root88: There is no distortion in front of the windows.

There are five lights.

I rotated the pic 70 degrees myself.

Yeah, my bad--someone else got the correct explanation, which was that the moon changes apparent angle through the sky over the course of the night. So in this case, it'd be a time thing.

Yes I am, and I know what they look like. Those are not jpeg artifacts.

I'm not too sure. Looks a lot like what's happened in other pictures of mine when I've converted 'em to jpegs.

/done arguing with you

Because you don't have a leg to stand on?

bubbaprog: Do you know how long an exposure time you need to get that kind of detail on an object that far away?

Have you read the thread?

Those objects are really quite bright--so not that long of an exposure time at all.

The plane would be a dark red blue across the entire frame.

A dark red blue what? And no, it wouldn't be.

ilyag: Fake. The combination of circumstances to get such a perfect shot is mind boggling. Full moon, position of moon (while moving), position of plane (while moving), position of cameraman, time of day...

They're only boggling because you have a small mind. I could bloody well have taken that shot this morning in downtown LA, if I'd had the initiative to check my almanac, get a camera, and do some trig to figure out where to stand.

Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred.

Occam's razor has a dull blade, and is not appropriate for this situation when a reasonable explanation--though one that does involve some work on the part of the photographer--exists.

bubbaprog [TotalFark]

muninsfire: Just because you're ignorant of how to take pictures doesn't mean professional photographers are.

Do you know how long an exposure time you need to get that kind of detail on an object that far away?

The plane would be a dark red blue across the entire frame.

What the hell are you talking about? Is the "far away" object the moon or the plane? With fast film (say, ISO 1600), you can shoot a full moon at about 1/1000s shutter, which I suspect would freeze the plane nicely.

Here is some random guy's digicam shot of the moon. His shot is at 1/200, but the little sensor is his digicam is nowhere near as fast as ISO 1600 film. (The H5 he used has a max of ISO 1000, but shows significant noise starting at ISO 200)

Being a professional photographer for many years now, I agree that this photo is NOT possible to take in one frame. To me it is blatantly obvious that this photo is not technically possible with modern photographic cameras and lenses, not to mention the problems with scale, lighting, depth of field, dynamic range, etc. OBVIOUSLY photoshopped. For shame.

I think it's hilarious that nobody has noticed that there are snakes on that motherfarking plane.

Ok, I lied.

Look at the shadow on the bottom of the plane. It would indicate that the sun is higher in the sky than the plane. Looks to be about 10 or 11am. The sky is pretty dark for that time of day with no clounds in the sky, don't you think?

/done. I have work to do.

muninsfire:

The moon is about ten arc-seconds across, IIRC;

More like 30 arc-minutes.

Out of curiosity, I worked out how far away the plane should be from the camera... since it subtends about half the moon's diameter, and given a length of 145 feet, that comes to 3.3 miles ... maybe 4 miles if it's one of the larger 757 models.

Incidentally, to line up the shot ahead of time you'd have to know the plane's path to within about the plane length, i.e. a few hundred feet, or else be lucky. Don't know if planes retrace their flight paths to that accuracy or not.

This photo is as fake as jesus on shrimp.

There's a commonly used Moony F/11 rule, which states that to photograph a full moon you should use a shutter speed of 1/ISO and an aperature of f/11. At ISO 400 that means using a 1/400s shutter, and at ISO 100 a 1/100s shutter.

At a 150mph take off speed, the plane will be covering 220 feet per second. At 1/400s shutter speed youd expect it to 0.55ft, which is less than 1% of the length of the plane.

Exposure wise that sounds like it would freeze it fairly well.

I'm still not convinced that the sun can illuminate a full moon when it's just creeping over the horizon. I'll need to draw some pictures before making my mind up.

If the sun/moon astromony thing works then i dont see why this couldn't be real. The moons location is known, the flightpaths at takeoff are remarkably constant, gatwick is a busy airport, and some plane spotters are really patient otherwise they'd find a different hobby.

Ambitwistor: More like 30 arc-minutes.

Whoops, my bad. It's been a while since astronomy.

Out of curiosity, I worked out how far away the plane should be from the camera... since it subtends about half the moon's diameter, and given a length of 145 feet, that comes to 3.3 miles ... maybe 4 miles if it's one of the larger 757 models.

Sounds reasonable.

Incidentally, to line up the shot ahead of time you'd have to know the plane's path to within about the plane length, i.e. a few hundred feet, or else be lucky. Don't know if planes retrace their flight paths to that accuracy or not.

