Just saw this pic on the homepage under Photograpers' Choice. It looks great, but is it real? What are the lines radiating out across the water? A Photoshop radial filter? The reflection looks suspiciously perfect, not a sign of a ripple or distortion, which would be very unusual:


Any thoughts?

I guess it has been through the very thorough screening process, and that the screeners would be able to tell if it had been photoshopped or not, so I guess the likelihood is that it is indeed real. It is an unusually perfect shot though.

Braybuddy wrote:

not a sign of a ripple or distortion, which would be very unusual:

With no Wind or other disturbances, water is perfectly flat, and makes for a good mirror.

best rgards
Thomas

I am thinking it is a photoshop because the reflection is a perfect mirror of the scene, the plane and the sky. You see the EXACT same thing in the reflection, with the apparent identical angle in the reflection, that you see above (the sky and clouds) and below the plane. There should be a slight perspective shift in the two images since you are viewing the background and foreground at different angles (you should see a bit less sky between the top of the plane and the clouds in the background and a bit more underneath. Look at the yellow stand (stairs?) at the nose of the aircraft, there is no shift all. You can see the shift in this picture, look at the trees in the background:

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Fly-Jama ... 757-23N//L


I would say that in particular you should be able to easily see a shift in the view of the wing in front of the fuselage in the reflection, and there is no shift.

Tugg

tommy1808 wrote:

With no Wind or other disturbances, water is perfectly flat, and makes for a good mirror.

best rgards
Thomas

True, when you're talking about water over a certain depth, but very shallow pool in an airport would probably have minute pieces of debris on the surface.

Tugger wrote:

I am thinking it is a photoshop because the reflection is a perfect mirror of the scene the plan and the sky.

Tugg

I'm more convinced now that it is a fake. What you say is true, apart from the reflection of the clouds underneath the fin: they do not exist at all in the real picture! If you look at them, they are grey, yet in the reflection there's a small bank of white fluffy clouds which are not acually there.

Fake.

Too perfect of a flip.

No change of perspective as others have mentioned.

Certainly doctored.
Perfect reflection on a puddle with a remarkable straight edge, when the other parts of the apron are bone dry.
Reflection looks wrong around the engine nacelle and the reg is missing on the reflected wing underside.
All along the edge of the reflection the base of the aircraft is obscure by cloud. Particularly the reflected nosewheel doors.
Not to mention the weird radials.

Don't know what date is on the submission, maybe came in under earlier rules but it's certainly not as seen. Strongly suspect that 'puddle' never existed.

In the reflection it looks like the front gear is missing. There is just enough water that you should be able to see the reflection of the front gear. I could be wrong though, I'm not a photo or Photoshop expert.

ChrisKen wrote:

Certainly doctored.
Perfect reflection on a puddle with a remarkable straight edge, when the other parts of the apron are bone dry.
Reflection looks wrong around the engine nacelle and the reg is missing on the reflected wing underside.
All along the edge of the reflection the base of the aircraft is obscure by cloud. Particularly the reflected nosewheel doors.
Not to mention the weird radials.

Don't know what date is on the submission, maybe came in under earlier rules but it's certainly not as seen. Strongly suspect that 'puddle' never existed.

You can just see the reflection of the registration if you zoom in - though it isn't that clear.
You're right about the edge of the puddle - you'd only get that straight an edge on a trough, and I don't think there are many of those at airports!
The radials are indeed weird, especially the way they appear to overlay the reflection.

Reading the first couple of posts I was gonna say that we should give benefit of doubt, however that band of white cumulus should be visible in the refection but indeed isn't. Looking at the perspective I can see no reason why it wouldn't be reflected, as every other detail surrounding it is.

Perhaps a little harsh to say 'fake' but I certainly think some manipulation has gone on.......

