Plane crossing middle of moon.

[hotspur (Chris)]

Thank you all for your kind words.Although APOD is good,I thought the write up I got from the owner of this forum was much better when I achieved "IOTW",here.

The write up on APOD makes out it was all 'luck',which clearly everyone on IIS saw that it was no such thing.

I am also unimpressed by the amount of emails I have recieved from people that have seen it on APOD,and wanted to know how I did the 'Montage'.

Clearly,IIS forum members are far more advanced in their studies in astronomy,as everyone could clearly see what was achieved.

On the up side,the Russian Space agency have contacted me,They certainly know it is a very well planned image,and no luck involved.

Thanks again IIS,I really feel more pleased to have shared it with you!

Cheers Chris

[Kevnool (Kev)]

Congrats Chris on the APOD well worthy.
Cheers Kev.

[Radiation (Tudor)]

Congratulations!

I just saw this on APOD and remembered that I had seen it here too. Shame about them stressing the whole luck thing.

[alexch (Alex)]

Congrats on the APOD - well deserved!
Alex

[hotspur (Chris)]

Thank you everyone on IIS for all of your emails and kind comments.

I am a little stunned at the hUGE amount of feed back on this image.

Just one last note the plane is at 7200 metres,a few people on the APOD

thought the image was a fake,and did some maths-well quite a lot of maths!They also checked all the specs on the Bombadier Q400,apparently it cruises at 8000 m,so the plane was still climbing.

and found out is was not a fake.Some amazing calculations involved.But they seem happy now.

I must say I am really impressed with IIS,no one here thought it was a fake-Some how most people who have done PP or photography can tell immediately if something is not right,and will soon say so-without the maths!

Cheers Chris

[iceman (Mike)]

Hi Chris

Don't forget it's a completely different audience. IceInSpace is mainly enthusiastic amateurs or star gazers, whereas APOD is a mix of everyone - enthusiastic amateurs and a lot of general public who simply like looking at pretty pictures.

Enthusiastic amateurs know what they're looking at when they see a photo, and they would know if it's legitimate or not. Many of them may have even tried/or taken photos themselves.

The general public just wouldn't know so it's more likely they'll jump to conclusions etc.

Getting an APOD is quite a unqiue experience - enjoy the ride while it lasts!

[mental4astro (Alexander)]

Chris, nice one!

[and]

Hi, i'm here to let you know that your amazing shots today are on the homepage of one of the most important italian newspapers (www.repubblica.it and http://www.repubblica.it/scienze/201...1/?ref=HRESS-6 ). Good job!

[Rattler (John)]

YAY!!!!!!! I am cross with the supporting paragraph and have sent them an email saying as much.

But still.....I have not achieved such a thing!

Have fun!

Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[ChrisM]

[QUOTE=hotspur;640382]

Just one last note the plane is at 7200 metres,a few people on the APOD

thought the image was a fake,and did some maths-well quite a lot of maths!They also checked all the specs on the Bombadier Q400,apparently it cruises at 8000 m,so the plane was still climbing."
------------------------------

Hi Chris, just interested to know how you found out the plane was at 7200 metres. My calcs from the image came up with an altitude of close to 21,000 feet (6,400 metres).

Congrats on the APOD and other press!

Chris

[avatorotava (C)]

I am sorry man, but something isn't quite convincing here..
I don't do any maths but I am a professional photographer and
from the pictures of the set you published, the moon is so small and faraway, that for the plane to be in the position it is, it should have been almost landing on his surface in order to have those proportions...
great trick man! arrived all the way to italy...

[troypiggo (Troy)]

Originally Posted by avatorotava

I am sorry man, but something isn't quite convincing here..
I don't do any maths but I am a professional photographer and
from the pictures of the set you published, the moon is so small and faraway, that for the plane to be in the position it is, it should have been almost landing on his surface in order to have those proportions...
great trick man! arrived all the way to italy...

You joined the forum to post that uninformed rubbish?

