Hmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2114 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (15 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2216 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.
An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
BO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2771 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (15 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2163 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 --(-<==
Follow @kimbo_snaps on Instagram or bokimon- on Flickr to see more pics of me and my travels.
A student From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (15 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2128 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...