Ahlfors From Canada, joined Oct 2000, 1318 posts, RR: 5 Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7858 times:
Well, there's always zoom lenses, so it could be taken from another plane further away. However, the comment says the plane is at 36000 feet. Considering the angle of that photo, how high is the photographer?
Meister808 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 972 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7739 times:
In my opinion, that pic looks fake.... the clouds are wrong for looking at them from 36000 feet... it looks more like the clouds are from the ground, looking up. Just my call, though.
-Meister
Twin Cessna 812 Victor, Minneapolis Center, we observe your operation in the immediate vicinity of extreme precipitation
Jhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6195 posts, RR: 13 Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7676 times:
JBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4459 posts, RR: 22 Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7667 times:
Oceanic separation rules are a little different, not to worry. I'll let one of the more experienced guys explain it.
They're flying over water (hence the bluish-gray), looks also like they're flying over some lower-level clouds
InnocuousFox From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2805 posts, RR: 16 Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7657 times:
I initially thought the same things about the clouds... but then I "reversed my eyes" like you have to do with those brain-teaser combination pictures and it looked OK.
As for the separation conflict, remember that 1000' is REALLY not that much a distance.
Dave Mark - Intrinsic Algorithm - Reducing the world to mathematical equations!
Sovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2339 posts, RR: 14 Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7655 times:
Also...when i see these air to air shots the plane being photgraphed is usually flying parallel to the plane the photographer is in. That way you would have anough time to take camera out and get it ready etc....But if this plane is flying perpendicular how exactly did he shoot it in time and at that exact position and not get any part of the wing or anything. Looks weird.
JBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4459 posts, RR: 22 Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7571 times:
Sovietjet,
He probably knew where to look for it...marvelous invention, that TCAS
InnocuousFox From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2805 posts, RR: 16 Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 7360 times:
Since it is coming towards the aircraft that is shooting the pic, he would have seen it coming.
Dave Mark - Intrinsic Algorithm - Reducing the world to mathematical equations!
Cbphoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1506 posts, RR: 6 Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 7167 times:
How exactly would he get the registration number on it. there is no doubt in my mind it is real, but is there a way for him to see the reg number in the cockpit, or did he guess on what it was on the ground???
MEA310 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2002, 660 posts, RR: 13 Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 7045 times:
This is a great photo,my desktop wallpaper for now!
Bailey must've been real quick on taking this shot since the plane is head to head with the plane he's in & is coming real fast
Airplanepics From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2725 posts, RR: 45 Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6947 times:
In my opinion, that pic looks fake.... the clouds are wrong for looking at them from 36000 feet... it looks more like the clouds are from the ground, looking up. Just my call, though.
Do you even know what you are talking about?
The photographer in question is a pilot for Singapore Airlines flying the 777. If you care to take a look at his other photos before jumping to quick descisions you will see that it is not fake.
Sorry guys for the snap - but it gets me down when people question whether a decent picture such as this is fake or not.
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 71 Reply 13, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6915 times:
There is an Aviation Photography forum which is where this really should have been posted. Most of the photographers are there and they love to shred guys who call pictures like this fakes.
It is a good picture and I'd be proud to have taken it, but the subjects (sky and airplane) are very ordinary. Now why would someone go to all the trouble in Photoshop to fake a picture when the result is nothing but an airplane and a sky. No! Faked photos show us airplanes flying down the aisles at Walmart or give us open-cockpit jumbo jets and things like that.
Guys, if something in the appearance of this picture surprises you it is only because you lack experience in looking at airplanes at high altitude from other planes at high altitude. The occasional two-second glimpse from passenger cabin windows does not qualify. The picture looks dead-on what I would expect and I believe that those of us who have our altimeters up to 29.92 (or even know what I mean by that) agree - it looks just about right.
If I had to guess I'd say the photographer was at FL370 in RVSM airspace, saw a target on the TCAS that was a thousand feet lower and converging. He grabbed his camera and pointed. I'd guess it was a good camera, probably an SLR and maybe a 120-200mm or so telephoto also of good quality.
