Comments on: Stunning Photo - EVA Air Boeing 747 taking off from Amsterdam - Schiphol

By: Arjen

Arjen — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 16:41:36 +0000

Wow! Incredible photo. I’m planning to go spotting planes at Amsterdam Airport, as I live very close to the airport. It’s a five minute drive to the spot that photo was made.

I really should go there soon!

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 16:52:59 +0000

Yeah, you should really go! Just don’t forget to share your photos!

By: Peter

Peter — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 12:07:30 +0000

This can’t be for real!!
The size of the people and the size of the 747 just don’t match.

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:12:39 +0000

Believe me, it is real! It’s a matter of perspective.

By: Mario

Mario — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:27:34 +0000

The image may not be real. The guy on the left side of the screen - by the right wing - looks to relax for such an event..

By: bob

bob — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:00:17 +0000

Realy need to see the next shot, the thrust from the engins would say it all.

By: Avgu

Avgu — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 11:54:17 +0000

It´s real, photo taken with a _big_ telelens, compresses the 3-dimensional space.

By: skeptic

skeptic — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:34:41 +0000

if it was real, those folks standing on the parking lot watching would all be deaf. They are not even trying to cover their ears!

By: MIKE

MIKE — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:32:39 +0000

The long lens foreshortans the image.Note the perspective of the road.
The runway is 475′ from this viewing point. Many airports have run-way
veiwing locations closer than that….Remember the F 15’s picture at the
Detroit River Airshow, that looked like it was right next to the
guy standing on his balcony? Same thing!

By: Hugh

Hugh — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:54:53 +0000

It is not is all it seems as the photo was taken from an old closed road half way down the r/w. Have a look at http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=55673

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 07:51:35 +0000

Whilst the picture is impressive and not quite as dangerous as it first appears, can someone explain what seem to be wrinkles in the fuselage skin under and around the EvaAir logo. I know aircraft flex, but that looks like a vinyl banner in the wind.

By: Ray

Ray — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 23:24:06 +0000

Looks like a staged EVA publicity stunt. Long lens = forshortened perspective with advertising banner stuck all over aircraft wrinkling in the breeze. Impressive photo though. Aircraft is nowhere near end of runway.

By: rOn

rOn — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 18:38:42 +0000

Must have been a bad day………………………..

Runway is 3800 m long

At max weight of circa 400tons would need 3000m of runway and vr of 170kts

Assume he lost an engine after v1 and was taking off with a tail wind

3rd world pilots ……….. keep well clear !!

By: MAFAv8r

MAFAv8r — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 03:58:20 +0000

Great photo! It looks like a 600mm?

I’d say the photo is real, and although the aircraft is taking off from 36, not that the photo is taken from the threshold as some think. The cover on the name is not unusual.
The 747-400 would hardly be affected by a engine failure after V1 in regard to performance capability, as most takeoffs are temperature derated and October would be nice and cold. Their takeoff requirements are such that the aircraft manufacturers have to prove that it will be able to climb with sufficient clearance with engine failure of the critical engine at V1. If your Vr figures are correct, (I think at MAUW it is around 155 from memory) and the rotate is at 3000m as you say then they will climb at greater than 0.5% with one engine failure until their gear is retracted and at greater than 3% until they reach 400ft or obstacle clearance speed. Being Schiphol I doubt whether there would be any serious obstacles to clear. These obstacle clearance figures also allow 1% degradation for wear and tear in the engine (Ie if it was an old engine). All engine failures must be reported, and there is no such report so we can assume it is a normal 4 engine takeoff.

People would have no reason not to be relaxed and they are still a good distance from the runway. The 400 is quiet as most noise is compressor noise, not exhaust as in the older ones.

3rd world pilot comment; sigh; it is not nationality based, it is the flying culture of safety that determines whether you should keep clear of them, not where they live or their ethnicity!! I know some great third world professional pilots and I know some shocking first world professional pilots that I would not send my family in the air with!

By: Cr@p

Cr@p — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:40:47 +0000

rOn
Aug 16th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
3rd world pilots ……….. keep well clear !!