Actually, if it's an instrument takeoff, it's fairly reasonable they'll trace the approach within a hundred feet each time--especially in urban areas, where you have to worry about noise limits.

root88: Look at the shadow on the bottom of the plane. It would indicate that the sun is higher in the sky than the plane. Looks to be about 10 or 11am. The sky is pretty dark for that time of day with no clounds in the sky, don't you think?

Plane is turning slightly toward the photographer--note that the right aileron is slightly up, the left one slightly down, and the distortion of the middle star on the tail, indicating a bit of right rudder.

Everyone is assuming he was waiting for that particulr plane, after obtaining it's flight path etc.

With the volume of planes that take off at a large internation airport I would have thought it would be too long before one was in the right place...

Ambitwistor: Don't know if planes retrace their flight paths to that accuracy or not.


I'm pretty sure most takeoffs in a 757 are performed by the autopilot. I'd imagine it does pretty much the same thing every time.

grahams: I'm still not convinced that the sun can illuminate a full moon when it's just creeping over the horizon. I'll need to draw some pictures before making my mind up.

See it usually a couple times a month on my way into work. It's really very pretty to look one way and see the dawn, and the other to see the moon.

Fahkinell

Jeez settle down...is this the first time you've been on the internets and seen these kind of ad's?

iomegaboy

Being a professional photographer for many years now, I agree that this photo is NOT possible to take in one frame.

Plenty of flickr amateurs seem to have gotten close-- do a search for "moon plane" and you'll find more than a few similar images. Here's one:

http://flickr.com/photos/cheddar/127420021/

The only real difference is that his angle and timing are off, so the plane misses the moon by a bit-- and he doesn't have perfect golden dawn/dusk sun on the horizon.

Another:

http://flickr.com/photos/boudin/1606332/

This guy got the alignment, but his shutter wasn't fast enough. Would have been fine if he'd managed that one-in-a-thousand alignment of getting everything right the first time, and he didn't have a tripod.

Another:

http://flickr.com/photos/wilgar/2070406/

This guy got the alignment, but is stuck with bright daylight. He gets a washed-out moon.

Sounds like our photographer was just in the right place at the right time, and knows his job. If three amateurs can get that close to his shot, I'm guessing a pro in the same spot with top-notch gear can do a little better.

I wanted to be coffee: This photo is as fake as jesus on shrimp.

Or as fake as a REUTERS news-pic?

been in photography for 24 years.... doing 'shopping for about 10....

if this is NOT a fake... then I demand proof... a video of the plane going by the moon like as showned in this picture will be fine.

Otherwise STFU... the details of the moon, as opposed to the plane... if the picture was taken as stated... the plane would have been washed out by the f-stop used to not be blinded by the moon reflection of the dawn, and if you use the speed to compensate, then you'd get a blurring on the plane. Also... if the plane is this red... then the moon would also "suffer" from a color distorsion, but it's just not the right shade if we go with the plane's redness.

Also, to get a picture this detailed of the moon, you'd need one expensive lens... that would be also... guess?... LARGE and hard to move around, so to get such a shot, you'd needs days if not weeks to get it... and such a setup would be quite the challenge. Especially to get it perfectly centered... you're talking a series must have/would have been taken... so were are the other shots?

Anyways... the list goes on and on....so IF it is real... I really would like to see the setup of this guy, and if he didn't document it, well, that's another hint, I would NEVER try such a shot without documenting it.

At this time of day, and looking directly at the moon, it would be the brightest object in the sky (not the sun). I've only been shooting on a serious level for about 5 years, but it seems to me that if you put an under-lit object (like the plane) in front of a very very bright object (like this moon), you would get a sillouette of the plane because the back lighting from the moon would overshadow the lighting from the rising sun. In order to get the kind of detail that that plane shows in those lighting conditions, you would have had to over-expose for it. This would have washed out the moon background.

I did a GIS for these kinds of shots, and I was unable to find anything else that showed a plane in front of a full moon with any detail at all, let alone the sharp detail found here. There were a few in front of quarter and half moons, but that results in less backlight. Also, these shots were taken later in the day as the background sky was light shades of blue, not pitch black.

Fake! Fakefakefakefake...

/looks like it
//don't know
///no one really 'knows' anything
////But 'knowledge' is only conviction

About the moon and the sun up at the same time / horizon

GIS for "moon morning"

Only trick is lining up the plane

root88: Here's the breaker though. On the left is how the moon looks from earth. In the photo, the moon is rotated almost 90 degrees. Sure, the camera could have been held on an agle, but I've never seen a jet liner flying at that angle.

