Photographs - Genuine or not?

[BOAC]

The thread led off with the top pictures, and that was what much of the discussion was about.

Things move on!

For all posters, to avoid upsetting the elders of the forum:), it is best to refer to the post number when commenting on anything in a composite thread.

EG 'CJ' needed to refer to 'HD's' pics at post #20.

Hopefully that way blood pressures can be kept lower.:ok:

[Farrell]

Not a great photo as it was all a bit quick - I was driving by!
Nice to see our Russian friends in town (well....Ukrainian ;))


http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b140/quartermilefinal/antonov1lo.jpg

[Jerricho]

Hey, that's a great pic Farrell :ok:

[Farrell]

Thanks.
I'm sure some of the 'professional' spotters took better ones of it today.

[mini]

Nice pic Farrell, anyone any idea what it was doing there? re-fuel en-route to PAK?

[VP8]

This must be a photoplopped one!!!! :suspect:

As far as my records go the 225 has not been to DUB in the last few years!!!!!

When was alleged flight??

VEEPS

[AlphaWhiskyRomeo]

Deffo fake.

The size of the 225 does not match up with the other aircraft in the pic and the lighting looks wrong.

[Farrell]

Ha ha.......just testing to see if the anoraks were awake! :p

[VP8]

It's my bleedin plane, gave me a cardiac!!!!!

:uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh:

[MarkD]

and people wonder why spotters have a bad name... :hmm: :rolleyes:

[Jerricho]

Farrell, I'm shocked mate.

;)

[Farrell]

Yeah....

and I would've gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids!

[hobie]

An honourable move might be to delete the post .......

For the 225 fans, the Aircraft has been into Ireland a couple of times to my knowledge, a sight almost as good as a photo I have of six (6) 124's parked together, a little west of Dublin ..... a real photo, I hasten to add :ok:

[Hairy Mary]

Sellafield nuke farm blew up again today. You can see the radome in the background being illuminated by the atomic flash to the east while the Antanov is lit up by the sun in the west.

[rogueflyer01]

I am not sure if this is the right forum (apologies if it's not moderator) but i was browsing the sky news website where i came across the following pics:

Do you think these pics are real? The only reason i ask is that the 2 jets seem to get awfully close!

http://news.sky.com/skynews/picture_gallery/picture_gallery/0,,70141-1240294-1,00.html

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k98/rogueflyer01/1.jpg

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k98/rogueflyer01/3.jpg

[Timeout]

Aircraft fly with a minimum of 1000ft vertical seperation. When viewed from below this can have the appearance of 2 aircraft becoming very close to one another. If you could view the above situation from the side it would look no where near as dramatic.

So I suggest the above is only uninformed media hype.

[Gary Lager]

Look at these two pictures of the moon. Has the moon actually come closer in the second? Answer: no, it's an effect caused by use of a telephoto lens.

https://www.terragalleria.com/pictures-subjects/moon/picture.moon.sagu1233.html

https://www.terragalleria.com/pictures-subjects/moon/picture.moon.sagu1228.html

The aircraft are both A340s. Look at the distance between contrails of the Lufthansa aircraft - it's apparent that it is significantly further away (i.e. at least 1000' above) the Air France one.

The frequency with which aircraft 'seem' (to the uninitiated) to get close is vastly greater than the frequency with which they actually do (fortunately)!

[BOAC]

'Twas the "Most Highly Derogatory Order of the Irremovable Finger" as PO Prune would say. I was called to the phone by crewing in the middle of a delicate surgical modding.......................:)

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Nothing untoward there - happens over my house almost daily! It's nigh on impossible for the average observer to determine the height of a flying object accurately; even controllers and pilots can't do it! The only ones who stand a chance are trained Met Observers.
I took a sequence of pics over our garden last summer. An ex-colleague said they ought to be used in the "Fear of flying" programme:
http://members.aol.com/heathrowdirector/1.jpg
http://members.aol.com/heathrowdirector/2.jpg
http://members.aol.com/heathrowdirector/3.jpg
http://members.aol.com/heathrowdirector/4.jpg

[late developer]

WOW! What happened next?:\

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Nothing happened - they were quite legally separated!

[hobie]

'Twas the "Most Highly Derogatory Order of the Irremovable Finger" as PO Prune would say.

O-Key-Doke ..... :ok:

[Blues&twos]

Is it just me, or is the perspective all wrong on these photos?

If they're the same type of a/c as has been suggested, why is the lower of the two shorter in length than the higher a/c?

Closer to the camera should appear to be larger I would have thought.....:confused:

[matt_hooks]

I don't think they are the same type, although it is difficult to tell.

The fact that one of the aircraft is contrailing and the other isn't suggests a significant difference in altitude!

[vapilot2004]

If they're the same type of a/c as has been suggested, why is the lower of the two shorter in length than the higher a/c?


The one on the left is Lufthansa. Both are A343s. :ok:

The Airbus on the right is visually compromised in length by the direction it is facing relative to the eyepoint.

...(sound convincing?)...

[crackling jet]

I,d Have Put Money On The Lower Rear A/c Being A 767-200, Where,s Me Glasses !!, Any One Else Think So ?

