# Wait, this image of an F15 over Afghanistan can't be a photo, right? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 16, 2013, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wait-this-image-of-an-f15-over-afghanistan-cant-be-a-photo-right/668988 "2013-09-16T17:41:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wait-this-image-of-an-f15-over-afghanistan-cant-be-a-photo-right/668988/21 "2013-09-16T20:04:17Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > Cool photos. Certainly dramatic, although I have no reason to doubt they’re genuine. I presume the photographer would be in another jet, just ahead? Above and slightly ahead, and probably pulling some "G"s during the shot. That’s the type of stuff I did in the Air Force years ago. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wait-this-image-of-an-f15-over-afghanistan-cant-be-a-photo-right/668988/22 "2013-09-16T20:20:50Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > Revised opinion: call me next time you see eyes and a nose profile in an air to air shot in the evening with cockpit opposite lighting and massive flare illumination in a simultaneous distance focus. Why do you think it was shot in the evening? It looks like broad daylight, with the plane being illuminated from the right (of the image) by sunlight, and from the left by the flares. The shadows on the landscape is consistent with this. Also, the sunlight and flare are both very bright, so I’m not surprised that there is no motion blur. Of course there’s a lot of manipulation of levels & curves to bring out detail in the dimmer parts of the image. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wait-this-image-of-an-f15-over-afghanistan-cant-be-a-photo-right/668988/23 "2013-09-16T20:51:53Z")
Those flares put out a LOT of light. Keep in mind that they’re intended to put out enough heat to fool a missile guidance seeker into thinking they might be a jet engine. Generating that much heat with a pyrotechnic device puts out a crazy amount of light as well. He probably had plenty of light- if anything, I bet he had to fiddle with the exposure so that it wasn’t just a photo of the underside of the aircraft with everything else looking underexposed. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wait-this-image-of-an-f15-over-afghanistan-cant-be-a-photo-right/668988/24 "2013-09-16T21:00:51Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > pulling some "G"s I love how there’s one and only one verb anyone ever uses with "G"s. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wait-this-image-of-an-f15-over-afghanistan-cant-be-a-photo-right/668988/25 "2013-09-16T21:23:34Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > I love how there’s one and only one verb anyone ever uses with "G"s. I’m pretty sure I’ve used “survive” and “endure”. ---
**Author:** ![JKilez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e5b9ba/32.png) [@JKilez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKilez)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wait-this-image-of-an-f15-over-afghanistan-cant-be-a-photo-right/668988/26 "2013-09-16T22:38:06Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > Here is what I believe is [the original unretouched photograph](http://www.ultimatesacrificeheroes.com/images/DOD%20PHOTO%20(DoD%20photo%20by%20Staff%20Sgt.%20Aaron%20Allmon,%20U.S.%20Air%20Force%20Released)%20%20081215-F-7823A-131.JPG). Heck, I think that version looks better than the contrasty over-saturated one. I agree that it look much nicer. Not only the Wiki one over-saturated and contrast enhanced, it is also over-sharpened as well. All of the edges have halos. ---
**Author:** ![turtlescanfly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/65b543/32.png) [@turtlescanfly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/turtlescanfly)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2013, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wait-this-image-of-an-f15-over-afghanistan-cant-be-a-photo-right/668988/27 "2013-09-17T02:51:36Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > eyes and a nose profile in an air to air shot in the evening with cockpit opposite lighting and massive flare illumination in a simultaneous distance focus. I recognize all of these words as English but still do not have the slightest idea what you are saying (I am not a photographer). ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2013, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wait-this-image-of-an-f15-over-afghanistan-cant-be-a-photo-right/668988/28 "2013-09-17T03:04:09Z")
> [@turtlescanfly](#): > > I recognize all of these words as English but still do not have the slightest idea what you are saying (I am not a photographer). I _am_ a photographer, and I’m uncertain as to the meaning, too. It’s kind of funny, as I think every photographer has a few images people think are 'shopped, but are not. (And by “shopped” I don’t mean just “darkroom” and other toning adjustments; I mean people assuming they are composites.) Now, on the one hand, I welcome a healthy dose of skepticism when it comes to photography. But what I don’t get is how skeptical people seem to be of photos, but when it comes to mass emails spreading what to me seem to be obvious urban legends, that skeptical part of their brain shuts off. ---
