If you resize my photo to match, and rotate .15 left it is a perfect match. I know this photo is mine, the shadows on the ground, from the flags, were only there for a couple of minutes, before they started tearing the podium down.
Jez From UK - England, joined Feb 2005, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5712 times:
The highlights on the fan blades also look different. To my eye the distance from the pitot under the nose to the top of the barrier also appears different as if the Reuters shot was taken from a slightly lower angle?
ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4030 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 5673 times:
I didn't buy it at first, but yes, there seem to be some differences.
Look at the two aerials or bulges below the rear fuselage. The pointed shadow below the left one seems to be substantially farther to the left in the Reuters picture.
The shadow in the corner is just visible in Royal's photo too I think, so the one in the Reuters photo is probably real. Also, in addition to shadow in the corner, the leftmost shadow from the flags seems to be longer in the Reuters picture. So at least the Reuters photo wasn't simply cropped from Royal's photo.
Maybe very subtle, willful Photoshop manipulation to create differences, but I'm inclined to say a different photo from very nearly the same angle.
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
Were you alone when you took that photo? Right next to the number 1 engine, there appears to be a tree behind the blast fence. If you look close enough, the tree is in slightly different positions in each photo. The photographer must have been standing right next to you Royal.
CargoLex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1286 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks ago) and read 5623 times:
Since I have a Reuters account as a photo buyer, I looked this other photographer up (I also figured logging on, which I almost never do, might give me a lead as to where to send you). He was definitely there, and his photos of the event are extensive.
My next instinct was to see if anybody had bought the photo and displayed it on the web at a larger size, and indeed, somebody has:
This detail can't be from another image just because I can see what he's got up on the Reuters site.
They were probably taken within minutes or even seconds of each other from almost the exact same spot at almost the exact same angle at the exact same time. At first glance, they're indistinguishable from one another - but on closer inspection as the others noticed, they're not the same. The thing that tipped me off was the height of the blast wall relative to the nose gear door and the "chin" of the aircraft. His lens has more curvature than yours, for sure, the edge of the randome on his is much more warped.
photopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2870 posts, RR: 18
Reply 19, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5179 times:
These are clearly NOT the same image as a close look at both shows many differences.
As a side note, Reuters is a well respected professional news organization and while many little publications might stoop to stealing an image, Reuters is not one of those. IMHO, it does a great disservice to Reuters to suggest this.
The title of this thread should be changed immediately, because as it has been clearly demonstrated to be wrong, letting it remain titled as written is nothing but smearing Reuter's name.