Describes the writer 100%

By: JB

JB — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 21:59:03 +0000

Not only is the lighting on the left side of the small red vehicle inconsistent with the light on the same side of the fuse, flight timetable lists departure time of 21:40hrs - so I’m doubtful this is real.

By: Pieter

Pieter — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 13:02:35 +0000

The apparent danger is just an optical illusion. The photographer took the picture at a distance of hundreds of meters. This creates the impression that the plane and the spectators are close to eachother, when there is in fact a distance of about 150 meters between them.
I have calculated that the plane is actually in the air with over 1500 meters of runway 36L (the Polderbaan) left to go. The total length of the runway is 3800 meters.
So there is no problem at all. Noone was in danger. The pilots are doing a fine job.
But the photo is fantastic. Compliments to the photographer.

By: kees

kees — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 13:35:43 +0000

not real look at the flaps that is a landing btw there are no trees that close to the runways because of safety and birds.
So this is a photo shop.

By: Harald

Harald — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 05:05:54 +0000

This forum is liek talk radio. A bunch of conspiracy minded people with no knowledge of planes , local geopgraphy and photgraphy commenting. Some people just know how to take pics and wait for the right time. You can make an almost identical pic time and again at the same spot. The exact alignment with the road and the recent lift off , make this one perfect. My compliments. Not all that shines is photoshopped. HH

By: points1

points1 — Sun, 19 Dec 2010 18:21:23 +0000

Meanwhile this road has become prohibited for carparking. So making a shot like this, with several cars & people “close” to the plane, will be more difficult nowadays.

By: naseem ahmed khan

naseem ahmed khan — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 05:36:30 +0000

how come takeoff this huge plane while road and nearby area is allowed for cars parking and people
very atrange moment,planeBoeing 747 takeoff from no go area.
warm regards
naseem khan karachi/pakistan email addpk7@hotmail.com

By: Kijeya

Kijeya — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:53:14 +0000

You have (near) full flaps here which is not a take-off position even at full load. This is a fake.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 20:08:54 +0000

No you’re wrong. Flaps is 20 which is a very common takeoff setting for 747-400…

By: Merv

Merv — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 04:33:28 +0000

Notice how the security fence at left of picture is angled downwards towards the right, presumably to give planes maximum clearance at the end of the runway. I expect that the angling would start a good distance away from the centreline of the runway, so this means that the plane and runway are well away from the people and cars.

By: Darron Beetge

Darron Beetge — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 12:29:12 +0000

Wow, that’s a great photo. I wonder what the jet wash must be like for all the spectators?!

By: Les

Les — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 17:38:16 +0000

Apparently the sun is shining but there is no shadow on the ground. These are two different pictures. This is a fake.

By: The photographer, points1

The photographer, points1 — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 20:03:31 +0000

For me, as maker of this shot, it is very difficult to imagine the exact impression the viewers have.

Naseem, navigate to photographers position [google earth 52°21′3.63″N, 4°43′4.85″E], maybe then you understand.

For the ones who think this is fake, please ask me questions. Maybe i can change your thoughts

Les, the visible road is approx. 150 meters from the plane, while the shadow will be somewhere on the unvisible runway, very close to the plane.

By: Peter C

Peter C — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 01:46:54 +0000

Well, as an aviation buff and photographer (in Australia) I believe the photo to be factual, but the description left by the photographer somewhat misleading. Sure, the end of the road might be some 150m from the aircraft, but the photographer must be some 6-700 metres away. I imagine the photo to be taken with a 200mm lens - perhaps 300mm, at @ 5.6 and is cropped to suit viewing. Obviously the runway is higher or at the same level as the photographer. For those prattling on about the appearance of the outer hull - that’s normal in practically all aircraft - the angle of the sun creates the texture - something that photographers crave. No need to comment on weights and V1 etc - that’s been covered by experts greater than I. Still, I would like to know more of the camera and settings. BE HAPPY PC

By: Giorgi

Giorgi — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 05:27:38 +0000

Well done Bob!
Next shot please…

By: Photographer in Virginia Beach

Photographer in Virginia Beach — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 11:06:54 +0000

I am not an expert on this subject so I don’t know if the photo is real or fake but I must say the photo is very impressive either way.

Please visit my Website.

