Photo of the year

Just so long as we don’t have to listen to Alan “I hate Man U” Green commentating I’ll be happy enough. 😉

Naaaah – you’d need a Cessna T210 Centurion at least. Then there’s the power supply to consider……….

Not to mention the couple of thousand feet of triax cable back to the outside broadcast van ! 😀

Naaaah – you’d need a Cessna T210 Centurion at least. Then there’s the power supply to consider……….

You’d not get one of those up in a Cessna 150, Ren!!!!! 😀

Could have a lot of fun trying though ! 😀 :p 😉

You’d not get one of those up in a Cessna 150, Ren!!!!! 😀

I think it’s a mock-up.. ATC would not allow aircraft
in the firing-line…a zoom lense with this sort of clarity
from the requisite separation distance has not been
invented yet.?

Apart from the ones I regularly use to make a footballer look like he’s standing next to you from 200 metres away ?

I tend to agree, Joe.

Also, to produce no discernable camera shake in a moving light aircraft flying close to the wake turbulence of heavy airliners a lens of that magnification would almost certainly have to be a catadioptric (or “cat”) lens but there is no sign of the “doughnut” effect on highlights behind the plane of focus that are an unmistakable characteristic of lenses of this type.

Still not convinced.

Not so much Photo Of The Year as Photo Vantage Point of the Year.

Half the battle with aviation photography is getting into a good or indeed excellent spot like that to take a picture. No need to snap through fence wire at that altitude (lol) 😀

I think it’s a mock-up.. ATC would not allow aircraft
in the firing-line…a zoom lense with this sort of clarity
from the requisite separation distance has not been
invented yet.?

According to the photographer, he achieved this photo with the 100-400 L IS Canon Lens with I believe the 10D (not sure on the body). With the aid of the IS and a fairly fast aperature it is a very achievable photo. With regards to the shadow, there is none because the angle is wrong and the plane is at that point way to high to produce a defined shadow. The cessna he was in was using a special ATC granted flight path that runs North along the beaches and crosses over the flight paths out of LAX. We first saw this route put to use by Sam Chui, and now others are discovering this little treasure. I have no doubt in my mind that the photo is anything but real. It truly is great work.

That is a fantastic photo Steve 🙂

Another cracker

By going up in smaller planes etc – its done alot more now than it was, say 10 years ago is it not?

Well no, I don’t think it is, actually.

Skypilot has voiced my concerns about the picture far more eloquently than I can. At the end of the day, I’m just not convinced by it.

By going up in smaller planes etc – its done alot more now than it was, say 10 years ago is it not? There were never many, shots like the above one around then. Theres also better camera equipment etc avaliable too today, enabling such good quality that to some the shots do look unreal. People also seem to get alot more allowance to the Control towers at airports, making yet another new angle to their pictures.

rather than the new angles that people are able to obtain now-a-days

Eh? You’re going to HAVE to explain that one! :confused:

Id say its real. As most people are used to just the plain old side on shots etc… rather than the new angles that people are able to obtain now-a-days – your assuming its a fake.

A great shot though. Deffinately a high contender for a pic of the year. 🙂

and where is the shadow of the plane on the ground

Okay, my reasoning – with a 400mm+ lens which is probably the minimum you’d need, it would be nigh on impossible to keep the image from blurring if in a light aircraft – believe me I’ve tried, with only a 210mm lens in a commercial aircraft in what appear to be calm conditions.

Second, the aircraft image seems way too crisp compared to the background – almost certainly a digital shot with a standard 35mm background shot. You wouldn’t need a blank background just take a slice from an image of an aircraft taking off earlier/later in the take-off path.

Third – the exhaust haze seems way exaggerated and why is the “haze” between engines 3 and 4 (the 2 left-hand engines as you look at the photo), blurred at the leading edge of the wing? The exhaust heat would have to be coming out of no.3 engine at right angles.

As I say, please prove me wrong, because it does indeed look fantastic. Just wanted to explain my reasoning for doubting. Perhaps it’s just jealousy? 😉

Also, how would one fake this?

How would you get a photo of a plane in take of configuration from such an angle, and then find a blank photo of land outside of LAX at exactly the right angle?

I supose with a lot of time an patience it would be possible. But there will always be tell tale signs… nothing of which I can see here

I’m certain it is a real photo.

The background looks closer because of the effects of the zoom lense. Joe has a perfect example of this. A 757 landing @ EDI with houses looking so close that their roof tiles should be getting ripped off with the jetwash. Also a hile behind the houses looks much much closer and actually fooled me into thinking the photo was not taken at EDI

In reality, the houses are miles away and the hill even further.

It looks like quite a sunny day when the picture was taken. Wouldn’t heat haze and convection make it unusual to get results that crisp using a big lens from a distance?

If it’s taken from a light aircraft then it must be have been a very very smooth ride indeed on a sunny day over uneven ground with the inevitable thermals. No camera shake that I can see.

Sorry – I tend to agree with skypilot62. Something just doesn’t look right about it. Can’t put my finger on it, but it’s there all the same.