On a related note, although it's generally considered bad form to publicly question a photographer's work, one must realise that, by putting images onto the internet, one basically invites and therefore should accept critique. No need for the photographer to feel offended; on the contrary, if there's no foul play, he should be commended for his efforts!

Karl

Braybuddy wrote:

Just saw this pic on the homepage under Photograpers' Choice. It looks great, but is it real? What are the lines radiating out across the water? A Photoshop radial filter? The reflection looks suspiciously perfect, not a sign of a ripple or distortion, which would be very unusual:


Any thoughts?

The radiating lines are the grooves in the concrete.

I think this photo is real. Good job by the photographer.

Hi all,

We're investigating and the photograper has been asked for the original. Will keep you posted, thanks for all input so far.

njxc500 wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

Just saw this pic on the homepage under Photograpers' Choice. It looks great, but is it real? What are the lines radiating out across the water? A Photoshop radial filter? The reflection looks suspiciously perfect, not a sign of a ripple or distortion, which would be very unusual:


Any thoughts?

The radiating lines are the grooves in the concrete.

I think this photo is real. Good job by the photographer.

I am rooting for this to be proved legit. Concrete grooves captured as radiating rays...how cool is that?

So I spoke to the photographer; the rays are indeed grooves in the concrete. I'm satisfied that the photo is real, so no further action will be taken.

airkas1 wrote:

So I spoke to the photographer; the rays are indeed grooves in the concrete. I'm satisfied that the photo is real, so no further action will be taken.

Hmmm. . . how does he explain the addition of the clouds under the tail, and the identical perspective, which Tugger has pointed out should be different?

Braybuddy wrote:

airkas1 wrote:

So I spoke to the photographer; the rays are indeed grooves in the concrete. I'm satisfied that the photo is real, so no further action will be taken.

Hmmm. . . how does he explain the addition of the clouds under the tail, and the identical perspective, which Tugger has pointed out should be different?

He didn't say, but the clouds underneath the tail could very well be there and at the time visible by the eye, but not by the camera? (it's an iPhone 6 photo by the way, not sure if that has any relevance). I'll try to replicate at work next week with my phone, it's certainly wet enough now...

Braybuddy wrote:

Hmmm. . . how does he explain the addition of the clouds under the tail, and the identical perspective, which Tugger has pointed out should be different?

To be honest I can't explain the "clouds" either, but something in the puddle close to the surface, causing a different breaking of light could be a possibility. It remains questionable, however the fact that adding additional objects into a otherwise 1 to 1 copy does not make sense at all. Why should someone deliberately ruin an otherwise perfect fake?

The perspective however seems to be absolut right. On pictures with the camera very close to the ground, no shift in perspective can be seen, for objects far in the background:


With an object closer to the aircraft a slight change in perspective can be seen, but only at second glance:

Tugger wrote:

I am thinking it is a photoshop because the reflection is a perfect mirror of the scene, the plane and the sky. You see the EXACT same thing in the reflection, with the apparent identical angle in the reflection, that you see above (the sky and clouds) and below the plane. There should be a slight perspective shift in the two images since you are viewing the background and foreground at different angles (you should see a bit less sky between the top of the plane and the clouds in the background and a bit more underneath. Look at the yellow stand (stairs?) at the nose of the aircraft, there is no shift all. You can see the shift in this picture, look at the trees in the background:

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Fly-Jama ... 757-23N//L

I would say that in particular you should be able to easily see a shift in the view of the wing in front of the fuselage in the reflection, and there is no shift.

Tugg

Only with the camera higher above the ground and with objects close to the aircraft, the shift in perspective can be easely seen:

airkas1 wrote:

So I spoke to the photographer; the rays are indeed grooves in the concrete. I'm satisfied that the photo is real, so no further action will be taken.

Did he provide a RAW file or high-res camera original?

dvincent wrote:

Did he provide a RAW file or high-res camera original?

