grins I threw it into PhotoShop just to see what it would look like if I altered the perspective and made the runway in the background narrower than the runway in the foreground. Here's what I got:

http://www.aviationpolicy.org/jal_lax_perspective.jpg

Looks more like a "normal" departure.

Note that I'm not a PhotoShop pro, nor am I current on distortion issues. Also, the aircraft doesn't come out of this transformation looking quite right. Still, I think that two things are important to keep in mind:

1. It is highly unlikely that a 74 departing LAX had the sort of deck angle the one in the original image appears to have; and,
2. The look of the runway in the original image is not quite right.

This having been said, I am not implying the photo is faked (nor am I implying that it is not faked). I believe that it may be a trick of the lens. A stunning trick, yes. But a trick none-the-less.

Dave

dudduddud

19th Aug 2004, 05:26

1 000 points for Dave

The only way this shot would be possible is if the camera (and the Jumbojet) had become upside down.

Compared with Dave's version, looking at the original too long makes me feel kinda queezy.

av8boy

19th Aug 2004, 07:08

Actually, no points for Dave. I am too stupid for words, and dudduddud, I am very sorry to have dragged you into this as well.

I was toying with the image some more, and I tried flipping it one way and another... then something caught my eye: I had flipped it upside down and backwards, and even though I was looking at the picutre from the other side (that is, as if I'd turned my monitor upside down), the wider part of the runway still appeared at the top of the photo! In other words, whether I had the image facing as it originally was, or whether it was upside down, the wider part of the runway still appeared to be at the top of the frame, regardless of whether the top of the frame was in front of or behind the aircraft. OK. That's clear as mud. Here's the illustration. The two red lines are exactly the same length:

http://www.aviationpolicy.org/jallax1.jpg

So, remember how I went on about how things that were closer to the camera appeared larger. Well, yeah. Just like in this picture. Please. Somebody print the picture and measure it. Check my work. The way I see it, the runway appears wider at the top of the frame, but when I measure it, it is wider at the bottom of the frame.

Somebody else can figure this out. I'm going to bed.

:(
Dave

PS For further research...

The aircraft in the image appears to be departing 25R at LAX. The taxiways in the frame are Papa and November. That's a 9,000 feet remaning marker in the foreground to the left side of the image--from where we're sitting that's 9,000 feet behind the aircraft, with roughly 3,000 in front of it (at Papa). The dots on the diagrams place the airframe on the airport, moving right to left (east to west).

http://www.aviationpolicy.org/jallax2.jpg
http://www.aviationpolicy.org/jallax3.jpg

There\'s more than one illusion at work here.

sheenboy

19th Aug 2004, 09:01

Thanks Dave and others for your excellent points on this.

I have suggested a few times on other forums that many photos being distributed around are subject to photoshop tinkering, but generally people want to believe they are real (often whipping themselves into a near-sexual frenzy in their praise of the pics).

Its interesting to note that the photographers of these 'spectacular photos' often have hundreds of 'spectacular photos' which makes me think they have got very skilled at photoshop trickery.....you can be lucky once or twice and get a great pic but not every single time....surely....:hmm:

On this particular photo, I would suggest that the plane wasn't ever even IN that background. Its been cut and pasted on maybe? We'll never know. But I'd really like to see more PPruners have a healthy degree of scepticism when leafing thru this stuff.

What next? Apparently there is a photo doing the rounds of a goat calmly grazing on the wing of a B744 (or a B742? not sure) at full cruising speed at 35,000 ft above the Moon. Oh and the goat looks a bit like Bill Gates. :)

MAN777

19th Aug 2004, 15:21

I think the photo is genuine for these reasons

To get "so close" a large focal lenght lens must have been used, i would suggest 400-600mm. The larger the focal lenght the higher the magnification. The larger the focal lenght the less distortion you get, as in this case there is very little if any perspective causing lines to diverge, hence the strange look to the runways.

High resolution digital cameras coupled with image stabilisation lenses are well capable of obtaining images like this without any photoshop tinkering.

BRISTOLRE

19th Aug 2004, 16:32

The angle of the B744 adjacent to the ground looks way too steep to be true. It looks as if the aircraft is almost going up vertically. This is in regards to the orig pic posted on airliners.net
The pic posted here above on the right looks more natural !

FOZ

19th Aug 2004, 21:49

If this were real, would their not be visible heat haze behind the 744?

Oshkosh George

19th Aug 2004, 21:55

Well,there IS visible heat haze if you look closely,but whether it's enough for the take-off phase,I wouldn't like to say.

My other thought was would they let an aircraft take off if there was a transit aircraft passing so close? Perhaps it was a planned shot,for advertising,for instance,or a TV programme?

jmc-man

19th Aug 2004, 22:19

For you doubting thomas's and particularly for SheenGimp,

Try THIS (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/565501/M/)

or

This (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/575318/M/)

and an explanation from Sam Chui himself ( all available on the other website)

We are flying on a published LAX shoreline corridor route at 3500 feet, with most planes departing LAX at quite a distance at 500 feet or so and restricted to 1000 feet...so in most danger case you have 2500 feet between you, and of course you're cleared by the LAX control from long beach or Santa Monica/Hawthorne....Just let your camera and lens (and the brain) do all the work. All about is LUCK, anyone can fly over LAX on the published track at anytime, but to catch a heavy plane departure is something you can't control.

and finally , a discussion

here (http://www.airliners.net/discussions/aviation_photography/read.main/135266)

av8boy

20th Aug 2004, 08:01

jmc-

I don't see your point...

Agreed: Hundreds of times each day, general aviation aircraft fly across LAX and are in a position over the 25s to take stunning photos. I spent a majority of my adult life working at two facilities "controlling" that airspace. Such flights are legal, approved, and commonplace.

Agreed: this gentleman says he took the photo and that he did not alter it. I agree that's what he says. Of course, "he" is under no obligation to tell the truth.

Our questions remain. Assuming it is authentic, what trick(s) of light would lead to a result like this one? I believe I speak for many when I say that I'd LOVE to find out that this thing was real. Prove it and help us understand the optics while you're at it.

Dave

sheenboy

20th Aug 2004, 08:25

Jmc-Gimp

Those additional photos look even more fake!

I actually don't have a personal crusade to prove all photos are fake, I was pointing out that many photos are.

Shame you go for name calling as a solution!

Cheers
SheenGimp :p

JimmyTAP

20th Aug 2004, 08:59

I actually don't have a personal crusade to prove all photos are fake, I was pointing out that many photos are.

You mean you think they are fake. What other photos do you think might be fake? Any unusual angles, lighting etc. Just because you don't understand how a picture is taken doesn't mean it's a fake.
Most people are impressed by the skill involved in getting such an image and are happy to accept that they are real.
I can imagine the photographers now, going to huge lengths and expense to get that "killer" image only to be accused of faking it by those whose photo skills are lacking in imagination or possibly non-existent

Signed,
JT, an irritated photographer

Iolar

20th Aug 2004, 09:12

Just a back of an envelope calculation...
If one assumes that the 747 in question has a pitch angle
shortly after roatation in the range 10-15 degrees, and we appear to be looking directly down the central axis of the aircraft, the photographer being in an aircraft at 3500 AGL then the approximate lateral distance from the 747 is 6-4 km approx(18000-12000 ft). 4 km from the rotation point puts the light aircraft more or less over the coastline.
Seems reasonable? or would one expect more camera shake over these distances?

MAN777

20th Aug 2004, 15:23

In response to the last bit of basic trigonometry, that does seem reasonable. I repeat my last posting, "modern digital cameras and stabilised large focal lenght lenses would not have any problem coping with this shot" Camera shake in good lighting conditions would not be an issue.

GearDown&Locked

20th Aug 2004, 17:07

My 2 cents, having worked for Nikon for 4 and half yrs...

For what I can see, and from a classic film camera point of view, this picture would be taken by a very large lens, maybe a 600mm or similar, with lots and lots of light (the sun is right above the photographer), resulting in a very closed diaphragm aperture (I would guess an 11 stop) which will focus both fore and background alike, and if the film was sensitive, say ASA 400, you could easily get a shutter speed of 500 or even 1000, that would freeze the image even sitting on a moving airplane, with the hands shaking.