DING DING DING!!!!!

WE HAVE A WINNAR!!!1

imfallen_angel

Anyways... the list goes on and on....so IF it is real... I really would like to see the setup of this guy, and if he didn't document it, well, that's another hint, I would NEVER try such a shot without documenting it.

LOL

I guess the photographer has never been on fark, where all pictures are fake until proven innocent!

imfallen_angel: if this is NOT a fake... then I demand proof... a video of the plane going by the moon like as showned in this picture will be fine.

raygundan has several amateur pictures that are similar.

. the details of the moon, as opposed to the plane..

Not an issue. The plane's moving, the moon's not.

if the picture was taken as stated... the plane would have been washed out by the f-stop used to not be blinded by the moon reflection of the dawn, and if you use the speed to compensate, then you'd get a blurring on the plane.

Read grahams' post. He explains why you're wrong.

Also... if the plane is this red... then the moon would also "suffer" from a color distorsion, but it's just not the right shade if we go with the plane's redness.

The moon is the appropriate colour for that time of day. Also, the moon does not suffer from atmospheric reddening of dawn light, like the plane is, because--hey, it's not IN the atmosphere.

Also, to get a picture this detailed of the moon, you'd need one expensive lens... that would be also... guess?... LARGE and hard to move around, so to get such a shot, you'd needs days if not weeks to get it.

Or a tripod, an almanac, a calculator, the schedule of the airport in question, and some basic trigonometry knowledge.

Especially to get it perfectly centered... you're talking a series must have/would have been taken... so were are the other shots?

Because every photographer goes through the trouble to show all his failed shots. Right. Pull the other one; it's got bells on.

corn-bread: I did a GIS for these kinds of shots,

Use better search terms.

imfallen_angel: I would NEVER try such a shot without documenting it.

Who says he didn't?

DirkValentine: DING DING DING!!!!!

WE HAVE A WINNAR!!!1

No, a loser, because the guy you quoted doesn't know basic astronomy.

I never knew HellBoy had his own airline...

/new wallpaper

I would think only the photographer would be so adamant that it was not PS.

--------

Doubts were raised in the comment section almost immediately after it was posted - doubts, not by cynical farkers, but by regular viewers/ visitors to the site.

raygundan
Another:

http://flickr.com/photos/boudin/1606332/

This guy got the alignment, but his shutter wasn't fast enough. Would have been fine if he'd managed that one-in-a-thousand alignment of getting everything right the first time, and he didn't have a tripod.

The perspective here is much more in-line with what I would have expected from someone trying this shot. The moon is rather far away, versus where a landing (or taking off) plane would be. That is why I don't buy that this guy just camped out waiting for planes to take off. Seems to me that the perspective would have been way off.

There is the possibility that the plane was much higher in the sky when he took it, but catching a high flying plane at the right time as it EXACTLY crosses the moon just ups the statistical ante too much for me to believe it without documentation.

I can't say I know for "certain" that it's a fake, but as a professional graphic designer who has spent 90% of his working days for the last 10 years in Photoshop, I'd definitely bet on it being a fake.

Even if it is real it's a sh!tty composition, and I wouldn't trust Mr. Morris' skills even as a Sears portrait photographer.

corn-bread

Gear's up, the plane isn't that close to landing or takeoff...

Just popped in to say...

LMFAO @ mooseyfate

In related news, Hugantic Tidal Waves and Tsunamis have destroyed every city and settlement within 50 miles of the coast line as the Moon moves out of it's orbit to attack Earth. More at 11.

Love it!

That's no moon. It's a space station!

McBatt: IT DEPENDS WHERE ON EARTH YOU ARE VEIWING THE MOON FROM!!!1

MAYBE I'M THE STUPID ONE!!1

fnordest: Doubts were raised in the comment section almost immediately after it was posted - doubts, not by cynical farkers, but by regular viewers/ visitors to the site.

Every photography site has those. People who look at any sort of out-of-the-ordinary photo, and immediately call it a fake. Because, of course, they're SUCH experts.

I had some doubts about the picture until I saw some of his others.

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?photographersearch=Steve%20Morris

/still have doubts but what the hell

imfallen_angel
been in photography for 24 years.... doing 'shopping for about 10....
if this is NOT a fake... then I demand proof... a video of the plane going by the moon like as showned in this picture will be fine.

You sound like the people who insisted that O.J. was innocent years ago. Actual quote from a newscast:
"If he did it, where's the videotape?"

You demand proof?
/you'll get nothing and like it

Free Spool: Gear's up, the plane isn't that close to landing or takeoff...