It's an iPhone photo; there is no RAW or 'proper' high-res original. However, I do believe I have the original photo. In the photo, the clouds show the same as in the edit that was uploaded.

airkas1 wrote:

He didn't say, but the clouds underneath the tail could very well be there and at the time visible by the eye, but not by the camera? (it's an iPhone 6 photo by the way, not sure if that has any relevance). I'll try to replicate at work next week with my phone, it's certainly wet enough now...

There is a paradox here though: if the perspective is identical, as it is in the rest of the photograph, those clouds should not be in the reflection. Also, radial grooves on an airport apron? I have never heard of this before, and what would be their function? Would be quite expensive to create, and what reason? And they raditate out right from the centre of the pic, which is exactly where you would put them if you were adding them in Photoshop. I ran this fake up in 15 minutes, using an old version of Photoshop Elements:




Also, the edge of the puddle seems too straight to be real (there even seems to be a quite sharp edge to the right):



My fake:

glen wrote:

To be honest I can't explain the "clouds" either, but something in the puddle close to the surface, causing a different breaking of light could be a possibility. It remains questionable, however the fact that adding additional objects into a otherwise 1 to 1 copy does not make sense at all. Why should someone deliberately ruin an otherwise perfect fake?The perspective however seems to be absolut right. On pictures with the camera very close to the ground, no shift in perspective can be seen, for objects far in the background:

glen wrote:

Only with the camera higher above the ground and with objects close to the aircraft, the shift in perspective can be easely seen:

Agreed.

Braybuddy wrote:

There is a paradox here though: if the perspective is identical, as it is in the rest of the photograph, those clouds should not be in the reflection.

Unless there is a slight difference in the water surface there. Maybe a slight wave or ripple, or anything that changes the angle of the water. It wouldn't take much at all. It does seem odd, but it is a possibility.

Braybuddy wrote:

Also, radial grooves on an airport apron?

They are not radial. They are standard parallel grooves. They look radial because the camera is extremely close to the ground. I'd say within a few inches.

Braybuddy wrote:

And they raditate out right from the centre of the pic, which is exactly where you would put them if you were adding them in Photoshop.

They actually "radiate" from slightly right of center. If you look closely at the grooves you can see in the apron (past the water), those grooves "radiate" from that same spot.

I can't explain why the grooves in the water look the way they do (like shadows), but again, the camera is extremely close to the ground. I think that perspective is throwing people off. Those grooves are probably a half inch wide, but they're very close to the camera and very out of focus.

Braybuddy wrote:

Also, the edge of the puddle seems too straight to be real (there even seems to be a quite sharp edge to the right):

It's quite possible that the puddle ends at a seam in the concrete.

Anyway, I don't know whether it's real or fake. Just offering some possibilities.

airkas1 wrote:

dvincent wrote:

Did he provide a RAW file or high-res camera original?

It's an iPhone photo; there is no RAW or 'proper' high-res original. However, I do believe I have the original photo. In the photo, the clouds show the same as in the edit that was uploaded.

"high res original" as in the 8MP original camera JPEG from the iPhone 6, which is always an option.

dvincent wrote:

"high res original" as in the 8MP original camera JPEG from the iPhone 6, which is always an option.

I have a 1.62MB 3264x2448px file. The size is equivalent to my own iPhone 6(S) photos.

vikkyvik wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

There is a paradox here though: if the perspective is identical, as it is in the rest of the photograph, those clouds should not be in the reflection.

Unless there is a slight difference in the water surface there. Maybe a slight wave or ripple, or anything that changes the angle of the water. It wouldn't take much at all. It does seem odd, but it is a possibility.

You can clearly see that the suface is perfectly smooth. There is no distortion at all. Here are the two sections compared. How can an exact mirror-reflection add something which is not there? The area I have outlined is completely different. It can't be anything to do with ripples or perspective, as ripples will only obscure the part, and there are adjoining parts which are completely different, which would rule out perspective:

vikkyvik wrote:

It's quite possible that the puddle ends at a seam in the concrete.

