will747
Topic Author
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 12:52 pm

Composite Vs Photoshopped

Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:07 pm

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
 
unattendedbag
Posts: 2154
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 10:35 pm

RE: Composite Vs Photoshopped

Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:14 pm

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
 
JakTrax
Posts: 4636
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Composite Vs Photoshopped

Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:31 pm

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
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11764
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Composite Vs Photoshopped

Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:35 pm

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.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
Silver1SWA
Crew
Posts: 4455
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:11 pm

RE: Composite Vs Photoshopped

Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:44 pm

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 avatar
derekf
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 4:05 am

RE: Composite Vs Photoshopped

Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:42 pm

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.......
 
McG1967
Posts: 480
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:36 am

RE: Composite Vs Photoshopped

Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:14 pm

Possibly a 10 stop ND filter.
 
JakTrax
Posts: 4636
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Composite Vs Photoshopped

Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:22 pm

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
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11764
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Composite Vs Photoshopped

Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:07 pm

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).
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
User avatar
derekf
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 4:05 am

RE: Composite Vs Photoshopped

Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:56 pm

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.......
 
Silver1SWA
Crew
Posts: 4455
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:11 pm

RE: Composite Vs Photoshopped

Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:19 pm

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.
 
ckw
Posts: 4586
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:26 am

RE: Composite Vs Photoshopped

Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:37 am

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
 
Silver1SWA
Crew
Posts: 4455
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:11 pm

RE: Composite Vs Photoshopped

Tue Mar 19, 2013 1:12 am

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.
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11764
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Composite Vs Photoshopped

Tue Mar 19, 2013 4:13 am

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?
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
Psych
Posts: 2944
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:17 am

RE: Composite Vs Photoshopped

Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:04 am

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 avatar
derekf
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 4:05 am

RE: Composite Vs Photoshopped

Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:50 am

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.......
 
Silver1SWA
Crew
Posts: 4455
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:11 pm

RE: Composite Vs Photoshopped

Tue Mar 19, 2013 8:16 am

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 avatar
derekf
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 4:05 am

RE: Composite Vs Photoshopped

Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:04 am

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.......
 
ckw
Posts: 4586
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:26 am

RE: Composite Vs Photoshopped

Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:36 am

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
 
Dehowie
Posts: 1065
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:41 am

RE: Composite Vs Photoshopped

Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:21 pm

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
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11764
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Composite Vs Photoshopped

Tue Mar 19, 2013 2:41 pm

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
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
JakTrax
Posts: 4636
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Composite Vs Photoshopped

Tue Mar 19, 2013 2:44 pm

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]
 
ckw
Posts: 4586
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:26 am

RE: Composite Vs Photoshopped

Tue Mar 19, 2013 2:50 pm

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
 
Silver1SWA
Crew
Posts: 4455
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:11 pm

RE: Composite Vs Photoshopped

Tue Mar 19, 2013 5:09 pm

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.
 
Psych
Posts: 2944
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:17 am

RE: Composite Vs Photoshopped

Tue Mar 19, 2013 5:23 pm

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
 
n314as
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:30 pm

RE: Composite Vs Photoshopped

Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:17 pm

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 it is the tool of today unfortunately and people don't learn the old way like if you were shooting film. I can make shots today look like perfect air to airs when it is not true. A little intelligence like flexing the wings, adding heat, and changing the reflections can make a nice fake shot.
No signature
 
ckw
Posts: 4586
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:26 am

RE: Composite Vs Photoshopped

Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:31 pm

Quoting Psych (Reply 24):
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?

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 learn a lot more about photography by really thinking about an image than being told how it was done. Look at how many different techniques have been suggested based on just this one image. Maybe none of them are correct, but lots of ideas to play around with!


Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 23):
How does Airliners.net know which I used?

Do it well and they never will   Ultimately its down to the photographer's ethics. I see no problem in using any technique at my disposal to create the image I want - BUT I would never try an pass off a manipulated photo as anything else. Its a temptation a number of photo-journalists have fallen prey to resulting in loss of reputation and even career.

Cheers,

Colin
Colin K. Work, Pixstel
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11764
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Composite Vs Photoshopped

Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:35 pm

Quoting n314as (Reply 25):
A composite would have shown right thru the 747.

How do you figure? If the 747 were there the whole time......
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
dlowwa
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17 pm

RE: Composite Vs Photoshopped

Wed Mar 20, 2013 7:50 am

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 described 25-minute time frame. As such, it falls afoul of our editing rules, and has been removed. Thank you all for voicing your concerns.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests