Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Composite Vs Photoshopped  
User currently offlinewill747 From Italy, joined Oct 2009, 1 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5039 times:

So, I was taking a look to the actual TOP photo of the TOP5:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Yunjin Lee - Korea Aero Photo



Awesome, no doubt at all, but...

It's obviously a composition of more than two shot, maybe four, judging by the KE's tails positioning, well anyway it's cleary visible from the "pauses" on the trails of light in the sky and on the taxiway.
Now, I've heard about fellow photographers who get rejections or even a BAN for using the Clone Stamp Tool maybe just for a pole or a bush...
So, I was asking myself, why composite photos like this get accepted on the DB?

Will

28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineunattendedbag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2325 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5029 times:

Quoting will747 (Thread starter):
well anyway it's cleary visible from the "pauses" on the trails of light in the sky and on the taxiway.

the pauses in the trails of light is where the aircraft paused, not the photographer clipping multiple photos together. When an aircraft is in motion, the fuselage and tail are not visible like the blinking strobes and other lights. When an aircraft stops, faint images of the fuselage and tail become visible because the light from those areas have enough time to make an impression on the camera sensor. That is why you see the Korean A380 paused on the taxiway and then you see the same Korean A380's tail at the gate on the right side of the photo. The aircraft paused in those two locations and therefore the same aircraft is visible in two locations.

Quoting will747 (Thread starter):
why composite photos like this get accepted on the DB?

It's not a composite photo.

[Edited 2013-03-18 10:19:57]


Slower traffic, keep right
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5006 times:

Please don't take this the wrong way but you should really have a basic knowledge of what can occur during long exposures before you go suggesting something breaks the rules or is in some way fake.

Karl


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9897 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5004 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting will747 (Thread starter):
So, I was asking myself, why composite photos like this get accepted on the DB?

They don't, and I don't see anything in this photo that screams "composite!"

The only thing is the bright light trail in the sky that has a pause in it - but that could be for a variety of reasons, like they turned off the landing light, the airplane banked and took it out of view, clouds briefly blocked it, etc., etc.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4778 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4994 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Doesn't compositing fall under "photoshopping"? Anyway...

It looks to me like one Korean Air pushed out of the gate and another pulled in during the single exposure.

No compositing...case closed.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinederekf From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 909 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4969 times:

I'm intrigued what is required to get a perfectly exposed and sharp foreground after an exposure of 25 minutes. Not seconds. Minutes. Presumably a very small aperture and extra filters?


Whatever.......
User currently offlineMcG1967 From UK - Scotland, joined Apr 2006, 510 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4961 times:

Possibly a 10 stop ND filter.

User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4945 times:

Quoting derekf (Reply 5):
I'm intrigued what is required to get a perfectly exposed and sharp foreground after an exposure of 25 minutes. Not seconds. Minutes

A bloody sturdy tripod and no wind!!!

Karl


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9897 posts, RR: 26
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4910 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting derekf (Reply 5):
I'm intrigued what is required to get a perfectly exposed and sharp foreground after an exposure of 25 minutes. Not seconds. Minutes. Presumably a very small aperture and extra filters?

Possibly. But calculating the exposure isn't difficult. Take some quick exposures at a high ISO and wide aperture, varying shutter speeds until you get a good exposure. Then reduce ISO to whatever you want, or extend shutter to whatever you want, and do the math to fill in the other variables.

I do that all the time for long exposures. If I get a good exposure at ISO3200, F4, and 2 seconds, then I should get approximately the same exposure at ISO100, F11, and about 8.5 minutes (assuming my quick math is correct).



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinederekf From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 909 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4891 times:

It just seems a very bright scene so to get a 25 minute exposure.

This is handy though.

http://www.calculator.org/calculate-online/photography/exposure.aspx



Whatever.......
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4778 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4887 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting derekf (Reply 9):
It just seems a very bright scene so to get a 25 minute exposure.

Ever used a 10-stop ND filter?! lol

Combination of using an ND filter and stopping down will do it...



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 731 posts, RR: 16
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4860 times:

I don't think its a 25 minute exposure - look at the ground staff. Don't think its a composite either. My guess its an in-camera multiple exposure taken over a period of 25 minutes.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4778 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4849 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ckw (Reply 11):

I thought the appearance of the ground staff made a good case for a 25 minute exposure. They are all over the place, stopping periodically in many different places.

[Edited 2013-03-18 18:13:20]


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9897 posts, RR: 26
Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4813 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting derekf (Reply 9):
This is handy though.

True, but less so when I'm standing out at the airport.   But stops are stops - whether adjusted by ISO, aperture, or shutter speed.

Quoting ckw (Reply 11):
My guess its an in-camera multiple exposure taken over a period of 25 minutes.

Not being familiar with that, is it basically a composite done in-camera?



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4778 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I can't imagine being able to keep everything perfectly still for such a long time!

I am somewhat out of my depth here, with very little experience of very long shutter speeds but, in order for the exposure to be such that the main subject is 'just right', a person on the tarmac would have to be pretty still for an absolute age or incredibly brightly lit to be registered in the final image, surely.

The photographer doesn't actually say this is one image with the shutter open for 25 minutes; just that this is a capture of the scene over a 25 minute period.

Interesting.

Paul

[Edited 2013-03-19 00:10:41]

User currently offlinederekf From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 909 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4764 times:

Quoting ckw (Reply 11):
Ever used a 10-stop ND filter?! lol

The problem is normally not enough light rather than too much.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 13):
True, but less so when I'm standing out at the airport.

We have the internet on our phones over here  

There are a few Android apps that do the same thing.

It is an interesting image though. I think ckw might be right.



Whatever.......
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4778 posts, RR: 26
Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4760 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Psych (Reply 14):
I can't imagine being able to keep everything perfectly still for such a long time!

Get a cable release, open the shutter and lock it open, set the cable down and just step back and let it do it's thing.  
Quoting Psych (Reply 14):
The photographer doesn't actually say this is one image with the shutter open for 25 minutes; just that this is a capture of the scene over a 25 minute period.

No, but a multiple exposure is a violation of the rules so I think it's fair to give the photographer the benefit of the doubt and assume he meant one exposure.

Quoting derekf (Reply 15):
The problem is normally not enough light rather than too much.

Not getting your point. First you said the scene was too bright for a 25 minute exposure. Not with an ND filter it's not, especially a 10 stop. Assuming that's what the photographer used.

Doesn't anyone here ever experiment? To capture night movements over a long period sounds pretty cool and something I'd probably try if I had the time and a busy enough scene. Looks like the photographer had some fun experimenting and it paid off. I see no reason to believe this can't be one exposure.

Quoting Psych (Reply 14):
in order for the exposure to be such that the main subject is 'just right', a person on the tarmac would have to be pretty still for an absolute age or incredibly brightly lit to be registered in the final image, surely.

If you look carefully, there is a LOT of ghosting. Much of it very faint. And the ground crew is wearing bright safety gear which surely registers easily once the individual stands still for a while. What's interesting is what looks like a lot of people on the ground could actually be only a couple who have just moved around.

Edit: I also wonder if he used the black card technique for additional control of the exposure. This could explain the break in the streak of light in the sky.

[Edited 2013-03-19 01:39:04]


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinederekf From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 909 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4746 times:

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 16):
Quoting derekf (Reply 15):
The problem is normally not enough light rather than too much.

Not getting your point. First you said the scene was too bright for a 25 minute exposure. Not with an ND filter it's not, especially a 10 stop. Assuming that's what the photographer used.

I was talking in more general terms rather than about this image in particular.

In any case, what does it matter how it was taken - I am interested in how it was taken and it's a shame that uploading here strips the EXIF from the images as well.



Whatever.......
User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 731 posts, RR: 16
Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4733 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 13):
Not being familiar with that, is it basically a composite done in-camera?

At one level yes, in so far as you are exposing multiple images onto the same frame, but in practice a bit more challenging as you can't alter the individual images as you could in PS.

Obviously a lot more common in the days of film, but still a useful technique in some situations. If you think about it, anyone who has used fill flash has in effect made a double exposure - whether you achieve multiple exposures by opening and closing the shutter or turning on and off a light source seems much the same thing to me. Both involve controlling when the light hits the sensor.

Of course many DSLRs don't allow for multiple exposures on the same frame, so controlling the light source will be the only option for many (though a black card in front of the lens still works!).

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1057 posts, RR: 33
Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4701 times:

On a 25 minute exposure ground crew are almost invisible.
Think about it to get the aircraft exposed correctly it sat there for the entire 25 minutes to get enough light to generate a well exposed image.
Any ground crew irrespective of how bright the hi vis gear even if standing perfectly still will only be 1/25th of the way to an exposure.
Lights starting and stopping in the frame indicate its a composite of several images.
Love the photo though but a 25 min exposure with ground crew movement is impossible the sensor just isnt getting enough light.
In a balanced 5 second exposure moving ground crew only barely show up..so in an exposure needing 25 minutes or 300 times more time to expose they unless stationary for an inordinate amount(ie 5 minutes)of time will simply not show up except as the faintest of faint trails if at all.
Like i said love the shot but there is no way known its a single image.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Darren Howie - Vortex Aviation Photography




2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9897 posts, RR: 26
Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4673 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting derekf (Reply 15):
We have the internet on our phones over here

Ahhh, the wonderful technology of the UK!   I could do that I suppose, but honestly it's quicker for me just to do the math.

