Not that it is fake, it is certainly real and definetely an aweseome shot.
I am convinced that this is not the original photographer. My first instinct was, "hey, those dont look like mountains from Alaska" they look ALOT more like colorado, or even california."
Secondly, and most obvious. Mr. Mays states in the comments "FL 330". I.e. "flight level, 33,000 ft." Well he is the photographer, he should know this information, right?
This aircraft is very clearly NOT at FL330. Much closer to around 11 or 12,000 ft. For starters, look at the clouds. Those type of clouds are not that high in the sky and even if they just so happend to be on that particular day, they would have covered ALL of that mountain range in the distance. The only POSSIBLE exception would be if it really was Alaska, and Mt. McKinnley was poking its SNOWCOVERED head through the clouds. I see no snow.
I also wrote Mr. Mays and got no reply, i wasnt suprized.
Okay, so call me a dickhead for bashing this guy but I simply think it is a rip-off from somewhere. Scanned from a magazine or taken from a website, etc...
FUAirliner From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 538 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (12 years 6 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1777 times:
Did I get you right?
You are accusing Mike Mays of uploading photos he has not shot himself to the database just because you think the mountains look more than Californian or Colorado ones and because the quoted flight level might be incorrect?
In my opinion this does not give you the right to accuse him of copyright violation.
BTW, did you look at the Photo ID? This shot was one of the very first ones to be uploaded, so I would not be surprised if you don't get any answer to your e-mail. It may be not valid any more.
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 2, posted (12 years 6 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1768 times:
I don't know whether it is his photo or not, but that is definetely not the correct information. Surely he would've known what he was doing, what flight, where he was, aircraft registration etc considering it was added not long after it was supposedly taken..
Rindt From Germany, joined May 2000, 930 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (12 years 6 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1712 times:
Your accusation is spot-on as far as I'm concerned... that shot looks like it was taken in the San Bernardino valley, by Ontario (which just so happens to be a large UPS hub!) The chances of those types of clouds forming at such an altitude are also slim to none.
I say "bravo" for bringing it forward... if we don't publicly humiliate the idiots that pull this crap off, how else would we stop them from doing it again?
What other people think of you is none of your business!
EDIpic From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (12 years 6 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1669 times:
Maybe Mr Anony-mouse 704tangoalpha hasn't realised that what he is doing is wrong. Perhaps he also doesn't know that an a.net photographer pulled all his photographs from this site when claims of their authenticity were questioned.
There have been some obvious 'copies' spotted in the last few months through carelessness by the offender but you are basing your claim not on the aircraft but on your perception of where the photograph was taken.
Post you complaint to the Aministrators to sort out, not here please. Once this sort of ridiculous precedent is started, some ordinary guys who make honest mistakes will get really pissed off.
EDIpic From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (12 years 6 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1645 times:
Posted 12-19-00 21:39
Because of this kind of bashing I have asked Johan to remove all my photographs from airliners.net.
Also, Granite mentioned in that same thread:
If I had my way, it would have taken the decision to delete upon the first mention of 'fake', but Johan had decided to let the thread be, probably in the hope of some civil discussion between fellow photographers, amateur and professional.
But it has turned out to be a continual bashing of his work.
Yes, some very positive comments and some not so good.
I will hold my hand up as I think I did mention somewhere along the line that some of his shots are 'fake'
I have said all along and from the very start that there should be NO criticising of other peoples work on the forum. If a problem does arise, contact one of the administrators to handle and let them decide the outcome.
Although I don't think Gary will come out of hibernation to kill this thread. Please be careful out there or you'll alienate photographers...
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 10, posted (12 years 6 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1637 times:
Aaah Frank, you reminded me of the very important point I missed! I think that, unless you have concrete evidence that a photograph is fake, you should not post. Even if it looks to be stolen, or faked, just don't, unless you really have proof.
There was a photo posted in the civil-aviation forum last week, about a photograph of a BWIA 747 leased from Cargolux, and someone accused it of being fake. I mean, the story came out in the end, but why couldn't he have written the topic 'BWIA 747?' or something similar, not accusing the photo is fake, but trying to find out whether it is or not. Instead, he named it 'allright, who did this?' and then accused of being it a straight out fake.