You can obtain a visual effect like this using the right lens and the right light. The distortion of the picture is related to its quality. As you may know, the higher the lens focal distance, the lesser its picture quality, because the light has to cross a lot of glass until it reaches the film, and generally at greater focal distances the edges of the frame will be more magnified than the center.

You could have a good lens putting this view in the correct perspective, generally used in astronomy, the so called reflex lens, because of its mirror inside converging the light to a small number of glass lenses, but it would be 1st-very VERY expensive and 2nd- it would weight a ton and almost impossible to use, specially on board of a plane.

Those guys who know a bit more of photography, will notice this same effect on special cameras, like Hasselblad, that can tilt the lens according to the film plane, and for what purpose? For taking a picture of a building from the middle of the street but making the image look like it was taken from the middle of a building across the street, so the edges of the building look parallel. This is used allot by architects.

I would take a shot exactly like this using the following: Hasselblad Flex Body camera + Carl Zeiss Telephoto lens + Asa 200 film. No kidding.

Just edited to say that the Nikon D100, used by the photographer in question, with a 500mm or 600mm would have make the same effect, not by intentional camera ajusting, but for lens poor quality. :E

GD&L

simon brown

22nd Aug 2004, 10:44

Forget lense lengths, picture quality, hand shake etc , it a simple fake which can be demonstrated by scribbling on a pice of paper. Its simply down to perspective which is NOT compromised by shutter speed, film quality etc.The comparison AV8 boy did bears this one out of a comparison of how it should have looked.The runway lines are very almost parallel.Why arent the eliptical markings very close to the side of the runway nearly circular?( assuming they are circles of course). Funny how the elipses are the same in each photo...

Take a piece of paper, draw 2 long parallel lines and draw some circles down the side.........view from 80 or so degrees and you will NOT see the sort of eliplical distortion as displayed on the fake photos.The perspective has been selectively changed.

This photograph implies LAX is flat but the runway has a down gradient of 40 deg or so...

I'd say the photo JMC man highlights is an original. We are off to the left of the runway therefore you dont get such a tendency for the runway edges to converge. The aircraft is more af a planform than a head on view as before.

Notso Fantastic

22nd Aug 2004, 10:58

Excellent analysis AV8- it was obvious extensive use of distortion was made by Photoshop, so what this photographer has produced is not a 'picture', but a distorted work of art not belonging in Airliners.net. Unlike architects who try and correct for distortion to make things look like they should in real life, he intentionally distorted one of his pictures to produce 'artwork'.
SB, the 'ellipses', I assume you mean curved runway/taxiway edges only underwent a tiny bit of expansion/compression depending on height from the bottom of the picture, so there would not be much change in shape. I think tghe picture is a genuine photograph unfortunately spoilt by the photographer himself. There is a VFR lane to the west of LAX as far as I remember- the 747 would have a pitch angle of 10-15 degrees. From the quality of the picture it would seem to be a high strength good quality telephoto picture undergoing extreme distortion.

simon brown

22nd Aug 2004, 11:31

There was some distortion of the taxi way markings agreed , but not enough to imply differences between 30 deg and 80 deg..Try it draw a circle and view it from different angles. That image was not captured on his film in his camera. Its interesting that people immediately commented on the subject matter, ie a " Whats a 747 doing at that angle of climb".Had it been a photograph of an F15, no one would have questioned the dodgy perspective and this thread would have been quite short, because we all know F15s are capable of climbing out at these sorts of angles.

Its preying on what is being shown and what ones actual experiences/perceptions are, ie 747s dont climb at that angle.

This is how all optical illusions work to a certain extent.

Smoketoomuch

22nd Aug 2004, 14:57

SB sez;
"Its simply down to perspective which is NOT compromised by shutter speed, film quality etc"
"Try it draw a circle and view it from different angles. That image was not captured on his film in his camera"

You make the mistake of assuming the camera sees what the human eye sees, and it most definitely does not. You cannot recreate the perspective of a photograph by merely drawing lines on a piece of paper and viewing them at different angles.