Possibly, but isn't it a coincidence that the seam is perfectly parallel to the bottom of the photograph, which is how it would appear if you were cropping the pic and adding a basic radial filter?

And going back to perspective, other pics posted have shown a slight difference in perspective, such as in the Swiss pic:



There would seem to be no difference whatsoever in perspective in the disputed pic



. . . even with objects closer to the aircraft which, as someone else has said above, should be more noticeable:

airkas1 wrote:

dvincent wrote:

"high res original" as in the 8MP original camera JPEG from the iPhone 6, which is always an option.

I have a 1.62MB 3264x2448px file. The size is equivalent to my own iPhone 6(S) photos.

...yes? That works out to 8 megapixels.

It just doesn't add up, but without conclusive evidence I doubt there's much anyone can do to remove the image. My personal feeling is that it's doctored, but the iPhone clearly doesn't have the capabilities for us to determine whether or not the image has been tampered with.

Karl

I thought this thread would be about the G-VIIH photo. I can't believe someone just happened to be in the right place at the right time to capture it.

JakTrax wrote:

It just doesn't add up, but without conclusive evidence I doubt there's much anyone can do to remove the image. My personal feeling is that it's doctored, but the iPhone clearly doesn't have the capabilities for us to determine whether or not the image has been tampered with.

Karl

Until I find something about the pic that confirms that it's real I would have to agree. With all the other pics there are things (perspective, water surface, edge of puddle) which at least give the impression that they are real pics, although you can never be too sure with the sophisticated editing software available nowadays. With this pic I really struggle to find anything to confirm that it's real. Even if those radiating lines are grooves in the apron, the effect looks unnatural.

If it's too good to be true, it usually isn't.
The entire lower half of the shot has been added. There's a whole host of iPhone apps that will create precisely this 'effect'.

In my opinion you should post the needitata if you say you have it, to eliminate all the suspicions. If you have it and just say verbally that you have it and it is not fake without showing it is not honest with the other users I raised the problem.

Just cross a line on the border of the reflexion, its a perfect straight line not even a pixel up or down at any point. This means that one plate was fully flooded while all the others seem dry. Highly impossible in my opinion. If I was running this site I would ask the whole sequence.

I'm also going with it being doctored as well - it just looks too perfect. I was never a screener, but I can usually pick the fakes and for all the things pointed out above, I agree with them.

I'm not saying that lightly.

Looking at other photo's from the same photographer makes me believe this shot is 100% real. He's a great photographer with classic and creative shots. Well worth having a look at.

He also has the shot below. It also shows the radials although less obvious. And nobody would doubt the authenticity of this one:

Jalap wrote:

Looking at other photo's from the same photographer makes me believe this shot is 100% real. He's a great photographer with classic and creative shots. Well worth having a look at.
He also has the shot below. It also shows the radials although less obvious. And nobody would doubt the authenticity of this one

Honestly, while at first glance that looks more plausible, take a closer look and it looks pretty good candidate for being 'doctored' too. The same goes for all his 'reflected' shots I looked at subsequently.

ChrisKen wrote:

Honestly, while at first glance that looks more plausible, take a closer look and it looks pretty good candidate for being 'doctored' too

In fairness to the photographer, I do believe that that pic is genuine. I've made some similar comparisons to the ones I made for Tibet Airlines, and they are very different:
There is quite a lot of distortion, and a difference in perspective (just look at the position of the clouds around the top black line, and the VHF antenna in the two images):


Just look at the distortion here (I've aligned the same point on the horizontal stabiliser):


This is very different to the exact mirror image of the Tibet Airlines reflection.

It's the 'distortions' that are causing me the concern. Very regular, very manufactured looking, similar profiles across both individual pics and the 'series'.
All screaming the use of an app/filter to me.
As previously said, there's plenty of apps available that produce exactly these effects, especially for the iPhone he's supposedly taken the shots on (that in itself is a red flag knowing how hard it is to get shots into the database with a full sized camera).
Take shot, let app do work, save as full size, claim as 'original'.

