Delta777-XXX From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1017 posts, RR: 8 Posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1543 times:
Hmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2088 posts, RR: 5 Reply 1, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1322 times:
Yes, good job Gary. How wide was your lens? Right now for me that is one factoring limiting my wow-factor in my shots, lens angle. My widest is only 28 mm.
Hmmmm...
An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1258 times:
That is not a wide angle shot. In fact I'd say that it was taken at around 200mm, maybe more. But the air seems extremely clear. Usually at long range you get a little bit of haze.
Hmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2088 posts, RR: 5 Reply 4, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1142 times:
Here's what I don't understand about Gary's photo. In order to get an object of that size completely within the field of view of the lens, usually that means that it must occupy a smaller amount of the frame. But the fuselage is huge in this United shot compared to the same of mine below.
My shot was taken with a 200 mm zoom, and you can see that I just barely got the whole plane inside the field of view. But to do that, look how small the BA fuselage is compared to Gary's picture previously posted above.
If I would have used say a 400 mm zoom lens, the fuselage would be as big as in Gary's, but I would have only captured about half the plane in the photo. Gary has shot the plane as if he was very close, either by physical proximity or by way of zoom, but he also manages to get almost the entire wingspan and fuselage in as well.
It would seem to me that Gary shot this with a very expensive, wide-angle lens. For sure, this was not your ordinary zoom lens. That's what gives this photo its unusually spectacular appearance. That's why it was selected for discussion. Something about how it looks does not seem to be the product of an ordinary camera with an ordinary zoom lens.
Gary?
Hmmmm...
An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
Hmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2088 posts, RR: 5 Reply 7, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1110 times:
Does the United 747 look a little "clean" to you? The underside of the wings, flaps, and the slats show no shade, but also no detail. The slats look as if they are computer generated.
Is it just me? It's still a great photo, but something to me looks artificial. Or has it just been sprayed over with an air brush in these areas to "clean" it up?
Hmmmm...
An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
Qantas737 From Australia, joined Jul 2000, 738 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1101 times:
I noticed the aircraft looks a little "dirty" under the body too, but I dont really doubt Gary Watt's work. He does a great job, maybe he has cleaned it up a bit though, which is not bad
BO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2759 posts, RR: 20 Reply 9, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1089 times:
Under what I see, He must of gotten close to it..pretty close and zoomed it in with a higher power of lens like 75-300 but not entirely sure..
I could do those with the 75-150 I currently have..But then again... The shot is good and I like it very much.
Bo Kim --(-<==
Expanding my global domination one spotter at a time..
Hkgspotter1 From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2005, 0 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1066 times:
Your correct, I never saw that. The underside of the wings and the flaps are not real. Don't know whats been done to it but its not correct. The whole underside of the wings have been coloured grey.
Come to think of it I dont remember seeing that much flap either !!
Maybe Gary can explain whats been done to this photo.
Airnewzealand From New Zealand, joined Oct 2000, 2538 posts, RR: 6 Reply 12, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1054 times:
Awesome, make it my Wallpaper!!
Cheers\
mikey
Haere Ra (From NewZealand) AirNZ: The worlds warmest welcome!!
A student From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1054 times:
I don't believe it: Everytime someone posts a topic about a picture, someone else will come up and shout "That's fake!"
Does envy of skill never stop?
Has no one here heard of the "Reduce Graininess" feature in Adobe Photoshop - which tends to result in such clean surfaces? And who thinks there's too much flap? That is just ridiculous - next time, better look closely at a landing 747...
Hmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2088 posts, RR: 5 Reply 14, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1028 times:
In the United photo, the sun seems to be in the 2 o' clock position. But the canoes on the left wing seem to be casting a shadow as if the sun was in the 7 or 8 o'clock position.
Gary?
Hmmmm...
An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
AerLingus From China, joined Mar 2000, 2371 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 943 times:
The photograph only looks as though it has been cleaned up a little, which is fine.
As far as that large amount of flap, I would say that it may be attributed to the angle.
AC_A340 From Canada, joined Sep 1999, 2251 posts, RR: 2 Reply 18, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 887 times:
The flaps and undersides of the wings may look a bit colored. And if you look closely at the underside of the fuselage, it is a reflection of what is on the ground.
Give him some credit guys, it's a very good picture.
How many of you can honestly say that you have never touched up a photograph?
Ryaneverest From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 875 times:
I've got tons of pictures like that taken at runway 25R of CLK (no special skills involved). So I guess that physical proximity is the main factor to the angle of view.
JetService From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4798 posts, RR: 13 Reply 20, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 844 times:
Not an aircraft expert nor photography expert, but is it unusual that the leading edge of the starboard wing is blue, and the port side wing is white or light gray? Just curious.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1017 posts, 
From Canada, joined May 1999, 2088 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2005, 0 posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 2000, 670 posts, 
From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 11949 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Oct 2000, 2538 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From China, joined Mar 2000, 2371 posts, 
From Sweden, joined May 2006, 371 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