Have you ever been on a plane? They pull the gear up first chance they get.

If it's three miles out on departure, the gear better damn well be up.

SwallowTheKnife: Jeez settle down...is this the first time you've been on the internets and seen these kind of ad's?

Not at all. I just felt the need to vent a bit. It's not like the fact that they're all over the place (if you haven't taken ad-blocking to a religious level, which I certainly have) makes it any less infuriating.

muninsfire

corn-bread: I did a GIS for these kinds of shots,

Use better search terms.

I've stated my beliefs and performed the GIS searches to prove it. I have not found pictures that offer anywhere near this kind of detail under similar circumstances. The flikr pictures were already discussed.

Feel free to produce the GIS goods at any time.

No I have never been on a plane...

try and work out how many miles a minute a plane is going, I think it usually a minute or two before they pull up the gear

/3 miles means 1 minute at 180 miles per hour
//about my guess too

mr_larry: The sun will never be up at the same time as a full moon. It's impossible.


Look closely. Is it really a completely FULL moon?

Any regular vistor to fark should know by now to never believe any photo you see on the internet. Maybe it's real, maybe it ain't. My rule is to assume everything is shopped.

My problem is the clarity of the moon... in order to get a picture of the moon with that kind of clarity, you would need to be using a pretty insane lens. I myself have a 300mm lens, and have taken pictures of the moon, and it -still- comes out pretty small and not nearly that detailed.

Supposing you had a lense big enough to get a picture of the moon that close (it's not impossible), your exposure time would be exceedingly long due to the lack of light coming into the lens. As anyone who has taken pictures at night can tell you, the moon does not give off enough light to allow a camera to properly take pictures that stop movement.

/Just a hobbyist.
//That picture is just silly.
///Looks like a telescope view of the moon.

corn-bread: I've stated my beliefs and performed the GIS searches to prove it. I have not found pictures that offer anywhere near this kind of detail under similar circumstances. The flikr pictures were already discussed.

Feel free to produce the GIS goods at any time.

http://www.myloupe.com/disp_thumb_images/485/display/140839.jpg using 'moon airplane across' on the first page--showing it is possible to get the moon and an airplane in the same shot, both in focus.

muninsfire
I like how since you know a few things about taking a photo and some basic astronomy your opinion is the only one that matters.
/Futhermore, if there is a jet wash on the left turbine (which I don't think there is) it's not consistent with the opacity and distortion of the rest of it. The row of windows should be much more distorted than it actually is. The line where the black top of the plane meets the silver moon should also be more blurred.
Again, IMFO, it's 'shopped.

Free Spool: No I have never been on a plane...

try and work out how many miles a minute a plane is going, I think it usually a minute or two before they pull up the gear

/3 miles means 1 minute at 180 miles per hour
//about my guess too

For a 757, they'll want the wheels up by...hrmm. Probably 500 or so feet AGL. Smaller planes, usually lower. You want as little drag in your climb as you can.

Conversely, you want your gear down by the time you start your final approach--both so that you know it's working right, and to bleed speed off.

Takeoff speed for your typical 757 is going to be 140 knots--so call that 160 miles/hour. That's just to get off the ground, mind.

tadrith: My problem is the clarity of the moon... in order to get a picture of the moon with that kind of clarity, you would need to be using a pretty insane lens. I myself have a 300mm lens, and have taken pictures of the moon, and it -still- comes out pretty small and not nearly that detailed.

Read the thread; it's been discussed. It's entirely possible.

McBatt: going through his gallery on the site, this guys been taking pictures of planes for 40 years. i think that's plenty of time to get a once-in-a-lifetime sort of shot like this.

Bears repeating. I really like the wake-turbulence-through-the-clouds pic.

tadrith
Supposing you had a lense big enough to get a picture of the moon that close (it's not impossible), your exposure time would be exceedingly long due to the lack of light coming into the lens. As anyone who has taken pictures at night can tell you, the moon does not give off enough light to allow a camera to properly take pictures that stop movement.

Not true, especially at that kind of zoom. The moon is directly lit by the sun, and much brighter than most things in the sky. I've been able to get a couple of decent handheld pictures of the moon...but not at this kind of zoom.

decavolt : "I'm in a professional that has nothing to do with cameras or photography, I fiddle on a computer all day long making menus for local diners. I can say for certain this is a fake because 'Chicken Salad Sandwich.......$4.99' obviously indicates this to be so."

Please don't get your ignorance on me, it's gross.

tadrith: ///Looks like a telescope view of the moon.


Maybe it is.