By: Marc

Marc — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 19:32:13 +0000

I have a few questions for the photographer.

Why doesn’t the foliage just under the planes nose, and around the nose gear tire, “touch” the aircraft surfaces? Gaps and other distortions between the foreground (aircraft) and background (foliage, sky) appear in several areas as well as around the person walking in the roadway. This distortion is most prominent around the aircraft, but does not appear around most other foreground/background objects.

Why is the angle of sunlight on the aircraft different than the angle of light falling on the foreground? The left side of most objects in the foreground are illuminated from approximately 9 to 10 o’clock while the aircraft is illuminated at approximately 12 o’clock. Notice the lack of brightness on the roof of the foreground building, yet the top of the plane is fully illuminated (but not it’s right side). Back to the person walking in the roadway, they are not illuminated on their left side as the people nearer the fence are.

Just asking.

By: Air Valid

Air Valid — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 12:08:23 +0000

What a blast!

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 20:05:05 +0000

Hugh and Pieter are right that the airplane is only about halfway down the runway, as you can see in a satellite view. The 475 ft mentioned by Mike is the perpendicular distance from the near edge of the runway to the gate where spectators are standing. Given the angle of view, and assuming the airplane is centered on the runway, the distance from the gate to the airplane is about 850 ft. The photographer was a long way back from the gate, maybe something like 1500ft, and the lens was a long telephoto.

The point is that this was probably a normal takeoff, with the airplane airborne with more than a mile of runway left before it has to clear any fence.

It’s a spectacular photo, well done technically. But It’s also a bit distasteful in that it’s deliberately misleading. It was purposely composed so as to manufacture drama where none really existed.

By: The photographer, points1

The photographer, points1 — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 21:41:17 +0000

Marc, I am sorry, i don’t understand each question. For the time being, i want to keep it simple. I collected for you the same kind of photo’s from other photographers; maybe these convince you that it’s not fake: http://www.flickr.com/photos/47874803@N00/galleries/72157626358598594/

Doug, you’re right. Except for the part ” It’s also a bit distasteful “…

By: tz

tz — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 23:50:31 +0000

hahaha,

way to go Original photographer…that last link shut them up then……..great pic….well done.

By: Julia Gillard

Julia Gillard — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:46:35 +0000

Photo is distorting reality so in my opinion equal to photoshop. Making the viewer believe something else is the case than reality is untrue and is not honest. Yes it’s clever but the technique is old. Compliments to the moment and Photographer’s talent, no doubt that he is either good or lucky..:)

Compliments to the provider of the awesome lighting

Interesting would be to make a second photo, next time, with a pocket camera and post them both. Now that would be clever..

Julia Gillard

By: Jeebee

Jeebee — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 06:33:11 +0000

For the profesionals,
The Exif data from the Picture
Regards
Jos B

Make - Canon
Model - Canon EOS 350D DIGITAL
Orientation - Top left
XResolution - 240.00
YResolution - 240.00
ResolutionUnit - Inch
Software - Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
DateTime - 2007:11:11 15:39:48
Artist - unknown
ExifOffset - 236
ExposureTime - 1/640 seconds
FNumber - 7.10
ExposureProgram - Aperture priority
ISOSpeedRatings - 400
ExifVersion - 0221
DateTimeOriginal - 2007:11:11 14:11:54
DateTimeDigitized - 2007:11:11 14:11:54
ShutterSpeedValue - 1/640 seconds
ApertureValue - F 7.10
ExposureBiasValue - 0.67
MaxApertureValue - F 5.60
MeteringMode - Multi-segment
Flash - Flash not fired, compulsory flash mode
FocalLength - 250 mm
ColorSpace - sRGB
ExifImageWidth - 1024
ExifImageHeight - 683
FocalPlaneXResolution - 3954.23
FocalPlaneYResolution - 3958.76
FocalPlaneResolutionUnit - Inch
CustomRendered - Normal process
ExposureMode - Auto
White Balance - Auto
SceneCaptureType - Standard

Thumbnail: -
Compression - 6 (JPG)
XResolution - 72
YResolution - 72
ResolutionUnit - Inch
JpegIFOffset - 738
JpegIFByteCount - 4957