Three seconds work in an unfamilar and very basic 'reflections' app. Others are a lot more sophisticated, allowing the foreground to be 'overlaid' with the varied effects, in custom selected locations, resulting in a final picture with very similar appearance to the questionable pictures. Just my opinion.

ChrisKen wrote:

It's the 'distortions' that are causing me the concern. Very regular, very manufactured looking, similar profiles across both individual pics and the 'series'.
All screaming the use of an app/filter to me.

I honestly don't know, I was just prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt on that pic, as I couldn't find anything to raise a red flag, such as the different cloud formation and the perfectly level edge to the puddle that exists in the Tibet pic. If the Sichuan one is doctored, it is a superb job, whereas the Tibet one raises multiple red flags, which remain unanswered.

The radial lines don't bother me, as that would be how straight grooves in the concrete would appear from that perspective.

What bothers me about the photo is the complete lack of distortion toward the edges. The wider the angle of the shot, the more the extremities of the reflection should distort. In this case, they should be distorted with a slight curve "down" toward the camera. The iPhone 6 has a wide-angle camera and so IMO reflections like this one should, at a distance, be noticeable for their distortion; even on calm, flat water.

It's possible this photo was "adjusted" to deal with some of this "wall-eye" effect, but I don't see any reason to doubt its original authenticity, just its perfection.

NJOpsGuy wrote:

The radial lines don't bother me, as that would be how straight grooves in the concrete would appear from that perspective.

Yes, but there are just a little too perfect. I can't quite figure out what effect would cause them to look like that. Compare them with this pic I took from a low angle of grooves on a road:

Aside from the implausible reflection (samples posted with similar reflections have the aircraft ON TOP of the water, while the subject in the photos is adjacent which WOULD create some sort of distortion), the quality of light would differentiate between the aircraft and its reflection based on the angle of the sun AND its reflection onto the tarmac. Not to mention the "concrete grooves" are devoid of texture and look more like a "ray effect" added by an iPhone app.

The photo alone is fine, it just violates the T&C of submission here.

Delta717 wrote:

The photo alone is fine, it just violates the T&C of submission here.

From the photo upload guidelines:

"Can I send in digitally enhanced/composite photos?
No, Airliners.net does not accept photos that have been altered in any way."

"Deliberate attempts to alter the image, i.e. by digitally removing or adding objects, or by purposely changing certain items in the image. This is considered a serious offence on our site."

"Airliners.Net does not tolerate ANY deliberate alteration of the image for the purpose of the removal of objects from the image, addition of objects to photographs, deliberate blurring of objects (to create an artificial depth of field) or faces, or changing the registration or even entire color schemes. These type of EDITING rejections can result in a ban from the site."

"Editing of images should be limited to rotating to correct horizontals and verticals, cropping, color and level corrections, and some careful sharpening. Cloning should only be used to remove minor imperfections such as dust marks and scratches"

I think there are now enough red flags about this photograph to warrant its removal until issues are cleared up. These are:

Clouds in reflection not a mirror-image of sky

Complete absence of distortion in reflection

Perfectly straight edge to pool of water

Identical perspectives in reflection

Unnatural-looking radials on surface of water

Hello all

Ex screener here.......I can see irregularities which lead me to believe the reflection has been added. Cloud formation under the tail of the aircraft and also, behind the mains wheels of the aircraft there is the tail of another. Reflection is seen. Just behind the nosewheel of the main aircraft there is a yellow sign/square. Not visible in the reflection but at the same height as the rear reflection.

Also noticing the 'ghost' rays in the reflected image.

Best regards

Gary

I agree with Gary apart from the yellow sign the nose-wheel assembly (with the 51 on it) is also missing, at least half of it dissappears in the reflection.