Someone even posted that it looked like the plane was going straight down! Well the plane is passing under our POV. To go under us it has to be below us. So at some point between the horizon and passing under us it has to be traversing down in our field of view. Test this! Stand where a plane will fly over your head. See if it doesn't fly UP in your field of view even if it is not climbing. A mountain on the horizon does not look as "high" as it does when it is right next to you. Did you ever notice that?
And lastly, this site really does not like photographers uploading fakes. Any of the regular contributors are well aware of that and they would just not do it.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
AMM744 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2003, 211 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6798 times:
As a photographer, albeit landscape I don't doubt the authenticity of this shot but I'd still love to know how he did it.
It's not from the cockpit, that's just not possible unless he was flying upside down at 37000 ft!!!.
The sky and clouds look good and the aircraft doesn't look like it was planted in Photoshop, you can tell if you know the program well.
It's real alright but it must have been taken from a downward rear facing window or maybe he attached his camera to the underside of the fuselage and triggered the shot via remote, ha ha - just kidding.
Fly2hmo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6689 times:
He leaned way forward from the captain's seat, until his camera's telescope-sized lens touched the cockpit's window and pressed the shutter. That simple.
And I wonder:
WHY NOBODY HAS ASKED THE PHOTOGRAPHER!!!!!!!!!!!????????>:-(
N766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 7990 posts, RR: 27 Reply 16, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6564 times:
Definatly taken out the cockpit window at an oncoming plane. Only other option is if the photorapher were in a tanker and took it out the back. A side shot out a pax window like that would be impossible.
N766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 7990 posts, RR: 27 Reply 18, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6448 times:
How is it not possible to get that angle? You just lean forward. And, if the plane is a mile or 2 ahead, you don't need much of a down angle.
AMM744 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2003, 211 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6307 times:
Yeah, your'e right in theory but we're talking two aircraft crossing each others path at a combined speed of approx 1000mph !!!
He'd have to be pretty damn quick, plus he'd have to make sure that shutter speed was fast enough, zoom angle in the right place, composition, lighting etc etc, all this in a flash.
Mia777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2002, 1165 posts, RR: 6 Reply 21, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6232 times:
Bailey is an active member of this forum. Do not e-mail him asking if that picture is real or not. It is totally genuine and that would be downright rude and insulting. He is an excellent photographer. I believe he uses a Canon D60 and a 100-400/4-5.6L IS. With a long telephoto lens and a 1.6 crop factor, getting close to the planes is easy (I won't speak for him but I am photgrapher as well), however nailing the shot (sharp, correct exosure) is not. If you would like to know more about his work, e-mail him asking about how he took the shot, etc, etc. As someone mentioned above, he is a Singapore 777 driver. Here he is landing his big boy
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 71 Reply 22, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6111 times:
AMM744
Clearly you don't have any idea what you are talking about. Why then are you so adamant about it.
Leaning toward the cockpit windows of a typical jetliner you can see from more than 90o above to maybe 70o below horizontal. The lateral field-of-view is slightly greater. This plane was 1000' below and still a couple thousand feet laterally from his plane. (Remember telephoto.)
Because the forward windshield slopes back so much the slant-range distance through it when shooting down gives us maybe three inches or more of glass, with heating elements to shoot through. Then there is the nose of the airplane to deal with. For that reason most of us shoot through the window just outboard of our seat, the sliding, or "clearview" window. I would bet money this was shot through that, at an angle of roughly 60-90o off the nose.
This means that the relative speed of passage is nowhere near double the airspeed of the two planes. You can play with the math on that question on your own time.
The significant factor is the rate-of-change of the subject plane's position and size. At the distance shown, not that great. From about this point on the rate-of-change increases dramatically until the actual passage is just a blur. But at this distance and angle - no problem whatever for any exposure of 1/100 of a second or faster.
