Below is a response I just posted to the ARocket list on the Sukhoi photo subject. I've about done my dash on this. Basically, I'm now convinced that what appears to be a photo is in fact a work of art "inspired by" one or more photos which depicted what is seen here. This may have been achieved with one original picture or several but overall we are being presented with something that a camera can never approach producing. Art's fine when it's identified as such, but it's a shame when it comes in the cladding of photography and you have to determine that it's not for yourself. I've explained this further below, but essentially I'm saying that photography can include quite extensive 'adjustment" of an out of camera image, but producing essentially new image material strays beyond this. In this case quite a long way beyond. The basic scene is "real" but the camera concerned didn't do quite that well and no camera on earth could have done what is seen there "out of camera". All that said, I'd be happy to be wrong (even though it's impossible that I am :-) ) and I hope to get to ask the photographer how it was done.. Russell ___________________________ >> > > While it is entirely possible that this image is a composite I >> > > think >> > > a lot of the factors that are triggering the suspicion and >> > > analyze >> > > neurons >> What is the qualitative difference to the viewer if the image was >> enhanced >> or if it was composited with another image within the same event? > When a camera takes a picture of a scene, it does not capture the > image in > the same way as the eye does. A camera captures an entire scene in > a single > blink, with one apeture and one exposure time. These settings can > be > adjusted by the camera operator as can what's in focus, how fast the > camera > pans, timing, the boundries of the scene and many other details. I am an electrical engineer by profession and all sorts of things by enthusiasm (including an electrical engineer). The enthusiasms outstrip the available 168 hours per week and so they happen variably, compete with each other for time and go through life cycles of relative time allotted to them. One of my enthusiasms that is currently high on the allotment of available (and unavailable) time is digital photography with subsets of taking, sorting, printing and boring unsuspecting victims to death. At any hour including late at night (like tonight) or even early in the morning before the sun rises you are liable to find me standing/lying / standing on the car roof/up a tree/ down a drain / ... in any number of unlikely places taking photos of landscapes, morning mist, flowers, people, billboards, motorways, seashores and more. I am arguably currently at the "semi-professional" level. ie I do jobs which I am paid little or nothing for either by request or just because I want to with results that people say are well within the range of normal compared to professional alternatives. (ie I'm better than some who do such things for a living and worse than others). I've done 21sts, weddings, conferences, festivals, social events and much more mostly for low or no $ reward. So - what relevance has that to the questions asked re the Sukhoi photo? This: The engineer part of me which is (apparently) a fundamental part of my DNA (as with all true engineers :-) ) wants to know how everything is done, how everything works and how everything relates. The engineer part of me doesn't mind too too much if it finds that something which appears to be reality is actually art, as long as the art is not presented as reality. If the engineer hind brain catches a whiff of non-reality it sounds the alarm bells and the hunt is on. - Did it REALLY get to orbit?, - Is that Japanese exo-skeleton video a fake (yes), - Can it really double your mpg (no), ... - Is that Sukhoi photo, while obviously touched up, essentially "out of camera" in essence? (no), - ... ? Then there's the photographer disease imbedded in my brain How DID they take that - Portrait of two cricketers caught mirror image mid wicket, - Incredible portrait / rally car yumping / ballerina / ... / warplane / animal / ... ? What aperture would they have HAD to used? What sort of lens can do that. What sort of camera has that mix of ISO & noise. ... As noted, an out of camera digital image is NOT a final image (even if it's eg JPG rather than RAW). "Sharpness" is an inseparable part of the overall image. Contrast and sharpness are different sides of the same coin. White balance can not be achieved in some cases and in others adjustment after the event may be as valid a choice as not adjusting it. Depth of focus is a manufactured phenomena. Shutter speed (as noted) adjusts what is recorded. Even things like double blind "sliding window" shutters (which most are these days) can modify the image (although most photos are not noticeably affected by this and many are not more than vaguely aware that 'things can happen' in this area. High speed "multi-strobe" flash (HSS in Minolta language) can also do useful and interesting things And much more. To the extent that post editing plays within the realm of adjusting the extent of things like those above my photographer brain is happy. *BUT* when the basic image content is altered in ways which are beyond the realms of possibility from the raw material then I at least want to know that the photo has become art in its own right. If I am striving to do something with a camera which I see someone else do then I want to know that I'm trying to emulate a photographer and not a graphic artist. I'll never be a graphic artist. While I appreciate their skills and ability to do things that I'll never be able to do I do not have a burning drive to do what they do. But I do want to be a better photographer and to achieve things with a camera which are above what can usually be expected. This isn't and almost certainly never will be my day job. But I'm very keen on it (as may be obvious :-) ). The Sukhoi photo seemed to offer an impossible achievement. The lens was good but not fantastic. The camera (EOS350D) is near the bottom of the DSLR pecking order and about as good as mine (Konica Minolta 7D) (but I have anti shake which can help greatly in some cases) The ISO setting to achieve a real world result like that would need to be impossibly high OR the result achieved for the necessary real ISO setting would be impossibly good. If the details said "work of art inspired by an EOS350D / Sigma 170-500mm photo" (which of course it never would) I could admire the graphic artists skills and move on. Instead it leaves out the "inspired by" bit and my photographer disease passes the hint to the engineer and we're off ... . I am now convinced (for all the many reasons that I am others have listed) that that photo is "art" in its own right - whether by editing beyond the boundaries of adjustment or through combining multiple images. The engineer wants to know how it was done and the extent to which things have been done. The photographer is a bit disappointed, would like to know what the out of the camera shot(s) looked like, and has been inspired by some of the shots seen while researching this picture and will probably try lurking on the Manukau mud flats at the end of the Jean Batten Airport main runway some day to see what can be seen, if the security men don't get too too upset. [[And my 500mm AF* mirror lens is looking forward to seeing what it can do with spinning props at a distance, and the inlet of a 747 engine as it spools up for takeoff]]. Russell McMahon * The only AF mirror lens ever built. All others are manual focus. There has to be SOME compensation for using Minolta gear :-). -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist