• Hello there guest and Welcome to The #1 Classic Mustang forum!
    To gain full access you must Register. Registration is free and it takes only a few moments to complete.
    Already a member? Login here then!

Is this real or photoshopped?

Yes I did. I'm sure they use photoshop to review and save the pictures to a usable format from the raw image.

I'm not saying it's an outright forgery.
The C-2 appears to be in full sunlight. The E-2 and the F-18s appear to be in mild overcast and the E-6 looks like it's in heavy overcast.
The C-2 and E-2 are also casting shadow the opposite direction.

Just sayin......
 
Mt. Fuji is just a hop/skip/jump from Yokosuka NB and it would likely be easier to coordinate a Carrier Air Wing Group photo op flyby than the effort required to have to photoshop it.
Click to expand...

A expert photoshop guru could assemble three or four different pics taken the same day from the same angle in a huge hurry. Probably quicker than you could get the pilots out of the rack.

I'm still not saying it's a fake. Just has an odd look about it.
The original question was: "real or photoshopped?"

Since the Exif data has photoshop's signature in it, it has in fact been photoshopped. :)

Yes, I spent way too much time dickin' with this :beat
 
The C-2 appears to be in full sunlight


Different paint job. The C-2 gets a "commercial" paint job.... almost like that of a car.


The E-2 and the F-18s appear to be in mild overcast and the E-6 looks like it's in heavy overcast.


Again, different paint jobs. Tactical paint jobs are believe it or not done at the local level. We used to paint our aircraft all of the time and the finish/results was often less than desireable. Also, the tactical paint jobs get a dull, non-reflecting paint that is suppsed to make the aircraft more "stealthy". Running your hand across the paint of a tactical jet almost feels like "chalk". It's a dull, non-reflective finish.


The C-2 and E-2 are also casting shadow the opposite direction.


Looking at the shadow cast upon the fuselage from under the wings of these aircraft, the angle of the shadow appears to be identical from one plane to the next. I'm unsure of what you're looking at, the shadows look identical to me.
 
"daveSanborn" said:
Looking at the shadow cast upon the fuselage from under the wings of these aircraft, the angle of the shadow appears to be identical from one plane to the next. I'm unsure of what you're looking at, the shadows look identical to me.
Click to expand...

I agree totally, i just got done starring at the full version, and the shadows of the wings look identical from plane to plane all the way down the line. The things that look different are the shapes of the things casting the shadows.
 
"daveSanborn" said:
The C-2 appears to be in full sunlight


Different paint job. The C-2 gets a "commercial" paint job.... almost like that of a car.
So the sun shines brighter on shiney paint? I agree that shiney paint would reflect more light.


The E-2 and the F-18s appear to be in mild overcast and the E-6 looks like it's in heavy overcast.


Again, different paint jobs. Tactical paint jobs are believe it or not done at the local level. We used to paint our aircraft all of the time and the finish/results was often less than desireable. Also, the tactical paint jobs get a dull, non-reflecting paint that is suppsed to make the aircraft more "stealthy". Running your hand across the paint of a tactical jet almost feels like "chalk". It's a dull, non-reflective finish.
I'm fully aware of the quality of field applied paint jobs.


The C-2 and E-2 are also casting shadow the opposite direction.


Looking at the shadow cast upon the fuselage from under the wings of these aircraft, the angle of the shadow appears to be identical from one plane to the next. I'm unsure of what you're looking at, the shadows look identical to me.
What I see is a C-2 and an E-2 that appear TO ME to be casting a shadow due to a light source coming from approximately 13:00. The rest of the aircraft appear to be casting a shadow representative of a light source coming from approximately 11:00
[admin]I got that backward the first time.[/admin]
Click to expand...
 
A different photo from the very same photographer, MCS2 Jarod Hodge, during the same deployment is linked below.

Notice in the extended details/properties of the photo that again Photoshop was used.

Was this picture "photoshopped" also? It appears to have been taken with Black/White film and yet some colors (orange mostly) can be seen on the smallboat, smallboat covers, and smokestack. Weird, I suspect that these colors were "photoshopped" into the original picture?..... not. Also, all shadows have been removed (lol).

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Navy_061030-N-8591H-008_USS_Kitty_Hawk_(CV_63)_pulls_alongside_the_Military_Sealift_Command_underway_replenishment_oilier_USNS_Rappahannock_(T-AO_204)_before_taking_on_fuel.jpg
 
"daveSanborn" said:
A different photo from the very same photographer, MCS2 Jarod Hodge, during the same deployment is linked below.

Notice in the extended details/properties of the photo that again Photoshop was used.

Was this picture "photoshopped" also? It appears to have been taken with Black/White film and yet some colors (orange mostly) can be seen on the smallboat, smallboat covers, and smokestack. Weird, I suspect that these colors were "photoshopped" into the original picture?..... not. Also, all shadows have been removed (lol).

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Navy_061030-N-8591H-008_USS_Kitty_Hawk_(CV_63)_pulls_alongside_the_Military_Sealift_Command_underway_replenishment_oilier_USNS_Rappahannock_(T-AO_204)_before_taking_on_fuel.jpg
Click to expand...

Nice find Dave.

That's the real deal there. That SH-60 way out in the background has a yellow tipped tail rotor. That and the grabber orange skiff lead me to believe that this photo is not doctored in any way and is in fact in color.
Look under the skiff. The only visible shadow is consistent with the light source, which is about 14:00 aft and above the ship the photo was taken from.
 
BTW here's something you don't want to see.
 

Attachments

  • objects_in_mirror_are_closer_than_they_appear.jpg
    28 KB · Views: 24
My $.02, why does the first F18 (from the left) look smaller in scale than the others?
Click to expand...

I assume it to be further away.... spatially.... from the others. Other than the aircraft themselves, there are no reference points to help determine spacing. The Hornets on the right could 50 feet from each other.... the one on the far left could 300 feet away.

The closest I've ever flown in formation was approx. 150'.
 
I've done more research and found what appears to be a Hornet with Dave Sanborn's roof from his sig pic cut off, flipped horizontally, painted green and fitted to the airframe. Does not look as if it is doctored in any way. Pic was taken the same day.
davef18.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now for a little history about this photo. The company that my wife works for produced the large antenna that you see on the first plane. She sent this photo to me last year which I posted on another forum which ignited some major Fbombs. Ahhhhh the fond memoirs.

So my reply to all of ya is:


[smg id=3564]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top