**Author:** ![Pine\_Fresh\_Scent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/43a26b/32.png) [@Pine\_Fresh\_Scent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pine_Fresh_Scent)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2013, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wait-this-image-of-an-f15-over-afghanistan-cant-be-a-photo-right/668988/29 "2013-09-17T03:40:31Z")
F-15E back seater here. A lot of these nose-on photos are taken from a KC-135 or KC-10 tanker out of the boomer’s “[rear window](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/KC-135_Stratotanker_boom_operator.jpg)”. In [this](http://924tfg.com/Photos/F16_2.jpg) photo, the Viper is getting ready to connect to the refueling boom. The refueling port behind the canopy is open and the aircraft’s nose is shadowed by the tanker. Actually, it looks like he’s already received his gas. There’s always a little overspray at disconnect, which can be seen aft of the refueling port flowing down the aircraft’s spine. We’d always make sure we had permission from the tanker to dispense flares during photo ops. Tanker crews tend to frown on that when it’s done accidentally, being big flying bags of gas and all. In the first [F-16](http://www.defense.gov/dodcmsshare/WeekInPhotos/2008-12/hires_081212-F-7823A-218.JPG) photo linked above, you can see a bundle of chaff being dispensed with the flares. It’s the cloud of grey particles coming from the right wing’s bomb pylon. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2013, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wait-this-image-of-an-f15-over-afghanistan-cant-be-a-photo-right/668988/30 "2013-09-17T04:11:41Z")
> [@](#): > > eyes and a nose profile in an air to air shot in the evening with cockpit opposite lighting and massive flare illumination in a simultaneous distance focus. Allow me to translate: “eyes and a nose profile”: We see the pilot’s face clearly “an air to air shot”: Velocities are high and there’s probably vibration, so we would expect motion blur “in the evening”: Ambient illumination is low “with cockpit opposite lighting and massive flare illumination”: The pilot’s face is shadowed from the primary light source in the picture “in a simultaneous distance focus.”: The depth of field is large enough that both the plane and the background are in focus. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2013, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wait-this-image-of-an-f15-over-afghanistan-cant-be-a-photo-right/668988/31 "2013-09-17T04:51:52Z")
Well, that’s a better job than I would’ve guessed. The only part that warrants suspicion, IMHO, is the first, and it looks to me like it’s just a localized adjustment (that is, what we would call “dodging” back in the darkroom days.) 1/500 sec is fine to eliminate motion blur between the planes but not the missles (remember, the planes are moving almost motionless relative to each other, and 1/500-1/1000 sec is enough to eliminate vibration blur for the most part. The flares and smoke are blurry, as we might expect. So nothing weird there.) “In the evening” - as noted, this is not an evening shot. If I had to guess, I’d guess around noon, plus or minus two hours, judging by the landscape below. It’s very flat, midday lighting. “Simultaneous distance focus”: at f/11, at 70mm, with a full-frame camera like the Nikon D3, if the subject is 50 feet away (ballpark guess) the range that is in focus is 25.6 feet to infinity. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2013, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wait-this-image-of-an-f15-over-afghanistan-cant-be-a-photo-right/668988/32 "2013-09-17T05:00:04Z")
> [@](#): > > if the subject is 50 feet away (ballpark guess) the range that is in focus is 25.6 feet to infinity. I should say that is not really my guess–I think the plane is farther away–but at that distance, focus becomes hyperfocal from the range of 25.6 feet to infinity. Any subject beyond 50 feet will all be focused to infinity. So as long the plane is 50 feet or farther from the camera and the camera is focused on the plane, then it will be in focus, as well as the background. Now, the plane can be _closer_ than that, too. It can be 25 feet from the camera and be in acceptable focus. But the camera would have to be focused at 50 feet. I am assuming this is not the case and the photographer is focusing on the subject and not past the subject for purposes of hyperfocus. ---
**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2013, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wait-this-image-of-an-f15-over-afghanistan-cant-be-a-photo-right/668988/33 "2013-09-17T12:34:10Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > More likely, it’s a composite of multiple exposures taken with different settings. And how exactly do you propose combining “multiple exposures with different settings” when both photographer and subject are travelling at aircraft speeds? Not going to happen. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2013, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wait-this-image-of-an-f15-over-afghanistan-cant-be-a-photo-right/668988/34 "2013-09-17T14:20:08Z")
> [@Pine\_Fresh\_Scent](#): > > In [this](http://924tfg.com/Photos/F16_2.jpg) photo, the Viper is getting ready to connect to the refueling boom. Just to satisfy my curiousity, that looks like AMRAAMs on the wingtips, as opposed to Sidewinders? I guess they give roughly similar performance effects? If my untrained eyeballs are correct, that thing is loaded for bear – 3 AMRAAMs, 1 AIM-9, 2 HARMs and 2 external fuel drop tanks. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2013, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wait-this-image-of-an-f15-over-afghanistan-cant-be-a-photo-right/668988/35 "2013-09-17T15:32:36Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Allow me to translate: > “eyes and a nose profile”: We see the pilot’s face clearly > “an air to air shot”: Velocities are high and there’s probably vibration, so we would expect motion blur > “in the evening”: Ambient illumination is low > “with cockpit opposite lighting and massive flare illumination”: The pilot’s face is shadowed from the primary light source in the picture > “in a simultaneous distance focus.”: The depth of field is large enough that both the plane and the background are in focus. 