This is Plane Scary!

mustanglover · **Posted:** Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:58 pm

This airplane is really not going to hit my wife standing there. Actually they are NOT even close.

[/img]

JBoyle · **Posted:** Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:25 pm

I'd expect television media to know about the compression effect of a telephoto.
When I was in school preparing for a TV news career, we had to take cinematography classes.
Maybe that's too old school for today's newspeople? Why learn photography when you can learn personal grooming tips from Stone Phillips?

But I digress....

The F-18 looks huge compared to the people in the forground, whereas the Twin Otter in the photo above looks small in relation to the person. We know a Twin Otter isn't that small. But is an F-18 that big?
I don't see a lot of them, especially Super Hornets.

Not to cast doubt on the honesty of the media (did I say that with a straight face?) the F-18 looks far too big (compare the helmets in the cockpit with the guy on the balcony)...any chance of a altered photo?
Probably not, but you never know...especially since all the photos seem to be the same image...taken by one photog. It's happened before, and with the advent of photyshop, it will happen again.

mustanglover · **Posted:** Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:39 pm

That is just the best image I could think of that I had. Typically the further away the camera is with the right lens, the subject (F-18) can and will look uncharacteristically larger in relation to the foreground objects.

I am not saying that he is not close to the high-rise, but I do not believe that he is "dangerously" close to the high-rise as the media suggests.

Rhino-9-3 · **Posted:** Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:44 pm

They mentioned the telephoto compression on the Detroit news this evening and said that the organizers said that the jet was about 200ft away from the building.

mustanglover · **Posted:** Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:51 pm

The photo in the post above is using a telephoto lens and I am standing probably 30-40 feet to the right of the photo here using a standard lens. Notice the difference in the size of the house between the two. A large telephoto would enhance the compression at certain settings of the lens.

JDK · **Posted:** Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:51 pm

Randy Haskin wrote:

I saw that photo and report on Today this morning...and couldn't stifle my urge to audibly yell, "oh, give me a break!"

I think I got to the wry smile for the same reason.

Randy Haskin wrote:

Typical media incorrect interpretation of what they see in a photo. Standard ignorance, really.

JBoyle wrote:

I'd expect television media to know about the compression effect of a telephoto.
When I was in school preparing for a TV news career, we had to take cinematography classes.

Like most of the successful pro- or semi-pro photographers here, the photographer would be very clear on what he was doing, why and how the image works - it's a good capture too, considering the aircraft's emerging at speed from behind the building.

To suggest the photographer is not smart or knowledgeable isn't really backed up by the facts. However the news editor knows a powerful image when he or she sees it, and, as has been suggested, it'll play well on a slow news day.

Dan Newcomb wrote:

This is typical over the top news reporting crap. Anybody that knows anything about photography and a telephoto lens or Photoshop can explain this. What bothers me is that a lot of people will see this and believe it was actually that close.

The media's job is to make shareholder profit. Just like it's always been. (If you think reporting and media presentation is bad now, as I know many WIX members do, have a look at the history of the Hurst yellow press - it WAS worse.) Strong images are good for them.

As Dan says, it's another 'scary aviation' pic, reinforcing the public ignorance of aviation's relative safety.

Interesting.

JBoyle · **Posted:** Tue Jul 14, 2009 8:44 am

JDK wrote:

To suggest the photographer is not smart or knowledgeable isn't really backed up by the facts.

I wasn't questioning the photgraphers competence...his ethics perhaps...and clearly the ethics or honesty of the editors.
As you say, it's a neat photo but to publish/broadcast it without a note saying the plane's not as close as it looks, is a bit (or more than a bit) dishonest. The average reader/viewer would be upset by the photo...and here's a classic case of there being more to the story than meets the eye.

JDK · **Posted:** Tue Jul 14, 2009 8:59 am

Dear John,
I was actually agreeing with your point regarding the fact that the guy was (probably) trained and skilled.

As to the ethics of the question, the news have to show how dangerous things are, not how safe they are. This is just a visual version of finding an angle that'll hook the reader.

The 'No Accident happened' headline isn't going to appear because it isn't going to sell a paper. That's just a fact of life, and why press isn't PR.

As to press ethics, they're better than they have been - these guys aren't starting a war for circ figures - but you get the ethics you pay and legislate for.

Didn't say I like it, and why we need everyone to fly safe and be (or appear) professional. They'll make aviators look like cowboys and fools as soon as blink.

Regards,

RickH · **Posted:** Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:00 am

Where I come from being a Cowboy is a good thing ! :wink:

Django · **Posted:** Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:15 am

Why is the photographer the bad guy? He took a great photo. Blame the media, not the photographer.

Holedigger · **Posted:** Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:27 am

Indeed, it IS a great photo, it is the way it was presented that is the problem. It is like the evening news showing footage of a bad car crash, is it really necessary? No, but people want to see it anyway. Like rubberneckers on the road, more accidents after a bad accident because people want to see......go figure! I've seen bodies on the side of the road after a bad crash and it is something I would rather not see again. I imagine the clips on youtube with airplane crashes have extremely high view numbers. Something macabre about the human condition.

JDK · **Posted:** Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:51 pm

RickH wrote:

Where I come from being a Cowboy is a good thing ! :wink:

Ahhhh... Another international confusion. :hide:

Presumably they don't want to be called jackaroos or jillaroos then? :roo:

As Holdigger's said, bad news sells - however ersatz.

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:52 pm

JDK wrote:

RickH wrote:

Where I come from being a Cowboy is a good thing ! :wink:

Ahhhh... Another international confusion. :hide:

Presumably they don't want to be called jackaroos or jillaroos then? :roo:

As Holdigger's said, bad news sells - however ersatz.

I've heard the "cowboy" pilot remarks as well, but I dare say some of the better pilots down here dress and talk like 'em at times!

Ryan

Dan Newcomb · **Posted:** Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:10 am

Remember the quote allegedly made I believe by newspaper publisher Randolph Hearst,

“Never let the truth get in the way of a good story!”

Mudge · **Posted:** Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:40 am

Anyone who uses big lenses knows what this is. The media just needs something to yammer on about. Dimbulbs!!! Pretty much like the rest of their reporting.

Mudge the disgusted :vom:

Warbird Information Exchange

This is Plane Scary!

Who is online