Without getting into the fake/real argument;
Long telephoto lenses distort one thing above all others and that is perspective. They foreshorten the image and make near and distant objects appear much closer together. A 400mm lens might make things appear 12X bigger, but they also make near and distant objects appear 12 times closer together - if we could see all the LAX runway in the photo then the foreshortening would trick our eyes and brain into thinking it wasn't 12,000 ft. long but a mere 1000 ft, although our knowledge tends to override the urge to fall for this illusion if we have the 'whole picture' as it were.

Try to ignore the background in the picture for a second, and just look at the aircraft. It is heading straight for the camera and without the background you have absolutely no idea how high the nose is, the only thing that gives you any clue whatsoever to the nose up angle is the background, but remember, you are seeing a heavily distorted background due to the foreshortening of the long lens, and it is this that makes it seem much more nose up than it is in reality. The section of runway visible in the photo might be 1000 ft long, but it 'appears' to be less than 100 ft. long due to the distorted perspective. Your brain subconsciously does the trigonometry and arrives at an estimate for the nose up angle, but it's making that calculation on seriously flawed data.

If we do the real trigonometry we can work out how much your brain is being deceived by. A bit of basic trigonometry gives you the 'apparent' nose up angle if you reduce the 'apparent' horizontal distance by a factor of 12, and it has a huge effect - i.e. a 10 degree nose up angle suddenly becomes an 65 degree apparent nose up angle [from opposite/adjacent = tan]. In reality the effect will be slightly less pronounced because the vertical distances are distorted too, albeit to a lesser extent, but I find it quite believable that a long lens could make 10° look more like 60 or so.

Notso Fantastic

22nd Aug 2004, 17:55

However you look at it, the red bars in the picture by AV8boy show that some impossible perspective is involved. No amount of foreshortening in a telephoto can actually make the runway further away wider than nearer, as the red bars show. He has overcooked his perspective adjustment in Photoshop! It is therefore a 'fake' picture!

simon brown

22nd Aug 2004, 18:04

Thats as it may be smokey, but how do you account for what appears to be selective distortion. If viewed from almost 80 deg above those circles should be almost circlular and not elipses indicating a narrower angle. I cant believe a lense is capable of this sort of distortion of a selective basis by paralleling up the runway as if from above but ignoring the other markings.If you look at the runway edge it looks a bit bold and contrived to me as well

"You cannot recreate the perspective of a photograph by merely drawing lines on a piece of paper and viewing them at different angles."

Of course you can .What do you think LAX is when viewed from above. A series of lines and circles.....same principles of perspective apply

I agree with Not so ..Its been fiddled with

Smoketoomuch

22nd Aug 2004, 18:48

Notso sez;
"No amount of foreshortening in a telephoto can actually make the runway further away wider than nearer, as the red bars show"

Err, unless I'm mistaken (which is perfectly possible after staring at the damn thing for so long) the red bars show the runway to be wider at the bottom of the photo than they are at the top? i.e. the perspective is not impossible. A very rough measurement on my screen shows the runway to be about 10% wider at the bottom than the top

SB sez'
"those circles should be almost circlular"
Don't know about that, I'm limiting myself to trying to explain the apparent nose up angle, and use of a long lens could easily explain it.

"Of course you can .What do you think LAX is when viewed from above. A series of lines and circles.....same principles of perspective apply"

Indeed, but they look very different when viewed through different lenses, i.e. human eye versus telephoto.

I'm not saying the picture is genuine or fake, just that its major apparent anomaly is explainable.

Notso Fantastic

22nd Aug 2004, 19:46

Yes- you're absolutely right. I saw it wrong. I shall shutdown for the night whilst I rewire my brain circuits...........

JamesT73J

22nd Aug 2004, 20:20

These pictures have become increasingly trendy from LAX recently. This isn't the first - a few have done it. Light aircraft in the corridor over LAX, and lucky timing.

It's not faked.

stagger

22nd Aug 2004, 20:24

Notso wrote...However you look at it, the red bars in the picture by AV8boy show that some impossible perspective is involved. No amount of foreshortening in a telephoto can actually make the runway further away wider than nearer, as the red bars show. He has overcooked his perspective adjustment in Photoshop! It is therefore a 'fake' picture!

Err...haven't you misread AV8boy's post. Didn't he conclude in the end that although the runway looked wider at the top of the photo it is actually wider at the bottom of the photo. That's what the equal length red lines show.