Again, those of us with thousands of hours looking out these windows and having watched hundred, even thousand of such passing airplanes - none of us has any difficulty at all recognizing what this is. A good photograph of a routine passing airliner out a cockpit window.
There is no need to make it complicated. The simple answer is the correct one.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
Timz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6466 posts, RR: 8 Reply 24, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5834 times:
"no problem whatever for any exposure of 1/100 of a second or faster"
Suspect it wasn't that easy. Assuming they were 1000 feet below the camera they had to be 3000 ft away, or more (based on the fuselage length on the image, vs the wingspan). So he was apparently shooting fairly long-- likely the equivalent of 400 mm on full-frame 35 mm film. Not going to be that easy just to hold the camera steady, even if he rests it against the window.
And at 1/100 he would have to pan slightly, since each aircraft would cover 8 feet in that time.
It's strange how guys get indignant when somebody wonders whether a picture is real, like it's some sort of mortal insult. It isn't.
25 AMM744: No it's not a mortal insult just pure photographic physics. There is NO way that he could have shot at 1/100th of a second using the 400mm end of a zo
26 DC10type: I've personally taken dozens of photos very similar to this - Most from the back of a tanker, but several out the clearview windows. Nice shot.
27 Bobb: Alright you photo experts, apparently you don't know what a 36LB canon lens can do (not your hobbyst lens). And, YES, Photoshop is being used ALOT for
28 Av8rDAL: I'll bet Bailey is just sitting back, reading this thread, and laughing uncontrollably. It would be nice of him to chime in at some point .
29 Nudelhirsch: I have seen loads of Bailey's pics, and he sure did a good job to improve the quality of the uploaded pics, by uploading his! Then, we're living in th
30 APP: Also bear in mind that even as good a photographer as Bailey clearly is, he may have had dozens of attempts at this type of photo before he actually n
31 SlamClick: When you guys think of the speed of the subject airplane consider the vector - the actual angle on which it traverses his field of view. If the plane
32 AMM744: "Alright you photo experts, apparently you don't know what a 36LB canon lens can do (not your hobbyst lens" Certainly do my friend, what it can't do i
33 Timz: "I have taken pictures at the Reno Air Races with planes going past my fixed position at over 400 mph and used shutter speeds as low as 1/60 with a wi
34 AMM744: With a wide lens you would be able to get away with 1/60th or even 1/30th depending on how wide. With a 400mm or higher - NO WAY.
35 SlamClick: Timz No. I wrote it that way to prove a point. You guys are all still thinking of a subject moving past you tangentially from left to right. When you
36 N949WP: What is so impossible about nailing sharp pics at slower shutter speeds using telephotos? Ever heard of "vibration-reduction" or "image-stablization"
37 Bobb: I personally like that fake taken from the NY observation tower of a tourist's snapshot showing the plane straight coming to him. Sickening, but good
38 Goose: How exactly would he get the registration number on it. there is no doubt in my mind it is real, but is there a way for him to see the reg number in t
39 EZYAirbus: Hey you people, whats all the arguing for? I know its real, Bailey done well to take a super pic like this one! Bailiey - Great Pic! Glenn
40 Navigator: This looks perfect to me. Anyone with experience from traveling in cockpits at high altitudes knows that this is the way it may look. If you are not u
41 Pacific: How exactly would he get the registration number on it. there is no doubt in my mind it is real, but is there a way for him to see the reg number in t
42 Wietse: like it's some sort of mortal insult. It isn't. It isnt? Example: Dont know if your still in school or working or whatever, I dont care. But what if y
43 Timz: The original statement was "It's strange how guys get indignant when somebody wonders whether a picture is real, like it's some sort of mortal insult.
Sponsor Message: 
From Argentina, joined Aug 2001, 280 posts, 
From Canada, joined Oct 2000, 1318 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 972 posts, 
From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2339 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Feb 2002, 660 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2725 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
