Size does matter

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/573107/M/

HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

On Tue, 11 May 2004 10:27:36 -0400, HECTOP wrote:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/573107/M/

HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

Why does it look like that plane was "photoshopped" in?

There is no shadow.


Why does it look like that plane was "photoshopped" in?

Greg Copeland wrote:
Why does it look like that plane was "photoshopped" in?

You won't get a photoshopped photo past the Gestapo over at airliners.net.
Try getting a photo displayed there and see for yourself.


--
HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

On Tue, 11 May 2004 16:36:31 +0000, Al wrote:

There is no shadow.


Why does it look like that plane was "photoshopped" in?

Ya, it was a rhetorical question. Aside from the fact that there is no
shadow, the other objects in the photo have fairly soft edges whereas the
plane has a harsh anti-aliased outline. To me, it jumps out as being fake
before you even notice the lack of shadow. In otherwords, the "crispness"
of the phane does not match that of other objects at the same distance.
There is also no motion blurr on the plane even though it obvious on the
cars.

Cheers!

Al wrote:

There is no shadow.

Yes, there is. The fuselage shadow runs along the top of the crest of the road.
Shadows of the wings and tail extend into the green field behind the plane. From the
angle of the wing shadow on the side of the fuselage, the ground shadows are where
one would expect them to be.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

Greg Copeland ) wrote:

Aside from the fact that there is no shadow,

Look again. There is a shadow, just at the crest of the road.

--
Peter

On Tue, 11 May 2004 12:57:13 -0400, Peter R. wrote:

Greg Copeland ) wrote:

Aside from the fact that there is no shadow,

Look again. There is a shadow, just at the crest of the road.

If that's the shadow to the plane, the angle doesn't appear to match any
others. All the other shadows would appear to place the sun directly
overhead. Which means, if what you're calling a shadow is supposed to be
coming from the plane, it was put in badly. Otherwise, we'd have to
simply call it an unidentified dark area in the picture. Furthermore,
look at where the shadow is cast under the wing.

Greg Copeland ) wrote:

On Tue, 11 May 2004 12:57:13 -0400, Peter R. wrote:

Greg Copeland ) wrote:

Aside from the fact that there is no shadow,

Look again. There is a shadow, just at the crest of the road.

If that's the shadow to the plane, the angle doesn't appear to match any
others. All the other shadows would appear to place the sun directly
overhead. Which means, if what you're calling a shadow is supposed to be
coming from the plane, it was put in badly. Otherwise, we'd have to
simply call it an unidentified dark area in the picture. Furthermore,
look at where the shadow is cast under the wing.

Whatever... Everyone is a photo detective these days.

--
Peter

On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:29:24 -0400, Peter R. wrote:

Greg Copeland ) wrote:

On Tue, 11 May 2004 12:57:13 -0400, Peter R. wrote:

Greg Copeland ) wrote:

Aside from the fact that there is no shadow,

Look again. There is a shadow, just at the crest of the road.

If that's the shadow to the plane, the angle doesn't appear to match any
others. All the other shadows would appear to place the sun directly
overhead. Which means, if what you're calling a shadow is supposed to be
coming from the plane, it was put in badly. Otherwise, we'd have to
simply call it an unidentified dark area in the picture. Furthermore,
look at where the shadow is cast under the wing.

Whatever... Everyone is a photo detective these days.

You might want to take a look at the other reasons I listed which make it
look like a fake too.