| Welcome to Pumpitout. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Carmen Taylor Answers Questions | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 23 2009, 05:01 AM (14,319 Views) | |
| YOUROOM101 | Jun 30 2009, 12:24 PM Post #181 |
|
I'm sorry about that I should have asked. Luckily the info will be stamped to the picture so like you say and you'll be able to find out. Anticipating a shot is technically more difficult because you are relying on the quality of the camera, that's why we thought you tracked the shot to make it easier to photograph a fast moving object. |
![]() |
|
| heidimarie | Jun 30 2009, 12:37 PM Post #182 |
|
Thanks. I'll be checking the CD at work since my port is on the blink, so it will be tonight before I get back. Actually, if I had thought about the quality or capabilities of my camera, I probably wouldn't have even tried taking the picture. I set up the shot so that I could stay calm, think about a difficult objective, and take a picture of something more interesting than a speck in the sky with no backdrop. I guess my preparations to taking the picture were kind of like mental yoga. I directed my camera where I thought the plane would be to make the best shot and then waited for it to get there. There is probably a photographic name for it, but I think what made the picture possible was the fact that when I "snapped" the picture, the plane was no longer flying past the Tower, which probably would have made it a blur, but had banked and at that instant, was flying into, or toward, the Tower. Any fast-moving object moving toward or away from even a "low quality" type camera makes a better image than if it were moving sideways, especially if there is some distance involved. I think this is what made the picture possible. The image is of very poor quality and the fact that it exists indicates that the camera, fate, luck, me, everything, was pushed to the max. tgc C |
![]() |
|
| YOUROOM101 | Jun 30 2009, 12:53 PM Post #183 |
|
It is an amazing picture when you think of the event and difficulty to capture it. I agree if the plane was side on if would make things harder, but still the plane according to my poor maths was travelling at 0.13 miles a second or 406ft a second, so to stop it dead like you did is miraculous. |
![]() |
|
| broken sticks | Jun 30 2009, 01:33 PM Post #184 |
|
how is it miraculous, youroom? have you taken some photos of passing planes to show that it is miraculous? that's a bit of homework for you right there. |
![]() |
|
| heavyplastic | Jun 30 2009, 01:54 PM Post #185 |
|
I wasn't talking about only that shot, ALL second hit photographs (even the ones flying sideways) have crystal clear planes AND backgrounds: that is simply IMPOSSIBLE! Edited by heavyplastic, Jun 30 2009, 01:59 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| broken sticks | Jun 30 2009, 02:23 PM Post #186 |
|
I'm sick of this. I'm going out to the airport this weekend and photographing some planes on my POS camera. People here doubting that you can photograph a plane clearly.... take some photos, show us what you've got. Simply repeating "its impossible" or "its miraculous" is really annoying. Do some research! |
![]() |
|
| heavyplastic | Jun 30 2009, 03:01 PM Post #187 |
|
Make sure to get the background/foreground in the picture too! (and that the plane goes FAST!) Edited by heavyplastic, Jun 30 2009, 03:04 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| broken sticks | Jun 30 2009, 03:06 PM Post #188 |
|
What exactly is crystal-clear about this photo? ![]() The plane? The background? "ALL second hit photographs (even the ones flying sideways) have crystal clear planes AND backgrounds" is what you said. That's wrong, isn't it? |
![]() |
|
| heavyplastic | Jun 30 2009, 03:09 PM Post #189 |
|
You got me there broken sticks: plane and scenery are both shitety! LOL |
![]() |
|
| broken sticks | Jun 30 2009, 03:10 PM Post #190 |
|
Zandvoort. I've been there. The camera is obviously following the car in that shot. How about this photo: ![]() Is that more or less blurry than Carmen's? |
![]() |
|
| heavyplastic | Jun 30 2009, 03:17 PM Post #191 |
|
That plane isn't going 500 mph plus, and probably just lifted off. I know you're trying to make your point (and you should) but I'm just saying I find it strange that all pictures show images of planes that are just as 'clear' as the surroundings, just doesn't sit right with me, especially when all pictures show that. There isn't one picture where the photographer was tracking the plane in flight, I find that hard to believe. |
![]() |
|
| broken sticks | Jun 30 2009, 03:30 PM Post #192 |
|
Robert Clark was. You can tell from the way the background has shifted between his two shots of the plane. Kathy Cacicedo (sp?) took multiple photos as well, but we only have one of them. Reeeeeeeessssearrrrrrrrrrchhhhhhh.... If i really need to spell it out for you............. 1. Go get a camera. 2. Go find a place where planes go past a stationary object. 3. Take some photos. 4. Compare them to the available evidence from 911. 5. Present your findings. 6. Feel free to slander as much as you like once you have gone ahead and done some RESEARCH. |
![]() |
|
| thepye | Jun 30 2009, 06:27 PM Post #193 |
|
Where you going to find a plane flying fast enough to compare, or analyze? You would have to be in another plane, when one passes by. I have seen this before at cruising altitude. It happens really, really fast. Would being in a moving plane make a difference, if you snapped a pic right when another plane is passing by? As opposed to being stationary? |
![]() |
|
| broken sticks | Jun 30 2009, 07:08 PM Post #194 |
|
Actually you could be half the distance away from an object moving at half the speed of Flight 175 to take a reasonable shot, but its a fair point to make. The buildings aren't blurry in Carmen's shot because she isn't tracking the plane. So if you are half the distance (Carmen to the towers) away from a plane moving half the speed of Flight 175, the relative speed will be the same. Edit. At cruising altitude a plane would be doing about 500mph, as would a passing plane. You'd have a total relative velocity of 1000mph, which is too much. An alternative would be to go to an airshow and photograph some fighters. Or just go down the airport, photograph a 767 doing 250mph from half the distance Carmen was to the towers, and post them up here. Either way, i'm not going to go around saying "the flight 175 photos are crystal clear and they shouldn't be" because they're not crystal clear, and all the people on this thread that claim they should be all blurry haven't got anything to back themselves up. Edit. Also, north-west wales is like a playground for the RAF. They do their low-altitude training there. Check out this F15: ![]() And this bad-ass picture of an old Jaguar:
Edited by broken sticks, Jun 30 2009, 07:44 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| broken sticks | Jun 30 2009, 08:24 PM Post #195 |
|
Kelly Guenther's photos also show that she was tracking the plane. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Sign-up for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · September 11, 2001 · Next Topic » |










7:27 PM Jul 10