Size does matter

"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

Peter Duniho wrote:

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.

Take another look. Follow the shadow on the road with your eyes to the left. There's
a drak section of the fence where it intersects the fence. That's the shadow of the
plane on the fence. It's damn near on top of the REIL lighting standard, which is
where it should be if the plane is tracking the glide slope.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

"Peter Duniho" writes:

The sun appears to be high and slightly to the left, nearly
directly overhead.

The sun cannot be directly overhead, nor "nearly" so, at longitude
39d.

Greg Copeland wrote:
Why does it look like that plane was "photoshopped" in?

You won't get a photoshopped photo past the Gestapo over at airliners.net.
Try getting a photo displayed there and see for yourself.


--
HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

The photog is a reputable guy, shooting, indeed at the Dorsey Road
observation area. It landed 33L around 515p. There's nothing fake at
all about it.

Greg Copeland wrote:

On Tue, 11 May 2004 10:27:36 -0400, HECTOP wrote:


http://www.airliners.net/open.file/573107/M/

HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com


Why does it look like that plane was "photoshopped" in?

Whimp! It's a high wing!

Stefan

One of these big boys damaged a couple of tied-down Cessnas with its jet
wash at my airport just yesterday. Both Cessnas, a 152 and a 172RG, have
(at least) bent control surface crank arms and cable gear. The control
locks were in place. The 152's tail tiedown ring is bent over sideways
and the rear fuselage may be twisted. Internal inspections have not been
completed.

The event was witnessed by an aviation mechanic who said both Cessnas
were "flopping on their tiedown ropes like fish" when the Antonov
blasted them.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
The event was witnessed by an aviation mechanic who said both Cessnas
were "flopping on their tiedown ropes like fish" when the Antonov

they must'be lucky it was only the second largest Antonov, and not the
first. Now this baby would blow away
a tied down 737: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/568023/M/ at 600
metric tons MTOW ;-)


HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

It's a fake!

"HECTOP" wrote in message news:cddoc.922
they must'be lucky it was only the second largest Antonov, and not the
first. Now this baby would blow away
a tied down 737: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/568023/M/ at 600
metric tons MTOW ;-)

Yeah of course it is!

http://www.airliners.net/search/phot...nct_entry=true

http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=389

HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com


"Al" wrote in message
news:f_doc.75065$kh4.4252186@attbi_s52...
It's a fake!

"HECTOP" wrote in message news:cddoc.922
they must'be lucky it was only the second largest Antonov, and not the
first. Now this baby would blow away
a tied down 737: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/568023/M/ at 600
metric tons MTOW ;-)