I really like the shot, but it just seems too "perfect" to be true. The lack of distorion is really eye-catching / surprising.

Anyone check to see if it rained that day in that city?

canyonblue17 wrote:

Anyone check to see if it rained that day in that city?

That wouldn't actually prove if it's fake. I believe I've seen/heard of photographers dumping a bucket of water on a ramp to get a reflection shot.

Braybuddy wrote:

Compare them with this pic I took from a low angle of grooves on a road:

Those looks quite irregular. Airport grooves (and road grooves) that I've seen are much neater and well defined.

canyonblue17 wrote:

Anyone check to see if it rained that day in that city?

A heavy rain shower passed through early that morning, and there were scattered clouds the rest of the day.
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/chi ... &year=2017

Still convinced it has been altered. What happened to the building behind what appear to be airstairs directly below the nose. If the airstairs in the reflection are sharp - how did the building behind it disappear?

Here is another problem with the rays. If you try to line up the rays that start directly at the seam - especially the ones right in front of the landing gear - and trace them toward the bottom of the photo - they don't line up at all.

To my reasonably well trained eye (own a company that does compositing special effects work, but not an expert in optics by any means) this image is almost undoubtedly real, though not too difficult to fake either. There are enough clues in the photo that would suggest that faking it would be more effort than going out and catching it. You have to keep in mind that reflections by their very nature are optical illusions.

Braybuddy wrote:

I think there are now enough red flags about this photograph to warrant its removal until issues are cleared up. These are:

Clouds in reflection not a mirror-image of sky
Complete absence of distortion in reflection
Perfectly straight edge to pool of water
Identical perspectives in reflection
Unnatural-looking radials on surface of water

Most of this could he explained by the simple fact that the photographer actually put effort into composing the shot.

• The camera is physically positioned so as to elimate distortion of the main subject (the plane) which would likely mean the photograph was taken at such an angle that the clouds would then be ”distorted” (basically different clouds would be reflected than would be seen in the top half, or else the clouds were behind the plane, or directly above but out of shot - there are many tricks of light that could give this effect.)
• You can only see the edge closest to the plane, it’s likely on a seam in concrete - you can also see what looks like difference in height between the two pieces of concrete, else it could be a soft edge that’s not a straight line. Theother three edges of the “puddle”are out of shot and could be any shape. There also appear to be several other puddles on the taxiway (most visible between the two cones on the left of the image)
• Easily explained by camera positioning as mentioned above. You’re assuming the camera is looking straight on at eye level, but it could be shot at any height or angle to correct any distortion. That’s what a photographer should be doing.
• The “radials” are also clearly grooves on the concrete and, to be honest, they’re what most convince me that the photograph is real. Look at the middle landing gear of the plane, the concrete between the landing gear and the water clearly contians the same grooves outside the water. If it was a lazy fake and simple reflection these grooves would be simply reflected in the water like the rest of the plane, but they’re not - they extend all the way to the camera and beyond as they would in real life. The effort required to get a matching pattern, work out the perspective in 3D space and overlay it would be wayyy more effort and fiddling around than just getting the damn photograph.

There’s nothing here that’s physically impossible or implausible, and lots of stuff that should be happening that is. It’s impossible to know the exact optical effects going on without knowing things like focal distance and camera position, but it looks very real to me and with a reflection as the subject, optical trickery is to be expected.

It’s 5AM and I’m typing this on an iPad as I wait for a flight, wanted to get into lots more detail, but it’s obvious to me it’s just a well taken photograph.

canyonblue17 wrote:

Here is another problem with the rays. If you try to line up the rays that start directly at the seam - especially the ones right in front of the landing gear - and trace them toward the bottom of the photo - they don't line up at all.

They shouldn’t line up perfectly unless the photo was taken straight on. Though that said, they line up pretty well, the pattern is identical. Just the photographer was standing a bit off center I think.