GearDown&Locked

23rd Aug 2004, 09:16

There are only 2 ways of looking at this picture:
- It has been "worked", and if so, this discussion on "How this picture was taken" is useless, period.
-It's real, and if so, it’s possible and feasible to do it again.

Relying on this last assumption, and given the equipment that was said to have been used, a Nikon D100, I say again that was a smart way of taking advantage of a lens distortion error. The D100 is a digital camera capable of using normal/old film camera lenses, and with its 6 megapix CCD, the picture quality is very good, almost as good as its film equivalent (the Nikon F80) with the same lens attached. It can take pictures at a max shutter speed of 1/4000 sec's, more than sufficient to freeze any high speed movement. It’s capable of predicting the focus adjustment, due to object's movement, in a split second. It can calculate the necessary diaphragm aperture, based on the lens type, shutter speed and light measured on a 5 zone sensor across the picture area. Its one very "smart" machine that even knows which way is up. But it surely can't correct telephoto lens edge distortion problems. And if it’s a zoom type lens, the distortion problem is even greater, with distorted colors as well.

So IMHO, this is clearly a case of someone who knows he's equipment limitations/possibilities, and takes all advantage of this knowledge to produce an excellent eye-catching picture.:ok:

GD&L

av8boy

23rd Aug 2004, 16:09

Didn't he conclude in the end that although the runway looked wider at the top of the photo it is actually wider at the bottom of the photo. That's what the equal length red lines show. Yup. That's what I was trying to show. Also, don't forget the part where I'm too stupid for words, having initially assumed that it was the other way round... :(

I do, however, stand firm in my desire to KNOW that the photo is real, and to gain a full understanding of why it looks the way it does. I didn't spend all that time with the image because I wanted to debunk it. Whether or not I came across as doing-so, I really did give the poster the benefit of the doubt. Having done that, I simply wanted to understand it. I am thankful that this discussion is fleshing-out the subject.

Of course, WANTING the danged thing to be "real" doesn't make it so.

I'd also hasten to add that photographers should not become defensive on the basis of this discussion. The question here remains limited to this one photo. Is it real, and if so, why does it look that way? Draw me a picture. Let's hear more about the altitude of the photographer, the angle of the shot, the geography of the airport, and why the equipment made the image look this way.

JamesT73J

23rd Aug 2004, 19:19

The image was taken with a Canon D60 (digital SLR) with a 100-400 L IS lens. The lens is image stabilised, that is, one of the lens groups is gyro-stabilised to minimise the effect of camera shake. Aperture was 7.1 shutter speed 1/640sec and focal length was at 400mm. Continuous drive was used (click-click-click) so it's likely it will have been the best of several frames.

Yes it was a shoreside flyby.

Discussion thread is here:

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/aviation_photography/read.main/144989/

With regard to the aircraft pointing straight at the camera, don't forget that zoom lenses will distort distance. The 747 is probably much higher than it looks.

Cheers

James

MichaelJP59

24th Aug 2004, 08:18

I'd note some points (great photo BTW):-

- I've flown this corridor in a Cessna 172 and it is a very nice route for sightseeing. Perfect timing for this shot though as there is no way you can circle until a heavy lifts off!

- because of the angle of attack during the initial high drag/lift phase of take-off, although it looks as though the 744 is headed straight for us, it's actually going to pass well under us.

- it must be an extremely long lens to remove all perspective foreshortening on the runway. The only thing I don't understand how the top of the runway can be wider than the bottom, it must be some effect of the lens optics at that focal length.

- Michael

JimmyTAP

24th Aug 2004, 09:24

The only thing I don't understand how the top of the runway can be wider than the bottom, it must be some effect of the lens optics at that focal length.

It isn't. It just looks wider. See post about 2 pages ago with the red lines on it.

JT

MichaelJP59

24th Aug 2004, 09:31

It isn't. It just looks wider. See post about 2 pages ago with the red lines on it.

Thanks - it's like one of those line illusions, e.g.

http://www.webdeveloper.com/design/images/illusions.gif

- Michael

down&out

25th Aug 2004, 10:57

Don't know how I quite ended up here...

