A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Size does matter



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #9  
Old May 11th 04, 08:22 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
There is no shadow.


Yes, there is. The fuselage shadow runs along the top of the crest of the

road.
Shadows of the wings and tail extend into the green field behind the

plane. From the
angle of the wing shadow on the side of the fuselage, the ground shadows

are where
one would expect them to be.


I disgree. The sun appears to be high and slightly to the left, nearly
directly overhead. The dark areas at the crest of the road and in the field
are something other than the shadow of the airplane.

However, that said...there's nothing about the photo that suggests it's a
fake.

* the fence to the left is consistent with an airport boundary,
* it's not unusual to see landing aircraft at that altitude that close
to a runway,
* the shadow of the airplane would be out of the frame, beyond the
bottom edge,
* the so-called "motion blur" of the cars is actually apparent on all
objects in the frame except the aircraft which suggests that the camera was
being panned to follow the airplane (a very common photographic technique,
and given the bright scene would result in the very minimal blurring seen
for the non-subject elements of the frame), and
* the so-called aliasing around the airplane is simply a combination of
JPEG artifacts and the consequence of having shrunk the image (they are
practically nonexistent in the larger version of the image)

As far as the question of whether it IS a fake or not, who can tell? It's a
digital photo, and you never can really know for sure (absent authentication
techniques for creating certifiable photos, of course). Some fakes are very
good. If this is a fake, it's one of the very good ones. But one should
ask themselves, why would anyone bother faking a photograph like this? It
would be easy enough to get an actual photograph, and there's no profit in
faking one.

I do think that if someone wants to be a photo detective (as Peter R.
says...everyone wants to be one these days ), they ought to learn more
about photography and digital images. Playing Sherlock works a lot better
if the "clues" one discovers are actually valid clues.

Pete


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stop The Noise petitions FAA to increase N number size Earl Grieda Piloting 19 April 26th 04 05:46 AM
Former Air Force official pleads guilty to conspiracy in Boeing matter Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 April 21st 04 01:16 AM
Puget Sound TFRs reduced in size - charted here David H Owning 3 January 10th 04 07:01 AM
Puget Sound TFRs reduced in size, turned into National Security Areas C J Campbell Piloting 4 January 10th 04 07:01 AM
Trike wing bolt size Aaron Smith Home Built 0 September 30th 03 04:02 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.