Quoting Psych (Reply 14):
I can't imagine being able to keep everything perfectly still for such a long time!

It's not all that difficult if the weather isn't against you. This was shot with a really crappy tripod on sand (approx 17.5 minute exposure):

http://www.vksphoto.com/Landscapes/California/Dockweiler-Beach/i-vBsZrRN/1/XL/IMG_9584-XL.jpg



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 21, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4668 times:

Possibly an 'in-camera' composite but is that against the rules here? After all, it's not using software to subsequently manipulate the capture. As I alluded to in my first comment I very much doubt it's been done using several frames in post.

I'm still inclined to believe that it's quite likely a very long exposure.

Karl

[Edited 2013-03-19 07:45:01]

User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 731 posts, RR: 16
Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4665 times:

I've just remembered that some digicams have a timelapse feature built in. Could be what was used here. Not sure whether the firmware manages potential exposure issues though.

Cheers,
Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4778 posts, RR: 26
Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4625 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ckw (Reply 18):
At one level yes, in so far as you are exposing multiple images onto the same frame, but in practice a bit more challenging as you can't alter the individual images as you could in PS.

Obviously a lot more common in the days of film, but still a useful technique in some situations. If you think about it, anyone who has used fill flash has in effect made a double exposure - whether you achieve multiple exposures by opening and closing the shutter or turning on and off a light source seems much the same thing to me. Both involve controlling when the light hits the sensor.

Of course many DSLRs don't allow for multiple exposures on the same frame, so controlling the light source will be the only option for many (though a black card in front of the lens still works!).

So for Airliners.net, I wonder where the line is drawn? If you expose multiple images in a single frame in camera, or using a fill flash, or a long exposure with a black card, you're effectively doing the same thing...a double exposure. In theory, I could take a long exposure of one aircraft in two different locations in a single exposure. It's one exposure so would that be allowed here? I could achieve that effect using different methods. How does Airliners.net know which I used?

[Edited 2013-03-19 10:12:19]


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4619 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 16):
If you look carefully, there is a LOT of ghosting.
Quoting Dehowie (Reply 19):
In a balanced 5 second exposure moving ground crew only barely show up..so in an exposure needing 25 minutes or 300 times more time to expose they unless stationary for an inordinate amount(ie 5 minutes)of time will simply not show up except as the faintest of faint trails if at all.

I take your point Ryan, but I have to agree with Darren here.

I don't have many photos taken at night, but with this one there is already significant ghosting of the ground workers - and this was just a 15 second exposure. Many more seconds to get a correct exposure and I think the guy loading the 757 in the foreground would have completely disappeared.

I am not concerning myself about the potential issue of breaking the site rules - just trying to understand how the image comes to look as it is. We are all here speculating, but I wonder whether anyone has tried to contact the photographer to ask whether this was a 25 minute exposure or the scene taken over a 25 minute period?

Cheers.

Paul


25 n314as : I don't think that is a composite. It is a long time exposure. A composite would have shown right thru the 747. Digital opens for cheating but again i
26 Post contains images ckw : Oh lets not spoil the fun with facts Seriously, I find it quite interesting dissecting images and trying to figure out how it was done - I think you
27 vikkyvik : How do you figure? If the 747 were there the whole time......
28 dlowwa : Hi all, After consulting with the photographer, it has been determined that the image was in fact a composite of multiple exposures taken within the d
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
5D Mk III Vs. 6D - Personal Experiences? posted Fri Feb 1 2013 01:54:06 by INNflight
Canon Vs. Nikon posted Tue Oct 30 2012 17:06:55 by deltaA330
Kodak Paper Vs. Fujicolor Paper posted Tue Oct 23 2012 11:19:25 by nickh
Shooting Vs. Spotting posted Thu May 3 2012 12:32:17 by unattendedbag
Portrait Photos Vs Landscape Photos posted Sun Apr 22 2012 19:10:17 by dtwmtx330
550D+17-85 Vs. 60D posted Fri Mar 2 2012 09:07:37 by LH234
200 Vs 300mm Nikon Lense Dilemma-which To Buy? posted Tue Feb 28 2012 11:57:13 by skingjack
Nikkor D-series Vs. G-series Lenses posted Mon Feb 13 2012 21:11:47 by 2H4
Sigma 120-400 Vs Tokina 80-400? posted Wed Feb 8 2012 02:24:56 by Sam the Lab
Lens Upgrade - 70-200 F4L Vs 200 F2.8L posted Tue Feb 7 2012 22:21:52 by vikkyvik