How does this warbird photo rate? bad or good taste?
Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:44 am
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1099765/L/
Does this show reckless flying or does the angle of the photo compress severely the distance between the 2 bomber as 1 overflies the other?
They are obviously very close as they are nearly same size in the photo..
What do you guys think?
Could someone faked it? or could there be a VERY close formation pass happening here ?
Does this show reckless flying or does the angle of the photo compress severely the distance between the 2 bomber as 1 overflies the other?
They are obviously very close as they are nearly same size in the photo..
What do you guys think?
Could someone faked it? or could there be a VERY close formation pass happening here ?
Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:49 am
It's called telephoto compression. It happens to any picture taken with a telephoto lense. The effect is that the sense of depth is pretty much removed from the photograph and thus things appear much closer than they are. This is graphically represented in the pictures that were aired by the BBC about a year ago of a "near miss" that showed two airplanes many thousands of feet apart (6 or 7 thousand in fact), but yet by the picture appeared to support the photographer's claim that they nearly hit each other because of the problem of telephoto compression.
Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:20 am
Seeing this image WWII pilots might remind themselves of the rally points over England before a bombing mission. Excellent photo and excellent photo effect... 
SC.
SC.
Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:27 am
I agree with what Cap flyer said above. Telephoto lenses nearly always distort depth perception and perspective. I don't think that photo is anything unusual. A good photographer can make any 2 airplanes look like they're colliding just given the right lens and angle. If anything, I would compliment the photographer of the picture for having the "eye" for the shot.
This is nothing unusual, nor is it unsafe, as the 2 aircraft are obviously not as close as they appear.
This is nothing unusual, nor is it unsafe, as the 2 aircraft are obviously not as close as they appear.
Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:35 am
I'm sure that many WIXers witnessed this event in person (like I did). Oshkosh 2006. It's a missing man formation of four-engined types, with Diamond Lil breaking up and out. Carefully planned and beautifully executed.
As already mentioned, the photographer created quite a dramatic view (apparently over-dramatic for some!).
As already mentioned, the photographer created quite a dramatic view (apparently over-dramatic for some!).
Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:40 am
It's a cool shot, from a photographer's perspective. The telephoto compression can be your friend, or your enemy, depending on what you are trying to achieve visually.
Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:26 am
i'm no shutter bug, but that is an excellent pic
Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:09 am
Dan K wrote:I'm sure that many WIXers witnessed this event in person (like I did). Oshkosh 2006. It's a missing man formation of four-engined types, with Diamond Lil breaking up and out. Carefully planned and beautifully executed.
As already mentioned, the photographer created quite a dramatic view (apparently over-dramatic for some!).
Well said Dan, I was there as well, and it was a safe flight.
eggzactly right!
Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:19 am
CAPFlyer wrote:It's called telephoto compression. It happens to any picture taken with a telephoto lense. The effect is that the sense of depth is pretty much removed from the photograph and thus things appear much closer than they are. This is graphically represented in the pictures that were aired by the BBC about a year ago of a "near miss" that showed two airplanes many thousands of feet apart (6 or 7 thousand in fact), but yet by the picture appeared to support the photographer's claim that they nearly hit each other because of the problem of telephoto compression.
Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:25 am
tom d. friedman wrote:i'm no shutter bug, but that is an excellent pic
And this is a useless thread – another attempt to sensationalize something for no apparent reason other than to stir people up. Maybe the pilots involved were over 40 and their reflexes were off? Maybe they sould be banned from flying? Maybe they were talking too much . . . What a waste of bandwidth.
Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:58 am
Well, the photo is indeed "sensational"...but I think what it shows is the photographer's skill, or maybe just good fortune! Cool shot.
S.
S.
Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:24 pm
that is a great pic
B
B
Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:27 pm
I don't think those are the right rivets, the paint job is not authentic, where are the invasion stripes? Yeah crappy picture.....get rid of it.
Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:31 pm
skybolt2003 wrote:tom d. friedman wrote:i'm no shutter bug, but that is an excellent pic
And this is a useless thread – another attempt to sensationalize something for no apparent reason other than to stir people up. Maybe the pilots involved were over 40 and their reflexes were off? Maybe they sould be banned from flying? Maybe they were talking too much . . . What a waste of bandwidth.
Kinda harsh there, man. The original post is asking about it, not accusing anyone of anything.
Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:46 pm
Not harsh at all. I'm just pointing out that a majority of threads started by this person seemed to be designed to invoke controversy just for the sake of it. Here he's implying that this is a reckless act and why ask if it's in bad taste? Seems to be trying to stir the pot is all I'm saying.