But this had me intrigued. So I thought a quick way to see if its just down to the telephoto lens is to try it on MS FS200x. Setup the t/o paused at the right point after wheels off and moved the spotter a/c to the right place and BINGO. Worked like a dream.

On zoom in I've recreated the picture, on zoom-out everything looks normal (and angle of rotation of the 744 is normal - approx 10-12 degrees)

Now I can take some screen shots to show this, but don't have the webspace to host them (or then know how to get them on here) so if anyone is still bothered pm me and I send them to you.

PS I was lucky enough to rent & fly round the Socal area a couple of years ago, including over LAX - the views are truly fantastic

av8boy

25th Aug 2004, 16:28

down&out...

PM me if you'd like me to host the pics. I'll message you back with my email address and then post them here.

Dave

av8boy

25th Aug 2004, 18:08

Here are the pics to which down&out referred. I wish I could take credit for them, but, of course, I can't! I'm a little miffed that it never occurred to me to try this in FS... :( Nicely done!

I'll let down&out explain. I've numbered the shots in the same way he did for reference...

Slide 1:
http://www.aviationpolicy.org/perspective/Slide1.jpg
Slide 2:
http://www.aviationpolicy.org/perspective/Slide2.jpg
Slide 3:
http://www.aviationpolicy.org/perspective/Slide3.jpg

Dave

Tim Zukas

25th Aug 2004, 18:39

So what's the assumed altitude for the photographer's aircraft in the FS pics? How far offshore-- or how far from the end of the runway?

down&out

26th Aug 2004, 07:31

Sorry no reply last night - I was out on the razz :O

The 744 was frozen in the same place for all three shots.

In Slides 1 &2 the spotter a/c is also frozen in the same location. I tried to get the spotter a/c as near to the shoreline route as poss, but was limited by what FS would allow. This meant that it was probably 1000' inland from the shore and at alt 2500'.

Slide 1 is with it zoomed in to look like the photo
Slide 2 is with it on normal zoom
Slide 3 is a side view of the 744 to show the pitch angle, which when I look at it now, may be even a little shallow? - I don't know what it would normally be at that stage.

Bottom line - it just backs up the original is real, as we know anyway from the linked discussion on airlines.net. It is interesting how much a zoom can play 'tricks' with a picture.

PS. Thanks V much to Av8boy for helping me get these screen shots up;)

Crepello

26th Aug 2004, 17:19

TZ: IIRC, that route (LAX Special Flight Rules Area) takes you marginally landside of the shoreline, on a Santa Monica radial. Assigned altitude is 3500' southbound, 4500' northbound.

Farrell

27th Aug 2004, 15:15

down&out.........thank you for taking the time and effort to bring this matter to what I think should be a close.

It seems such a shame that a lot of people prefer to look for all the negatives in life - like fake photos - instead of taking the photographer at their word and savouring the wonderful combination of skill and luck that brought it about.

Tim Zukas

27th Aug 2004, 23:15

"...that route (LAX Special Flight Rules Area) takes you marginally landside of the shoreline, on a Santa Monica radial. Assigned altitude is 3500' southbound, 4500' northbound."

Far as I know that route still specifies the SMO 132-degree radial, which should just about bisect runway 25R. How far you're allowed to deviate from that is a question (the class B surface area begins at the shoreline), but the pics certainly weren't taken from the SMO 132 radial. There used to be a shoreline route... and maybe there still is.

Photo

29th Aug 2004, 00:26

Another Photo by the same photographer. Same take off.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/647565/L/

Well done

JimmyTAP

30th Aug 2004, 07:56

I think the new photo is even better although I can imagine Sheenboy desperately trying to work out how it was faked.

JT

lesarcs1

10th Sep 2004, 13:54

Hi all

sorry to comment on a subject thats closed - but just an observation - the first pic was as follows:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/640853/L/

...which suggests the photographer was directly in line with the aircraft.

the second picture (with the subject aircraft at a higher altitiude) :

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/647565/L/

...suggests that the photographer was approaching the subject aircraft, almost as if it would past in front / below of him in the next few seconds.

So I assume the Cessna the photographer was in did a quick 180 degree about-turn between photos?

Rgds
B