N766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8035 posts, RR: 25 Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 1 hour ago) and read 7909 times:
I don't see why this is questionable? The C172 is holding, the 747 is landing on the active. Cut and dry. Although the 747 does seem a bit low, it may just be an illusion... or maybe he was just low.. that happens too.
Md80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2651 posts, RR: 10 Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months ago) and read 7777 times:
Where the 747's shadow? Look at the shadow from the pitot tubes....now look at the ground...where is it? You should be able to see the tail shadow at least.
It actually appears like the 747 is closer but that is not possible.
My guess is this is standard film and carefully double exposed. The first shot of the holding cessna....and the cameraman purposefully "followed an imaginary heavy" to give the primary exposure that motion blur look. Then the second exposure could be taken of the landing 747 with a seriously high shutter speed (notice how sharp the 747 is).
Nudelhirsch From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 1438 posts, RR: 19 Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months ago) and read 7723 times:
The ground is not flat, means, that the runway is actually behind a "hill". Thus no asphalt and no shadows visible.
The Cessna holds in enough distance, but they must gotten some minor shaking.
If you watch the trees carefully you see, they are upright, but the ground, including the taxiway is not flat. Maybe you try to find a map of ELLX and you should see elevations and uneven ground there.
Also, this thread belongs to Photography, not General Aviation.
Dave, good one. Really think it was a camera? I vote for a stone with slaves carving the shades into it and coloring that later... Poor scanner the stone was put onto...lol
Edited to change abbreviation into full word to avoid nice pop up info...
DLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7694 times:
Md80fanatic, you are openly accusing a photographer of faking an image, and that is very bad form. Btw, the shadows line up as they should, so you are also wrong. Look at the shadows on the engines of the 744 from the wings. Now compare that angle with the shadow on the horizontal stabilizer of the cessna cast by the cessna's tail fin.
The pic is legit.
And InnocuousFox, yes it was most likely a camera used to capture the image
Tobetruie From France, joined Jun 2004, 18 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7154 times:
I totally agree with Flykal !
The 747 is at the front, facing the runway you can't see, with its shadow on it. The Cessna got passed and is at the background. NOT the invert.
It's "easy" to see when you know how work a digital autofocus camera. The aim and the focus is making on one of the element of the picture, here the 747 which appears to be sharpen. The background is therefore a little bit blury.
JBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4472 posts, RR: 21 Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6236 times:
InnocuousFox is just trying to compensate for his apparently very small wee-wee, so no worries there guys.
My guess is that the Cessna is preparing for an intersection takeoff somewhere near the thousand-footers. As you can see, the taxiway continues past the point where the 747 is landing, which hints that the runway edge is in fact NOT in the picture. I looked at it googly-eyed myself.
There's a good possibility that, in the interest of safety, ATC directed him to this point for wake turbulence avoidance. If the Cessna rotated before the point that the 747 touched down, there's a very high chance that the Cessna could hit some bad wake turbulence, with messy results.
SafetyDude From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3795 posts, RR: 16 Reply 15, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6133 times:
I say that it is real.
My best explanation is that the Cessna is actually farther away than it seems. In the picture, it looks like the 747's nose is going to pass right over it, but in reality, only the outer wing will pass over it.
On another note, why would a photographer with about four-hundred pictures in the database risk everything with one fake shot?
CPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 5864 posts, RR: 3 Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5652 times:
Jesus, you guys are making it much more complicated than it is - the Cessna is most likely holding at an intersection before to the end of the runway, since it's in no need of an entire runway. That would place the 744F at the correct spot as well as the CEssna.
Md80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2651 posts, RR: 10 Reply 17, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5421 times:
I did nothing of the sort. I would never accuse someone I do not know of anything non-legitimate. Besides I didn't know that only single exposure shots without any editing are allowed on here? I am no photog so my comment was a educated guess at best.
Md80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2651 posts, RR: 10 Reply 19, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5284 times:
The 747 HAS to be further away. Place (in your mind) the pilot figure in the 747 into the cessna.....he would barely be able to see over the instrument panel. If you (mentally) place the cessna pilot into the 747 his stature would fill the entire cockpit leaving no room for the FO. So then the 747 is necessarily further away.
The thread starter asked the question "How was this shot taken".....and if nothing but the press of the shutter button is allowed to make images for A.net....then the answer posted above of a "camera" being used is really the best and closet answer that can be garnered here.
FJWH From Netherlands, joined May 2004, 968 posts, RR: 4 Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5144 times:
You know exactly what I mean by "How was this shot taken".
But flykal and Tobetruie, I think your right. It looks like the 747 is at the front and not the Cessna. Under the 747 is the runway which you don't see at the picture and the Cessna is just taxing at a taxiway I guess.
FlightS in the next 3 months: MSP, PHX, MEM, NCE, TFS, BCN. All round trips from AMS
Md80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2651 posts, RR: 10 Reply 21, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5134 times:
Okay, after looking at the pic again for a good long time. Here's what's up.
The 747 is about 300+ feet beyond the cessna. You can see the beginning of the runway threshold directly behind the cessna's cockpit....extending to the left edge of the photo. Since the 747 is so much further away than what it looks....and the taxiway looks to be rising up towards the runway in the distance...the shadow must be over the "horizon" (the topline) of the field beyond the cessna.
Caetravlr From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 907 posts, RR: 1 Reply 22, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5060 times:
I am no expert, but you can definitely tell that the Cessna is on a taxiway that is perpendicular to the landing path of the 747 based on the direction of the lines it is following. I agree that it must be holding, and waiting for the 747 to land on the active, or at least taxiing toward the active after having just turned onto its current taxiway. I am sure the runway is just over that hill. I would love to get any more comments from the person who actually took the picture. It is an amazing optical illusion. I used to try and get shots with the same type of optical illusion when spotting on the parallel taxiways at SFO. I just didn't have the lenses to get the shots I wanted from the distance I was at.
A woman drove me to drink and I didn't have the decency to thank her. - W.C. Fields