Yow! TU-334 on takeoff

SteveC said:
The photo was apparently taken at the MAKS 2005 airshow (Russian). Here is a link to the photog's site: MAKS 2005

This photo from a.net looks pretty similar, giving credence to the authenticity of the original photo: [FONT=ARIAL, Helvetica, Geneva][FONT=ARIAL, Helvetica, Geneva][FONT=ARIAL, Helvetica, Geneva]http://www.airliners.net/open.file/928646/L/[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

A google search turns up a couple of other similar photos as well.
Click to expand...

The airnav picture above looks right, the proportions are good and they make sense, the original proportions aren't quite right and I noticed NO jetwash out of the one above. Making that kind of maneuver with a big plane would require ALOT of power, the engines seem to not be making power...

Or the photo has been chopped and the chopper didn't know how to recreate jetwash...

I still go that its photoshopped.
 
Grabo172 said:
The airnav picture above looks right, the proportions are good and they make sense, the original proportions aren't quite right and I noticed NO jetwash out of the one above. Making that kind of maneuver with a big plane would require ALOT of power, the engines seem to not be making power...

Or the photo has been chopped and the chopper didn't know how to recreate jetwash...

I still go that its photoshopped.
Click to expand...
Except that there is jetwash visible (under the wing between end of wing and the first flap fairing thingy -- the grass is blurry there but not anywhere else).

And the plane appears appropriately sized in relation to the runway, and the plane's shadow is consistent with high noon (the shadows on the building behind the spectators is consistent with high noon). The gear condition is a little odd, but not inconsistent with gear coming up after a low gear-down pass down the runway (it is an airshow, after all).

That Fokker is definitely real (sorry, had to do it).

MF
 
928646.jpg

tu334.jpg


I'm still going fake...

Look at the jetwash from the top and the bottom together, the top is real jetwash, the bottom is someone smudging the picture with photoshop.

Then look at the people in the background of the bottom picture and bring them proportionaslly up to the runway, they'd be half as tall as the plane... Where they stand in the background they are about the right size to fit in the door.


Sorry, it's a really good photoshop job, but still a photoshop job...
 
This one is photoshopped too...

Look at the size of the pilot compared to the people in the background...

Also put both photos in question into Microsoft paint and see the pixels around the planes... they are defidently doctored...

Su27pTakingOff.jpg
 
I wonder why someone would go to so much trouble to photoshop pictures of airplanes landing? I mean the airliner was interesting if it was real but why a Mig landing?
 
Grabo172 said:
This one is photoshopped too...

Look at the size of the pilot compared to the people in the background...

Also put both photos in question into Microsoft paint and see the pixels around the planes... they are defidently doctored...
Click to expand...

I say real:

1. Jump into PSCS2 and drag the pilot up to the crowd. He's actually about double the scale of the people on the show line. In combo with point two, these images have the correct scale througout.

2. 2:1 may seem like too small a scale difference, but the image was shot with a BIG telephoto and telephoto compression reduces the difference in scale between fore-, middle-, and background elements. In otherwords, the lens compression is consistent throughout all parts of this image.

3. The pixel-shift around the airplane can easily be attributed to jpeg compression and pixel interpolation. Happens all the time when you compress an image file. If I compress one of my images into a 72 ppi jpeg, you'll see it there, too. I promise that mine weren't doctored.

4. The shadows and lighting angles of the plane are right-on compared to the rest of the image - something that's virtually impossible to do unless you're way too good at image manipulation to spend your time tricking airplane buffs.

5. The base resolution and image clarity/sharpness are equal throughout the image. If it was 'Shopped, there would be variation in the digital fingerprint from each of the two combined images.


Rats. I have images to support points 1, 3, and 5, but my ftp site isn't cooperating right now. Anyway, with almost 10 years of photographic and Photoshop experience, I say it's real. Could a really top-notch pro make a composite image that's virtually undetectible on all 5 of those fronts if they had literally hours and hours to work with? Yes. Did they with these photos? Not likely. If someone is that good, they have better (and more profitable) things to do with their talents! :)

___

Edit: Had to make changes so the Grammar Police wouldn't come a knockin'!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top