Can you tell this photo is real of Photoshoped?

[julianliu]

I saw this photo online. Do you think it's possible to take a photo of the galaxy on a plane? Or have you done it ? I seriously doubt it's real. The author claimed it was real though.

 

[480sparky]

It's 'shopped.

BTW: Posting images that you don't have rights to is a TOS violation here............jez sayin'.

 

[julianliu]

It's 'shopped. BTW: Posting images that you don't have rights to is a TOS violation here............jez sayin'.

Why?

 

[480sparky]

It's 'shopped. BTW: Posting images that you don't have rights to is a TOS violation here............jez sayin'.

Why?

Why what? That I think it's 'shopped? Too much difference in the dynamic range of the components. I'd say it's a composite image.

That you can't post photos you don't have rights to? It's in the TOS you agreed to (but probably didn't actually read) when you signed up.

 

[julianliu]

The photo has the authors signature and I claimed it's not mine. I use it just for reference purpose. I would argue if this violates any rules.

 

[480sparky]

........... I would argue if this violates any rules.

You can argue 'till you're blue. I'm sure one of the mods will be along soon.

* You agree to only post images and/or other material to which you have exclusive copyright, or permission from the copyright holder that you are able to present to TPF Staff. Under no circumstances will any instance of copyright infringement be tolerated.

It's the forums' rule, not mine.

 

[Derrel]

The photo has the authors signature and I claimed it's not mine. I use it just for reference purpose. I would argue if this violates any rules.

This is a simple, clear composite image. This is a simple, clear violation of TPF rules against posting works which you do not hold copyright to, or have express, written permission to use.

 

[KmH]

The photo has the authors signature and I claimed it's not mine. I use it just for reference purpose. I would argue if this violates any rules.

Those notions are very common internet urban legends.

From U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use

The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

From TPF - Photography Forum & Digital Photography Forum FAQ

* You agree to only post images and/or other material to which you have exclusive copyright, or permission from the copyright holder that you are able to present to TPF Staff. Under no circumstances will any instance of copyright infringement be tolerated.

We can post hot links to copyrighted material we do not own rights to use.

Fair Use Checklist - Columbia Copyright Advisory Office

Excuses, Excuses
Copyright Carolyn E. Wright, Esq.
www.photoattorney.com
All Rights Reserved

 

[julianliu]

Moderator please help to delete this post then.

 

[480sparky]

Just post a link to the image.

 

[Derrel]

What about this photo? Shopped? Or legit?

 

[limr]

What about this photo? Shopped? Or legit?

View attachment 83704

Dude, totally legit.

 

[julianliu]

Just post a link to the image.

The picture is displayed in a Chinese social website needs account to log in to view. So I would not bother you guys here to post the link here as it would require you to read Chinese and make an account. I will see whether I can add the link in other way later.

The photographer said he took it using Nikon D4 with 12-24mm, at F2.8, ISO 128000, 4 seconds.

Seriously, you guys just say it's Photoshopped but have not given me a really good reason for me to believe in, even though I strongly suspect it's Photoshopped too. I would argue it's Photoshopped because if he needed such exposure to photograph the galaxy, I doubt he would see it in the first place. But this is just my opinion. I do not have experience of photography's my galaxy.

 

[Overread]

A few thoughts;

1) Night photos of the stars to the depth displayed in the photo requires a lot of light. Thus wide aperture - long exposures and high ISO - typically into the extremes. Often this kind of photo is taken with a tripod and a long exposure (so the ISO can be kept low thus less noise) and a mount on the tripod that turns the camera so that it keeps up with the spin of the Earth (otherwise you get startrails).

2) I would expect to see some blurring of the stars at 4seconds, esp when taken from a moving platform (plane) - although the size shown is small so that might be hiding many problematic elements.

3) With an ISO and exposure time as suggested I would have expected the plane to have blown out very easily if there was any normal light upon it.


The shot could be real, but from what I recall of the linked image it looks a touch too "perfect" in the sky. The shot could be a real composite where by the sky and plane shots were combined in editing; both being real photos, but taken under different settings (and for the sky shot maybe even a different location).

Personally I've never seen a clear galaxy star shot like that from a plane window or indeed any moving vehicle. It could be possible (anything can be) but its looking like its either a composite or resizing/editing is hiding a lot of imperfections.

 

[jsecordphoto]

If bumping my tripod even the slightest bit during a 30 second exposure at night screws up my photo, there is no way you could get a sharp photo of the stars going hundreds of miles an hour in a plane