Easyjet Plane Takes A Swim
There is a photshop plug-in called 'Flood', which has been used to fake this. See:
http://thepluginsite.com/reviews/flood.htm
Just noticed, beaten to it by Photo
http://thepluginsite.com/reviews/flood.htm
Just noticed, beaten to it by Photo
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: ire
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very good one,apart from the taxi line they missed,look at the engine spinners!!!!!They are getting a jet balst but without the N1 rotation, very efficent engine!!Who ever did this must be bit peeved at missing these after their hard work!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A photographer's opinion
One of the things I am is a photographer. And here's the things that I noticed:
1) The centreline is visible behind engine #2, so clearly there is either very shallow water there or no water.
2) the photographer is slightly above the level of the top of the fuselage, but only slightly (note the position of the horizon cf vetical stab.)
3) a long focal length is used (note the compression of distances)
4) The ripples in the foreground are large compared to those near the aircraft.
3 & 4 are at odds. If this was real, the ripples in the foreground would be much smaller.
Even allowing for (3), 1 & 2 suggest that the "water" does not extend far behind the aircraft. In addition there is no indication that the water is covering the ground on the port side of the aircraft. These would suggest that either the aircraft has sunk into the runway, or the runway has subsided. Note that if there was a dramatic slope, we would expect to see far more of the top of the aircraft.
The main gear seems to be only 2/3 submerged, but the nosewheel doors are in the water. I don't know the relative heights of these things, but I suspect that this lends weight to the argument above - unless the water isn't level :-)
Even on an obviously overcast day like this appears to be, I would still expect to see some unevenness in the illumination on the underside of the fuselage nearest the water. The water has a rippled surface which reflects light unevenly and should "dapple" light under the aircraft -- at least a bit.
I didn't notice the jet blast, but if stuff is coming out of the back of the engine then (as pointed out already) stuff should be going in the front, and a lot of that stuff would be water!
Even if the aircraft is at rest and has been for quite some time, the ripples on the surface of the water would "reflect" off objects in the water giving interferance patterns that should be visible in three places (engines and nosewheel doors)
The argument about the jetblast + engines not spinning is wrong. I am sure you'd see those spiraly things even with the engines spinning -- I've noticed how slowly they go round during the later stages of descent in some aircraft where I have been able to see into the front of the engines (I don't fly business class too often).
In addition to the #2 engine beig visible as a reflection (sans water) on the fuselage, the main gear is visible, also sans water.
The water on the lower right of the image (around the front of engine #1) reflects the grassed area, why doesn't the water under the wing do likewise?
If you're really interested in fake photos, try this one: http://www.naturephoto.hu/natgeo_english/index.html
1) The centreline is visible behind engine #2, so clearly there is either very shallow water there or no water.
2) the photographer is slightly above the level of the top of the fuselage, but only slightly (note the position of the horizon cf vetical stab.)
3) a long focal length is used (note the compression of distances)
4) The ripples in the foreground are large compared to those near the aircraft.
3 & 4 are at odds. If this was real, the ripples in the foreground would be much smaller.
Even allowing for (3), 1 & 2 suggest that the "water" does not extend far behind the aircraft. In addition there is no indication that the water is covering the ground on the port side of the aircraft. These would suggest that either the aircraft has sunk into the runway, or the runway has subsided. Note that if there was a dramatic slope, we would expect to see far more of the top of the aircraft.
The main gear seems to be only 2/3 submerged, but the nosewheel doors are in the water. I don't know the relative heights of these things, but I suspect that this lends weight to the argument above - unless the water isn't level :-)
Even on an obviously overcast day like this appears to be, I would still expect to see some unevenness in the illumination on the underside of the fuselage nearest the water. The water has a rippled surface which reflects light unevenly and should "dapple" light under the aircraft -- at least a bit.
I didn't notice the jet blast, but if stuff is coming out of the back of the engine then (as pointed out already) stuff should be going in the front, and a lot of that stuff would be water!
Even if the aircraft is at rest and has been for quite some time, the ripples on the surface of the water would "reflect" off objects in the water giving interferance patterns that should be visible in three places (engines and nosewheel doors)
The argument about the jetblast + engines not spinning is wrong. I am sure you'd see those spiraly things even with the engines spinning -- I've noticed how slowly they go round during the later stages of descent in some aircraft where I have been able to see into the front of the engines (I don't fly business class too often).
In addition to the #2 engine beig visible as a reflection (sans water) on the fuselage, the main gear is visible, also sans water.
The water on the lower right of the image (around the front of engine #1) reflects the grassed area, why doesn't the water under the wing do likewise?
If you're really interested in fake photos, try this one: http://www.naturephoto.hu/natgeo_english/index.html
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: The Pub
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fake! The engines are running because you can see the heat haze at the rear of the engine, so if the engine was running the water in front of the engine would not be still and calm like it is, it would be getting sucked up.
Very good though.
Very good though.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: East Sussex England
Age: 60
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The engines are NOT running... LOOK at the spinners - I have flown this machine and can confirm they do go around when the engines are running!.
The heat haze is being caused by the APU exhaust with a wind from LHS.
FAKE PHOTO.
The heat haze is being caused by the APU exhaust with a wind from LHS.
FAKE PHOTO.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: London
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a fake photo. Even the guy that made it never claimed it was real.
Well all i can say to that is Look at these spinners
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/664581/L/
I do not know Aberdeen airport at all. Is the aircraft in a position were only the APU and not the engines would be running?
LOOK at the spinners
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/664581/L/
I do not know Aberdeen airport at all. Is the aircraft in a position were only the APU and not the engines would be running?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: asia
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real giveaway for me is the area of black underneath the engine.
The "hole" in the front of the engine is black because light is not reflected out of it. If this were a real picture, then the black hole would not produce a black reflection, but the image of water under ambient light, similar to other parts of the water.
The black reflection of the black hole appears because the computer program has, in it's own rather dumb style, just taken the colour values from the area above.
But I still think it is fun!
The "hole" in the front of the engine is black because light is not reflected out of it. If this were a real picture, then the black hole would not produce a black reflection, but the image of water under ambient light, similar to other parts of the water.
The black reflection of the black hole appears because the computer program has, in it's own rather dumb style, just taken the colour values from the area above.
But I still think it is fun!
Unless I'm very much mistaken, this was done with a Photoshop plugin called 'Flood' - no kidding. I've used a demo version before. Very simple to use and requires practically no skill from the user. It does create a very convincing effect, but as other users have mentioned here, the engines would not be running with this kind of 'ingestion'! With a little thought from the user this could have been so much more convincing.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Capital of the South Coast
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why no ripples around the main gear indicating any movement? Granted the ship might have stopped, but there would still be some residual ripples etc. Wish I had time to waste doing this sort of thing 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Who cares? ;-)
Age: 74
Posts: 676
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
here's a similar pix... FRA in July 2004
not fake either.... it was after a thunder storm
Westy
ok... the skiier is fake
not fake either.... it was after a thunder stormWesty
ok... the skiier is fake
Last edited by WestWind1950; 5th Feb 2005 at 18:31.