 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / March 2007Aircraft air to air shot
http://www.aus-photographers.com/largepic.php?ID=824 > http://www.aus-photographers.com/largepic.php?ID=824 All or part of that shot is faked. No shot I have ever seen of a flying aircraft shows the propeller as does this one. Allowing for a minute that the camera must have used a high shutter speed to freeze the plane as sharply as it is, the propeller should have been frozen or slightly blurred at most. Aircraft propellers usually rotate at somewhere around 2,000 rpm, or 33 revs per second. At a shutter speed of, say, 1/1000 sec., the prop will have turned 0.03 of one revolution, or 10 degrees. At 1/2000, it's 5 degrees. So, why can't we see the prop? And the background. Was the plane climbing vertically? The shot, as it is, is fake. The worst bit is you bullshitting the group that it was real. Colin D.  SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> http://www.aus-photographers.com/largepic.php?ID=824 > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > The worst bit is you bullshitting the group that it was real. Well there you go. I'm going to take this as a compliment. If you believe the photo can't possibley be taken, then I must have done the impossible. If you buy GA Aviation on the newstand right now. It has this shot on the cover. Matt Hall explains in detail how we took it. He is the Pilot of the aircraft btw, who shoots props at 1/1000th Sec. That's just stupid. I would suggest you don't look at aircraft shots too often as a full circular motion is NOT impossible. But your input is always welcome. Even if you haven't researched it ;-) here's another shot of the aircraft taken on a practice shoot in 2005 when we didn't quite get it right. http://www.warbirdz.net/largepic.php?ID=10459 >>> http://www.aus-photographers.com/largepic.php?ID=824 >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > http://www.warbirdz.net/largepic.php?ID=10459 Ok, maybe I shot first and thought after. More calcs show that a shutter speed of about 1/125th with a two-bladed prop would give that image, but I'd be surprised about the pin-sharpness at such a low speed. Though I guess good image stabilization would help movement of the platform aircraft, but would do nothing for movement of the target aircraft. If it's all genuine, then congrats on a good shot. But there's no exif data with the image, pity. Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>> http://www.aus-photographers.com/largepic.php?ID=824 >>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >> > Ok, maybe I shot first and thought after. Now you really are on target! Next time check out your facts first before insulting one of the foremost aviation photographers in this part of the world. You have made a major gaff. Do the decent thing and present Glenn with a real public apology. John >>>>> http://www.aus-photographers.com/largepic.php?ID=824 >>>> All or part of that shot is faked. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > John Not that it's anything to do with you, but there were no facts to check out, short of buying the magazine. He presented an image that had no backup information whatsoever, no exif data, nothing to indicate any authenticity. And the image at first sight definitely looked 'cooked' - how many shots have you seen that shows the prop as a complete disc while the aircraft is pin sharp? Or with a hard left rudder while apparently flying straight? Or no horizon, just uniform out-of-focus vegetation as a background? I considered that was grounds for doubting the image. I conceded that shutter speed could produce a complete disc from the prop, but I still don't know about the unusual rudder or background. Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>>>> http://www.aus-photographers.com/largepic.php?ID=824 >>>>> All or part of that shot is faked. [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > I conceded that shutter speed could produce a complete disc from the > prop, but I still don't know about the unusual rudder or background. Clearly you know nothing about aircraft - to anyone who does know something, it's clear that plane was flying close to vertical (hence the ground in the background), in which case its airspeed drops and big movements of the rear control surfaces are required to reach and maintain the desired attitude. It's not something a passenger aircraft would do in a coordinated turn, but very common for an aerobatic aircraft that transcribes far more extreme movements. Your theory about the appearance of the prop versus the rest of the pic is a load of crap too - the prop's rotational velocity would have been huge compared to the airspeed or movements of the airframe, particularly in that manoeuvrer. Before putting forth sharply derogatory opinions like that, get some experience and