I'm wondering why "EDIpic" and "FUAirliner" who were so gung-ho on that post out to "find out the truth" of the mysterious A318 picture. Suddendly, they have turned into beacons of morality and reason on this post, saying "there should be no such arguments!"
Maybe Mr Anony-mouse 704tangoalpha hasn't realised that what he is doing is wrong.
Oh, i suppose you realized this AFTER that last post.
Oh yeah, and "Mr. Anony-mouse" thats pretty clever, did you make that up yourself?
Okay, I didnt mean for this to become a flame war of some sort, It's just that any idiot can tell that "Mike Mays" probably didnt take that picture.
"well maybe he just got the info mixed up" -- IT'S HIS ONLY PICTURE!! how could he mix up the info?
I don't like your way you handle this case.
Fair enough. But I dont like people taking credit for photos that aren't theirs, and I dont think the genuine photogs here do either.
Chris28_17 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1439 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (12 years 6 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1626 times:
Alright. I agree with 704TA. I think it only takes a minute amount of common sense to realize that this is probably not Mike M's picture.
Having said that, if someone posted one of my pictures on here and said "FAKE!!!" or "COPYRIGHT VIOLATION!!" i wouldn't care because I can very easily prove them wrong. It WOULD NOT offend me one bit.
As a contributor to this site i have no qualms about people pointing out potential copyright problems as long as they remain within reason (i.e. having a good argument) which i believe this situation certainly does.
Mike Mays is probably just some kid that was bored one evening and decided to try and upload a picture to see what happens.
PPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (12 years 6 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1609 times:
I have to agree it is possibe that the information is wrong, but the photographer (this is obviously a photo shoot), should know the flight levels, area taken and the aircraft that they are doing it of. I know that for the ones that I fly, I generally know the aircraft and I know the altitudes, formations, and I would hope the area. Most of it is dictated by the man taking the photos.
AirNikon From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 290 posts, RR: 36
Reply 16, posted (12 years 6 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1619 times:
Here's another interesting concept to consider. That pic is SO much like a typical promotional photo that DAC used to distribute en masse' years (decades?) ago. However, DAC was already Boeing by 1997, and no longer taking inflight DC-8 pics I suppose. The aspect ratio on this pic is ~1.3, just about the same as an 8.5"X11" print. (HMMMM)
Yes I am aware that an uncropped digital pic is 1.3333...., but a digital pic (even back then) should be sharper than this. Rindt is on the right track by suggesting that it was shot in SoCal, as it sure looks like it to me (but we'll never be sure). It doesn't look like FL330 either, although my Chuck Yeager vision isn't what it used to be.
These are all just suppositions, but my final question is: Why does he have only ONE PIC in the database?
Who knows? I surely dont.
Don't get married, don't have kids, and you will have more money than you know what to do with...
Carlos Borda From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 538 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (12 years 6 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1573 times:
Rather interesting thread and photo. In case some of you already didn't know (some of you do), I work for UPS and I've seen this photo around at work up on a wall, calendar or on our Intranet site somewhere in the last 7 years that I've been there, I'm very sure of it....
Did he take the shot or not?? That I don't know and I'm not even sure if I could find out, but one thing I know for sure is that UPS is very very strict about their image/copyright and the way it's used.
I want to make myself very clear here guys.... I'm not saying this guy didn't take the shot, but I'm am saying that UPS probably owns the copyright to it either way if they hired him or a firm to do the air-to-air shoot (which they did). I'm going to try and find some of my old calendars or see if I find that shot up on a wall somewhere in one of our offices.
My hunch is that this is one of our calendar shots.
N509JB From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (12 years 6 months 17 hours ago) and read 1489 times:
You can’t get proof...but you don’t need it. This is clearly not his photo, and I really don’t see an argument here. IF it really is HIS photo, I wouldn’t hire him, cause he don’t know what altitude or location he took the shot, so its a case of either fakery or incompetence.
Gocaps16 From Japan, joined Jan 2000, 4339 posts, RR: 21
Reply 23, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1408 times:
Ok, J.C. You are not 100% correct. You got proof that it's over Alaska just by the mountains? IT could be taken over alaska or it could not. It could be taken over Europe or someplace mountainous and Mr. Mays could written in ANC for the location. But definatly the remark is false information, as well could the date.