[crackling jet]

Rainboe,

Would you mind running that comment regarding the 2x4 engined jets past me again. From the picture i am looking at, it shows 2 x 2 engined jets, Would you like to borrow my glasses ?

ps Correct grammer and spelling used for you, oh and by the way we spell rainboe with a W in the south west.

[crackling jet]

Rainboe,

My sincere appologies, i have realised where the confusion had set in. The photos i was reffering to, were posted further into the thread by Heathrow Director, and i was merely carrying on the the thread. So if you check out his photos and let me know if i have still lost my money. Once again i appolgise for my sarcasm.

[Rainboe]

The thread led off with the top pictures, and that was what much of the discussion was about.
If you were a real aviation person, you would probably know what Rainboe was. It has nothing to do with pretty arcs of colours. Nasty toxic fluid now banned, as I am, quite regularly.

[Captain Airclues]

cj

www.pprune.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-41472.html

Airclues

[Xeque]

When in the cruise and below FL245 the quadrantal rule applies. That is:-

Mag 000 - 089 = odd thousands of feet
Mag 090 - 179 = odd thousands plus 500 feet
Mag 180 - 269 = even thousands of feet
Mag 270 - 359 = even thousands plus 500 feet
Above FL 245 the semicircular rule applies where:
Mag 000 - 179 = FL250, 270, 290 then 330 and 370
Mag 180 - 359 = FL260, 280, then 310, 350 and 390
The increase in the separation after FL310 is to take account of possible altimeter inaccuracies at high flight levels.
Both the aircraft are con-trailing so they were most likely above FL245 (I know you can occasionally make a trail below that but not often)
It is, therefore, quite possible that the aircraft were at least 1,000 feet (vertically) apart when they crossed. The camera plays strange tricks.
Also, given the angle between them and the clear sky, each would have been clearly visible from the others flight deck well before the crossing.
Me? I seldom get above 3,000 these days (unless I'm a pax) Oh, that I could aspire to such lofty heights!

[hobie]

The Camera never lies ..... :confused:

For example, who would think a 757 could take you on a trip to the Moon ..... :)

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0989950/L/ (http://www1.airliners.net/open.file/0989950/L/)

[Rainboe]

The camera does lie now! It's called 'Photoshop'! I've always been very suspicious of these pretty pictures of aeroplanes passing in front of the moon and sun. Looking at that one, the Mare Crisium is low down on the right side, the Mare Imbrium and Sinus Iridium (the large bay) is to the right of top dead centre. The moon as viewed is about 45 degrees anticlockwise to this alignment. Therefore the image of the moon has been rotated to the right, which would make the extremely pretty picture of the Astraeus 757 actually travelling in a relative direction to the viewer of almost straight vertically towards. With that alignment of the aeroplane, I don't think it is possible to get a picture like this. Also, it is a night scene- the aeroplane is not lit properly- because of the full moonlight, the shadowed side of the aeroplane would be towards the viewer. The landing lights would be a lot more obtrusive in a night photo. I am more than strongly suspicious it is a Photoshop montage with artificial colouring of a day picture of the aeroplane, a stock moon picture, and created jet efflux and mixed images at the limb of the moon where the efflux crosses the edge. It takes a photo-faker to smell one out quickly! Pretty picture, but as a photograph, don't believe it!

[hobie]

I don't think it is possible to get a picture like this.

Have to say I hope your wrong Rainboe simply because getting a photo on to Airliners.net is difficult enough (well, with my diggie equipment) and I imagine, and very sincerly hope, that anyone posting a fake on their site would be very quickly 'black balled' ......

I'll leave it to the guys who know to judge the photo in question and just hope I'm not disillusioned ...... :cool:

ps. my photo below was rejected by A.net and I can't think why .... :p

(I'll get me coat!!!!) :)

http://tinypic.com/in4lrs.jpg

[jumpseater]

Unfortunately rainboe, your moon alignment theory doesnt hold water. I have two images of the moon, neither rotated and one shows the exact same alignment of craters as the Astreus picture (different date but late 05). Bizarely I have a picture of the moon, taken about 50 miles north of the photographer, on the same day as one of his other shots showing exactly the same alignment as his, which is different by at least 45 degrees to the Astreus shot. Therefore I have no reason to suspect the moon has been rotated in any of his shots. The jet efflux looks as I expect it to, by using differing degrees of 'sharpening' the efflux can be emphasised or minimised.

Example below
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c270/2012images/rrjag/_B6O5677.jpg

Having spent a bit of time recently working on low natural lit shots, you do get some peculiar effects, I'm intrigued as to why the aircraft has a colour cast, and the moon does not, however this does not mean I think the photo is a fake/montage or an original creatively edited.

[Hamrah]

Having spoken at length the the photographer in question ( of the Astraeus aircraft) , I am happy that the photograph is genuine.

It was taken early in the morning just before sunrise. The aircraft is departing 08R in LGW. The glow on the aircraft is reflection of dawn breaking straight ahead of the aircraft with the Sun still below the horizon ( obviously, with a full moon).

If you go to any of the picture websites,and search the photographer, you can see a number of similar shots he took on the same day at Gatwick.