knowledge first. > >>>>>> http://www.aus-photographers.com/largepic.php?ID=824 > >>>>> All or part of that shot is faked. [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > Before putting forth sharply derogatory opinions like that, get some > experience and knowledge first. And how do you get a pin sharp photo of a moving plane from another moving plane at 1/100th second again? MrT. > > >>>>>> http://www.aus-photographers.com/largepic.php?ID=824 > > >>>>> All or part of that shot is faked. [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > And how do you get a pin sharp photo of a moving plane from another moving > plane at 1/100th second again? Because the plane is moving directly towards the camera at a relatively low velocity - thus technically, the sharpness is not that remarkable - the getting of the timing and coordination right is a much more impressive feat. > > And how do you get a pin sharp photo of a moving plane from another moving > > plane at 1/100th second again? > > Because the plane is moving directly towards the camera at a relatively low > velocity - thus technically, the sharpness is not that remarkable. It's not the relative speed of the aircraft that worries me, it's the unsteadiness of each, and even the inevitable vibration. And why is the length of lens used such a secret anyway? Maybe because 1/100th would seem even more unlikely? As I already said though, it's a great shot however it was achieved. I'm not quite so impressed if people feel the need to BS though. MrT. >> > And how do you get a pin sharp photo of a moving plane from another > moving [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > As I already said though, it's a great shot however it was achieved. > I'm not quite so impressed if people feel the need to BS though. are you still on that :-) I didn't remove the exif data. It must have happened in the saving process. But you are correct. It wasn't 1/100th it was 1/125th. I just checked it. But this one is 1/100th [img]http://www.warbirdz.net/pics/Glenn/giles4.jpg[/img] > >> > And how do you get a pin sharp photo of a moving plane from another > > moving [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > [img]http://www.warbirdz.net/pics/Glenn/giles4.jpg[/img] That's some excellent smoke happening there. Awesome pic too :) > I didn't remove the exif data. It must have happened in the saving process. > But you are correct. It wasn't 1/100th it was 1/125th. I just checked it. > > But this one is 1/100th > > [img]http://www.warbirdz.net/pics/Glenn/giles4.jpg[/img] OK, I admit I didn't realise the two planes were practically touching each other :-) 53mm lens, 1/100th at F16. Interesting choices. Seems to have worked for you, so I'm impressed by your stabilisation platform and both pilots flying skills. (or maybe your exif editor :-) But once again I don't care how it was done, it's still a nice shot. MrT. >>>>>> http://www.aus-photographers.com/largepic.php?ID=824 >>>>> All or part of that shot is faked. [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > Colin D. None of the above in any way justifies your ridiculous and insulting outburst. John >>>>>>> http://www.aus-photographers.com/largepic.php?ID=824 >>>>>> All or part of that shot is faked. [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > John I guess he is sorry he is a skeptical internet user now. Believe or die?? > Ok, maybe I shot first and thought after. More calcs show that a > shutter speed of about 1/125th with a two-bladed prop would give > that image, but I'd be surprised about the pin-sharpness at such a > low speed. Why? The AC is only doing a hand full of knots before it goes into the stall turn. > > Ok, maybe I shot first and thought after. More calcs show that a > > shutter speed of about 1/125th with a two-bladed prop would give [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Why? The AC is only doing a hand full of knots before it goes into the > stall turn. Synchronised stall turns at VERY close range (obviously the lens was not too long at 1/100 sec) would qualify as a pretty extreme stunt. A shot of both aircraft would be an even more exciting photo IMO. MrT. >> Ok, maybe I shot first and thought after. More calcs show that a >> shutter speed of about 1/125th with a two-bladed prop would give [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Why? The AC is only doing a hand full of knots before it goes into the > stall turn. Opps, saw the article today. Vertical side-slip, makes for a specie shot, if not aerobatics. Well set up, and well executed! By all parties. >> http://www.aus-photographers.com/largepic.php?ID=824 > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > have turned 0.03 of one revolution, or 10 degrees. At 1/2000, it's 5 > degrees. So, why can't we see the prop? Let's go the other way. Say 2000RPM. Looks like a two blade prop that