5 mins??? i cudn't stand it for longer than 2Just watched 5 minutes of that video.
I still believe that an apology is in order due to the outrageous manner of the accusations.
Try and pull this one apart, I've made it really easy for you!
You've cleared added those sheep in post.
I agree, but there has been plenty of opportunities but it's never going to happen. The best you (we) can hope to expect is a 'thumbs up' like sign Viv.
Erm, guys and gals
did we all miss the bit in his video where HE CLAIMS TO HAVE FLOWN THIS LOOP?!
at 8m40 ( at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzu7bU8uFTPrS0hDYnNJSWN0N1E/view ) where, and I shall quote:
"I've... I've flown the circuit often enough to know that..."
.
ah well now that, you see, would be convincing but faked...I noticed on the machloop website that you can fly it as a flight simulator with the right software http://machloop.co.uk/mach-loop-fsx
comp? by Craig Hollis, on Flickr
Try and pull this one apart, I've made it really easy for you!
(Will delete if Rob wants me to)
Maybe @Circuit Hero might be willing to chime in on this thread, as unless I'm very much mistaken in my remembering he has actually been in the hot seat through the loop several times, and is probably the very best qualified of anyone on the forum to validate these photos
Another member who would certainly be able to give some certain validity to the authenticity of these photos is @Cheesy however he has not been seen around the forum now for 18 months or so
Some bloke made an arse of himself on the internet & we're still going on about it over 650 posts later.....
The main thing I dont understand is why there's apparently such a negative connotation attached to images being composites? If they were (which again to clarify, theyre not) then what difference does it make? Youre not misleading anyone; youre presenting art, not evidence. Composites take a lot of post production work to pull off accurately and arguably more technical camera work in many cases too.
@Richard C. Jones - please don't like my post - instead just apologise so that, in time, you can be accepted by the forum and contribute usefully instead of being forever labelled as "that bloke who wouldn't admit his mistake". You've clearly a lot of ability, but all the time you work this way it will be wasted.
This thread has drawn attention due to someone refusing to admit that their original accusation were incorrect, their continued assertion that the OP posted a composite when that is clearly not the case and their subsequent failure to apologise. It is not about the merits or otherwise of making and posting composite images.Composites are an artform in themselves and no longer becomes photography.
If I posted an image where I'd spent time composing it (in camera), waiting for the right light or action then someone said I'd put all the parts of an image together via PP, I'd be a little peeved (to say the least). I have nothing against composites and I've seen some good ones (and bad ones) but , like I say, it's a different art form.
This thread could be on danger of becoming a debate on what is to much PP rather than about the fantastic images posted!
@Richard C. Jones - please don't like my post - instead just apologise so that, in time, you can be accepted by the forum and contribute usefully instead of being forever labelled as "that bloke who wouldn't admit his mistake". You've clearly a lot of ability, but all the time you work this way it will be wasted.
Composites are an artform in themselves and no longer becomes photography.
If I posted an image where I'd spent time composing it (in camera), waiting for the right light or action then someone said I'd put all the parts of an image together via PP, I'd be a little peeved (to say the least). I have nothing against composites and I've seen some good ones (and bad ones) but , like I say, it's a different art form.
This thread could be on danger of becoming a debate on what is to much PP rather than about the fantastic images posted!
Hi mate, thanks for the shout. Probably wont surprise anyone (and I know Im a bit late) but these are clearly genuine - if nothing else the chap who pointed out the winglets on the drop tanks nailed it, but really anyone who has experience shooting in burst or aircraft knows it. To be honest its easier to draw on my experience behind the lens than in the cockpit to analyse these.
The main thing I dont understand is why there's apparently such a negative connotation attached to images being composites? If they were (which again to clarify, theyre not) then what difference does it make? Youre not misleading anyone; youre presenting art, not evidence. Composites take a lot of post production work to pull off accurately and arguably more technical camera work in many cases too.
Just my 2p. Regret spending the best part of 20mins reading this thread from start to finish if Im honest, you owe me 20mins of life Richard!
Great shots OP, keep up the good work.
Its not for the any pitchfork sharpening, firebrand wielding angry mobs to form... by and large, this has been a remarkably civil thread considering the potential for explosion... lets keep it that way - as I'd hate to have to start handing out warnings to the very people who've been staunch defenders of the OP...
@Circuit Hero , can you clarify the question about missiles from earlier ie whether the Typhoon in the picture is armed with live missiles or inert practice ones (and if you can tell by the colour or not) ?