Composite or single image?

[Ilovemycam]

http://rangefindercamera.tumblr.com/image/90250190154

 

[robbins.photo]

rangefindercamera : Photo

Unless the plane is about to crash, composite.

 

[Overread20]

Could be either - there are a few airfields near beaches where planes do come into land like that

 

[TCampbell]

I voted "I don't know" because the image is suspicious but I didn't know what camera body and lens was used. The suspicious bits are that when you use a fish-eye lens and the image is zoomed out so far that the image no longer provides corner-to-corner coverage, then the wide-angle lens provides enormous amounts of "stretch" in the image. Those on the beach near the water should, in my opinion, seem MUCH farther away. Also the tone-mapping makes this appear as an HDR which wouldn't be practical when shooting such an image live.

I now realize that it is composite because it was taken with (according to the EXIF data) a Leica M type with a 50mm lens. You are NOT going to get that image out of that camera/lens combination.

Unfortunately I don't think I get to change my vote.

 

[sscarmack]

Its on a white background, therefore it has to be a composite. lol

 

[tecboy]

It is composite. If you pay attention the spectators raise their hands, the way they stand are slanted and not point to the center of the image. Their bodies are vertical up. They should be slanted instead.

The video is also composite. You don't see the shadow of the airplane landing on the runway. Beside, these beach goers should be freakin out and running a way like hell.

 

[agp]

The image is obviously an HDR, and HDR are technically composite photos. But they can be made with a single captured frame, keyword being captured.

 

[photoguy99]

If we believe the 50mm lens on a FF camera, with some post production to create a fake fisheye effect, the plane is 150 to 200 meters up at that point. I don't know or care if it's a composite, but it does not strike me as impossible to shoot it. With a real fisheye the airplane would be a lot smaller, I suspect.

ETA I guess that's probably Maho Beach where extremely low altitudes are common since the runway is basically right there, and standing around taking pictures of aircraft is kind of a thing. It might be a composite, but there's no reason to bother, you can certainly shoot it as well.

 

[Overread20]

The video is also composite. You don't see the shadow of the airplane landing on the runway. Beside, these beach goers should be freakin out and running a way like hell.

If you look to the left of the plane as it comes into land you can see the shadow pass over the runway - its not directly underneath because the light is lower in the sky (you can see that clearly with the longer shadows over the people on the beach - where the shadows are to the right of them).

As for the fear element where you've got a runway like that people go there specifically to see and "be under the plane" as it lands.

 

[Derrel]

I voted "I don't know" because the image is suspicious but I didn't know what camera body and lens was used. The suspicious bits are that when you use a fish-eye lens and the image is zoomed out so far that the image no longer provides corner-to-corner coverage, then the wide-angle lens provides enormous amounts of "stretch" in the image. Those on the beach near the water should, in my opinion, seem MUCH farther away. Also the tone-mapping makes this appear as an HDR which wouldn't be practical when shooting such an image live.

I now realize that it is composite because it was taken with (according to the EXIF data) a Leica M type with a 50mm lens. You are NOT going to get that image out of that camera/lens combination.

Unfortunately I don't think I get to change my vote.

What about maybe on that S. Maarten beach, shot with a 50mm on a Leica with a screw-in fisheye adapter lens? Those provide a round image...I used to have one...and on a 50mm lens, it provides an images tat looks a LOT like this one linked to...complete with the strong green fringing on objects at the edges of the frame, and that sort of COke-bottle bottom sharpness at the frame edges. Yes, the EXIF info the camera records tells the LENS used, sure, but it never, ever records screw mounted accessories or filters. I want to think it's a real image, but it could easily be a skilled fake. Regardless of the exact way it came into being, it really is a neat picture.

 

[tirediron]

I vote for St Maarten as well.

 

[tecboy]

The video is also composite. You don't see the shadow of the airplane landing on the runway. Beside, these beach goers should be freakin out and running a way like hell.

If you look to the left of the plane as it comes into land you can see the shadow pass over the runway - its not directly underneath because the light is lower in the sky (you can see that clearly with the longer shadows over the people on the beach - where the shadows are to the right of them).

As for the fear element where you've got a runway like that people go there specifically to see and "be under the plane" as it lands.

According to the secret government, you see those two spectators on the right, they looked straight at the horizon instead of moving their heads up to see the bottom of the plane as it passed by. It gotta be composite! :greenpbl:

 

[colnago1331]

Sure looks like Maho Beach.....

 

[IzzieK]

The spectators looks like they are playing beach volleyball -- it has to be composite.

 

[Braineack]

A person that processes images in that disgusting manner probably doesn't have the skills necessary to composite this shot.