has rotated ~135 degrees during the exposure. That works out to about 1/90th of a second. Plausible? that's a lot better. Certainly closer. I think it may have been 1/100th >>> http://www.aus-photographers.com/largepic.php?ID=824 >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > rotated ~135 degrees during the exposure. That works out to about 1/90th > of a second. Plausible? > that's a lot better. Certainly closer. I think it may have been 1/100th Wow, that's an amazing stabilisation platform you used then. Two moving planes and perfectly sharp at 1/100. What focal length lens did you use? Frankly though, whether it's a composite or not is irrelevant to me. I think the final product is excellent regardless. MrT. >>> http://www.aus-photographers.com/largepic.php?ID=824 >> All or part of that shot is faked. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > rotated ~135 degrees during the exposure. That works out to about 1/90th of > a second. Plausible? At 1/90th I would expect that there would be some blur on the aircraft, due to movement between the platform plane and the target plane, but the shot is pin-sharp, implying a higher shutter speed. Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > http://www.aus-photographers.com/largepic.php?ID=824 And what about the full left rudder? Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> http://www.aus-photographers.com/largepic.php?ID=824 > And what about the full left rudder? Again, wxplained in full in the magazine ;-) Hi Glenn, As ever your shots are truly amazing, keep up the excellent work. Cheers. Pete > http://www.aus-photographers.com/largepic.php?ID=824 > Hi Glenn, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Pete Thanks Pete. I'm off to Sydney in aq few hours for some fun over Sydney Skies. Should have some good stuff to show next week. If the weather holds Cloudy here at the moment, but it may be breaking up. SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : > Hi Glenn, : > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] : : Should have some good stuff to show next week. If the weather holds Actually, I am hoping that the weather tomorrow is fine :-) It's miserable right now here in Canberra > Cloudy here at the moment, but it may be breaking up. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > : > : Should have some good stuff to show next week. If the weather holds Don't agree at all, this rain is excellent. > Actually, I am hoping that the weather tomorrow is fine :-) > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> : >> : Should have some good stuff to show next week. If the weather holds Oh yeah. don't get me wrong. I'm loving it too. But I just hope that it doesn't rain tomorrow. but if it does rain, that's great as well. But I'd really prefer it not to. Just tomorrow, and just not over Sydney Harbour.. > Don't agree at all, this rain is excellent. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >>> : >>> : Should have some good stuff to show next week. If the weather holds Fair enough. Have a good trip mate. > Oh yeah. don't get me wrong. I'm loving it too. But I just hope that it > doesn't rain tomorrow. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >>>> : >>>> : Should have some good stuff to show next week. If the weather holds Are you doing any sunset/sunrise shots to submit to the other place? I am planning to get out in the morning and try and catch a few balloons over the lake. > Actually, I am hoping that the weather tomorrow is fine :-) > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> : >> : Should have some good stuff to show next week. If the weather holds >> Hi Glenn, >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Should have some good stuff to show next week. If the weather holds Cool, look forward to seeing them. >>> Hi Glenn, >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> > Cool, look forward to seeing them. Errr, don't hold your breath. It was one of them days where nothing went to plan :-) >>>> Hi Glenn, >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Errr, don't hold your breath. It was one of them days where nothing went > to plan :-) They are doing a similar production for the 100th anniversary so I will look out for those shots mate, hope the weather is better. ;-) > http://www.aus-photographers.com/largepic.php?ID=824 Bloody brilliant Glenn! ( You make me sick. :-P ) >> http://www.aus-photographers.com/largepic.php?ID=824 > > Bloody brilliant Glenn! > > ( You make me sick. :-P ) Wanna be sicker, have a look on www.warbirdz.net this guy is brilliant, often! > Wanna be sicker, have a look on www.warbirdz.net this guy is brilliant, > often! I know. I used to see a fair bit of Glenn's pics in alt.bins.pics.aviation until I lost access to a newserver with binary groups. Great stuff. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.