🙂 thanks! ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2013, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wait-this-image-of-an-f15-over-afghanistan-cant-be-a-photo-right/668988/36 "2013-09-17T15:42:39Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > The EXIF data shows that it was taken by a Nikon D3 at f/11, 1/500 sec, ISO400, with a focal length of 70mm. > > The only thing that looks a little odd to me is the amount of illumination and detail on the pilot’s face, but there could be a _secondary light source contained within the cockpit set on a remote trigger._ In my opinion, this is probably a single frame and a “real” photograph. Italics added. Huh? Urban myth photoshops? [I don’t think so.](https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=651637331513733&l=50b46d2b70) ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2013, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wait-this-image-of-an-f15-over-afghanistan-cant-be-a-photo-right/668988/37 "2013-09-17T15:46:44Z")
> [@](#): > > And how exactly do you propose combining “multiple exposures with different settings” when both photographer and subject are travelling at aircraft speeds? Not going to happen. I was thinking one exposure for the pilot, one for the plane, and maybe one for the background. The result would of course require some Photoshop cut-and-paste to assemble them together without visible seams, but nothing that can’t be done by a skilled user, especially if they had more than 3 frames to pick and choose from. It could also be done from a single exposure, which would require a different set of manipulations to make it work. EDIT: **Leo Bloom** , what do you mean by “urban myth photoshops” there? **pulykamell** was saying that there might have been a flash bulb inside the cockpit, timed to illuminate the pilot’s face for this picture. That’d be a fairly straightforward bit of photographic technology, and would bear no relationship to Photoshop at all, nor to the picture you linked. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2013, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wait-this-image-of-an-f15-over-afghanistan-cant-be-a-photo-right/668988/38 "2013-09-17T15:49:39Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > Italics added. > > Huh? You can remote trigger a flash using any of a variety of methods, most usual being radio. This is a common technique in any photography requiring additional lighting. Mind you, I don’t think that’s happening here. I thought it might be a possibility, but I just think the illumination is natural. > [@](#): > > Urban myth photoshops? [I don’t think so.](https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=651637331513733&l=50b46d2b70) I think you’re missing my point. My point was that the same dose of healthy skepticism that is applied to photos on the Internet, such that everyone seems to scream “FAKE!” at any reasonably well-executed photo, even if it is real, is not applied to the tons of urban legends out there like “Obama is a secret Muslim” or “Congress is trying to pass an email tax” or “Forward this email and Bill Gates will pay you $X,” etc. Why are people skeptical about stuff that is real, while stuff that is so obviously fake gets passed on as truth? ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2013, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wait-this-image-of-an-f15-over-afghanistan-cant-be-a-photo-right/668988/39 "2013-09-17T16:05:56Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > It could also be done from a single exposure, which would require a different set of manipulations to make it work. Yeah, you can do a sort of pseduo-HDR thing using a single raw file output at various exposure settings (one for the shadows, one for the midtones, one for the highlights). You’re still going to be limited by the dynamic range of the camera (which in a D3 is about 9-10 stops for practical use, although some of the more engineer-y scientific tests report up to 12-ish stops of DR.) At any rate, especially when looking at what appears to a more minimally processed version of the photo, the scene seems to fit well within the dynamic range of the camera, so that kind of trickery wouldn’t be necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Pine\_Fresh\_Scent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/43a26b/32.png) [@Pine\_Fresh\_Scent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pine_Fresh_Scent)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2013, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wait-this-image-of-an-f15-over-afghanistan-cant-be-a-photo-right/668988/40 "2013-09-17T20:28:09Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > Just to satisfy my curiousity, that looks like AMRAAMs on the wingtips, as opposed to Sidewinders? I guess they give roughly similar performance effects? > > If my untrained eyeballs are correct, that thing is loaded for bear – 3 AMRAAMs, 1 AIM-9, 2 HARMs and 2 external fuel drop tanks. I hadn’t heard about the missiles on the rails giving an aerodynamic advantage before, but I’m not an F-16 guy. The F-15E rarely carries a centerline tank because the increased drag isn’t worth the extra gas, so the Viper’s wingtip AIM-9 aerodynamics sounds legit. I dunno, we just try to bring back the crew chief’s jet without breaking it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wait-this-image-of-an-f15-over-afghanistan-cant-be-a-photo-right/668988.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wait-this-image-of-an-f15-over-afghanistan-cant-be-a-photo-right/668988.md?page=3)