Hamrah

[Rainboe]

So that explains the illumination of the aeroplane being on the moonshadow side of the 757! The illumination of the aeroplane by the dawn sun fits in with the full on full moon. I don't understand, as a keen amateur astronomer, why the moon appears to be rotated- moon observation is my speciality, and when I view it, Mare Crisium (the circular sea lower right) is actually top right- I've never seen it aligned like this. But I draw my horns in and accept I am wrong! It is so easy to fake this sort of picture. I look at them all with great suspicion.

Damn good picture though!

[An2]

Rainboe,

Just because you can't produce a pic like that, doesn't mean that it's a fake one. ;) Photo-screeners at Airliners are extremely sharp-eyed and can smell out a multi-exposed/layered pic in an instant. Plus the fact that they are way too bl**dy professional to let a pic slide through, just because it looks cool!
Most of the time when people react to the pictures on A-net, it's because what you see with own eyes and their(your) perspective, is not really the same thing you would see through a 500, or 600 mm lens. This is due to the fact that the lens "compresses" the distance in the pic by the narrow angle of view.

Hobie,
Your shot probably got rejected for distance, meaning too little aircraft/too much people, and quality due to the weather situation. It's always tricky to get the nasty-weather-shots properly exposed. That's why I almost always use a so-called "ambient light meter". (In my case the Sekonic L-358, which I can really recommend.) It's a shame the Concorde doesn't fly anymore :{ , otherwise you could have given it on more shot! :ok:

[jumpseater]

Seein as your a stronema, heres the moon pics I took
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b395/jumpseater/tests1/IMG_6365.jpg
17/11/05 18:08 pm In the North east quadrant of the sky

Taken a few minutes after this one
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b395/jumpseater/shineys/IMG_6346.jpg


http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b395/jumpseater/tests1/IMG_5625.jpg
20/10/05 08:01 am Think it was in the west from memory almost overhead.
All taken at Luton
Latitude: 51°52' 28" N
Longitude: 0°22' 6" W

[hobie]

Hobie,
Your shot probably got rejected for distance, meaning too little aircraft/too much people, and quality due to the weather situation. It's always tricky to get the nasty-weather-shots properly exposed. That's why I almost always use a so-called "ambient light meter". (In my case the Sekonic L-358, which I can really recommend.) It's a shame the Concorde doesn't fly anymore :{ , otherwise you could have given it on more shot! :ok:

An2 many thanks for your comments on my photo .... :ok:

I have to say it's only a 1 meg fixed lens camera that I purchased for the magnificent sum of 350.00 pounds some 7 years ago ..... it has, and still does, give me pleasure to use but it's not in the same league as the EOS 350D (or similar) that I would dearly love to splash out on one day :hmm:

The Concorde shot was taken of Alpha Fox doing touch and goes as part of re-certification? following lengthy fuel tank mods etc after the Paris disaster .... The weather was indeed awfull that day .... I remember the perimeter road was packed out with hundreds of cars and goodness knows how many people, viewing what turned out to be Concorde's last visit to our part of the world .... :(

I popped out this morning to take a shot of the moon, beautifully illuminated by the rising sun ...... my Diggie cam does not do it justice ....... :p

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/2769/dsc00007jn1.jpg

[Groundloop]

Mag 000 - 179 = FL250, 270, 290 then 330 and 370
Mag 180 - 359 = FL260, 280, then 310, 350 and 390
The increase in the separation after FL310 is to take account of possible altimeter inaccuracies at high flight levels.


No longer 2000 ft separation above 290. With the introduction of RVSM (Reduced vertical Separation Minima) separations are now only 1000 ft above 290.

If aircraft not RVSM compliant it is not allowed above 280.

[hobie]

those $$$$ Crows .....

One for Rainboe I think .... :)

http://www.marcymoonstar.com/performances/raven_moon-300.gif

[Rainboe]

Don't panic-it's been Photoshopped in. It's really a pigeon in Trafalgar Square. At least the moon's right this time.

[hobie]

Did I here that Rainboe was seen dashing out with all the Hardware he could muster to get a good view of the Moon eclipse tonight? .... :p

Have to say it looks mighty impressive from where I am .... :)

[Regular Cappuccino]

Originally posted by XEQUE -
"When in the cruise and below FL245 the quadrantal rule applies. That is:-
Mag 000 - 089 = odd thousands of feet
Mag 090 - 179 = odd thousands plus 500 feet
Mag 180 - 269 = even thousands of feet
Mag 270 - 359 = even thousands plus 500 feet"

Only outside Controlled Airspace - within controlled airspace, it's still the Semi Circular rule which applies.
RC

[Avman]

Going back to HD's photos, the top a/c is a ThomsonFly B767 and the lower a/c an Easyjet A319.

[leedsgirl]

Hi all

I have come across the Photo (Below) on another forum and its causing quite discussion to whether its real or not :ugh:

So i could do with a expert opinion :ok:

http://www.strangedangers.com/images/content/112046.jpg

[Runaway Gun]

'Weather' it's real... boom boom !!

[ryansf]

No it's not.... if you look closely on the fuselage you can make out the reflection of the engine...with no water!