Is this Genuine !!!
Just to finish off about Canberras on jacks,if you scroll down in the link below you will find some lovely pics taken during WK163's repaint inc a nice head on with the a/c up on jacks (bottom left in block of images) -if you close the initial image then the main page will open...
Google Image Result for http://www.simplyplanes.co.uk/images/pages_images/classic_aircraft/canberra/canberra_wk163_repaint/canberra_wk163_repaint_14_photo.jpg
I have no idea whether that is a genuine photo or not, but there are some lovely comments from people who don't understand photography. Particularly loved "it looks foggy outside", which of course would be much more likely to have been caused by over-exposure. The camera is set to the lower light conditions in the hangar and therefore the outside world would be over exposed and bleached out.
Pallets in the background and ac in focus can all be achieved by using the camera's f-stop. IIRC F-stop wide open (which it would be to allow in maximum light) would also produce a wide (or should that be deep) depth of field.
Just a thought, but if it was a Canberra on jacks it would be in an unusual position on the hangar floor and blocking access to much of the hangar. Aircraft are normally serviced along the side of a hangar.
Pallets in the background and ac in focus can all be achieved by using the camera's f-stop. IIRC F-stop wide open (which it would be to allow in maximum light) would also produce a wide (or should that be deep) depth of field.
Just a thought, but if it was a Canberra on jacks it would be in an unusual position on the hangar floor and blocking access to much of the hangar. Aircraft are normally serviced along the side of a hangar.
It is a small Hangar Roland,I have worked in hangars where the a/c are positioned parallel with the centre line ,an a/c with a tall fin would not reverse into a side slot in a blister hangar...especially jacked up
Definitely a jacked up a/c
Definitely a jacked up a/c
Gentleman Aviator
Pallets in the background and ac in focus can all be achieved by using the camera's f-stop. IIRC F-stop wide open (which it would be to allow in maximum light) would also produce a wide (or should that be deep) depth of field.
All explained here.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my younger days I worked somewhere abroad where there were HASs with doors at each end I gave consideration to doing a roller through one of them. Didn't consider it for long!
R.P. re. Depth of field.
I think you may be wrong!!! The whole subject of Depth of Field can be a bit complex being dependant on which criteria you chose.
As I see it in simple terms:
The "F" stop to give most light ie wide open would be the smallest F stop on the camera. eg f2.8
This would reduce he depth of field, in this case if the Aircraft is in focus in the darker conditions of the hangar , then I would expect the background to be out of focus. Also background should show movement blurring assuming the Photographer was "Panning" the camera.
Also if the photographer had taken the shot at very high speed in the reduced light of the hangar, then again most light would be needed, so again a small f stop would be required. same result, small depth of field!!
PS
OOOPS, should have read the thread properly, full credit to teeterinhead's
reply, left mine in as an extra observation.
OPF
As I see it in simple terms:
The "F" stop to give most light ie wide open would be the smallest F stop on the camera. eg f2.8
This would reduce he depth of field, in this case if the Aircraft is in focus in the darker conditions of the hangar , then I would expect the background to be out of focus. Also background should show movement blurring assuming the Photographer was "Panning" the camera.
Also if the photographer had taken the shot at very high speed in the reduced light of the hangar, then again most light would be needed, so again a small f stop would be required. same result, small depth of field!!
PS
OOOPS, should have read the thread properly, full credit to teeterinhead's
reply, left mine in as an extra observation.
OPF
Last edited by Old Photo.Fanatic; 19th Nov 2012 at 13:47.
I've been looking at the Canberra and Hunter images and have run them both through a piece of software I use for adjusting white ballance for underwater video. Interesting to note that both are 24 bit colour images of monochrome stills, but only the 'Berra shot shows the discolouration you'd expect from a picture of that age.
It would have been a very good peice of work to fake the Canberra picture as the tone curves of the aircraft are a very close mathe to that of the inside of the hangar - both have similar levels of exposure and ambient light. The Hunter picture has had all the tones removed, which would have made it much easier to match the tones of the aircraft with the rest of the picture.
I know we're not looking at the native format pictures (probably), but the pixelation inthe firat one is a better match too.
Given that one must be a fake, I'd probably suggest that the Hunter pic is the more likely candidate.
Courtney
It would have been a very good peice of work to fake the Canberra picture as the tone curves of the aircraft are a very close mathe to that of the inside of the hangar - both have similar levels of exposure and ambient light. The Hunter picture has had all the tones removed, which would have made it much easier to match the tones of the aircraft with the rest of the picture.
I know we're not looking at the native format pictures (probably), but the pixelation inthe firat one is a better match too.
Given that one must be a fake, I'd probably suggest that the Hunter pic is the more likely candidate.
Courtney
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Thanks Courtney ...
That hangar on the Hunter pic looks too familiar ... check out the box on the floor left ... it appears to have the same lettering and in the same position as that on the Canberra pic along with the chap on the floor
I also think the Hunter jet exhaust looks a bit sus in terms of the supposed direction of flight ...
Best ...
Coff.
That hangar on the Hunter pic looks too familiar ... check out the box on the floor left ... it appears to have the same lettering and in the same position as that on the Canberra pic along with the chap on the floor
I also think the Hunter jet exhaust looks a bit sus in terms of the supposed direction of flight ...
Best ...
Coff.
Last edited by CoffmanStarter; 19th Nov 2012 at 18:11.
If you look at the link that I posted to the pic of WK163 up on jacks - you may notice the similar 'Altitude' and also that the a/c is level.
The OP pic a/c is also exactly level...Hmmm would be extremely accurate flying LOL.
The 'foggy' background is a little sus - compare to the Halifax/F5 pic that I posted...also 'foggy' and obviously the Halibag has been painted out for a laugh !
Sorry but I do not buy the canberra pic.....
The OP pic a/c is also exactly level...Hmmm would be extremely accurate flying LOL.
The 'foggy' background is a little sus - compare to the Halifax/F5 pic that I posted...also 'foggy' and obviously the Halibag has been painted out for a laugh !
Sorry but I do not buy the canberra pic.....
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know if this is a fake also, but the Canberra certainly appears to be...
The backgrounds of both pics are identical, down to the number painted on the bucket . Is anyone seriously suggesting that guy lay there while a Canberra and a Hunter did that and never moved, and it isn't something the whole world has known about ever since?
That's flat-earth territory!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No No Coffman, that's all wrong. Some ancient Persian or maybe Aristotle discovered it was round, Magellan proved it so and then along came good ol' Mercator and made it flat again. That's the whole point about Mercator, see? Aah well. No wonder everyone's still confused 
Originally Posted by Agaricus
The backgrounds of both pics are identical
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see someone took it into his brain to delete the original that I found, so here it is again
at least I thought it was the original, but then this appeared
at least I thought it was the original, but then this appeared
Last edited by Milo Minderbinder; 19th Nov 2012 at 20:14.