I've mentioned this to Chris off-line, but will repeat it here. Comments like this, at first glance, might be hurtful. People don't believe that you could take such a wonderful capture, they don't trust your word etc. But when you think about it, someone suggesting that the shot you captured isn't possible and it must have been photoshopped, is actually the highest praise you could get. Especially if the person saying it is "a professional photographer" (even if they don't do maths).

So Chris, don't be dis-heartened by these sort of comments. I know you've been getting a few. They're all the ultimate compliment, even if they weren't written for that purpose.

[Dennis]

Originally Posted by avatorotava

I am sorry man, but something isn't quite convincing here..
I don't do any maths but I am a professional photographer and
...

I assume that your native tongue is not English and therefore something may have been lost in the translation?

I’m also not sure that claiming to be a professional photographer (simply means one who is paid to take photographs) is a justifiable qualification to do away with the need to apply mathematical rigour to the data captured in Chris’s photo, before making such unnecessary and quite pointless comments.

Amateur astronomers (unpaid; doing it for the love of their hobby) perform many simple mathematical calculations to characterize the field of view of their instruments and photographic systems. There is no (data driven) conflict here between the apparent angular sizes of the Moon’s disc and the airplane as recorded through a Vixen ED103S F/7.7 refractor fitted with a Canon 450D. The lighting appears as expected to those who have viewed the Moon under similar twilight conditions. The small amount of motion blur of the airframe, based on the apparent field of view, aircraft altitude/distance/ground speed seems appropriate based upon the author’s published exposure details of 1/250 second.

Sometimes, you just have to trust data rather than an opinion based on, well in this instance, I don’t know what!

Cheers

Dennis

PS – Chris, I would ignore there naysayer posts, you cannot have an open conversation with a closed mind. You know what you recorded, and how, and you don’t require any other justification to prove the authenticity of this amazing image.

[hotspur (Chris)]

Hi ChrisM,re height of plane-if you go to that image on APOD site,click discuss you will get into thread.

One chap did some maths to work out the 7200m,he later revised that figure to 6500m.Given I live 160 km (approx)Brisbane,This,and your figure are more likely to be correct,the plane is still climbing.

Not sure about speed,but that far away from Brisbane,should be very close to to cruising speed.

Troy-thanks for your comment,some people may be professional photographers',but there are many vast fields of photography,and not everyone is going to have a firm understand of application of gear and skills needed to obtain an image.

cheers Chris

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

Just sitting back and watching you enjoy the ride. Congrats on the APOD.

[astroron (Ron)]

Frame it Chris and hang it in Pride of place at home
Well done
As Dennis says take no notice of the Doubting Thomas's
Cheers and congrats on the APOD

[Suzy]

A well deserved congratulations to you Chris. "Carpe Diem".

Proudly waiting for Australian Sky & Telescope Magazine to print this story, and as JJJ mentioned, watching this ride is very exciting!
Any word from the pilot yet.

Regards,
Suzy.

[Waxing_Gibbous (Peter)]

Fantastic! Try Smithsonian Air & Space if you haven't already had it published.
PJH

[Octane (Humayun)]

Chris,

Ignore the people questioning the authenticity of the image. You shouldn't have to re-iterate yourself or explain yourself or justify yourself.

Can it be faked? You bet it can. And, this is the problem.

The difference here is that you're a regular member of this forum, and, we know who you are; we know your interests; we have no reason to doubt you.

External viewers, whether they be on APODs forums, or other fora/site where the image has been published don't know you from a bar of soap. And, so, of course peeople are going to chime in and say the physics are all wrong and that the image is an impossibility. Not everyone has photographed through a long focal length instrument before and therefore doubt its authenticity.

There's a particular photography message board I'm on where I post my landscape images, and, while I was new there, I had a barrage of people claiming that my landscapes were HDR images (an insult) and in general, a lot of negative sentiment was being bandied about. People who don't photograph at those special times of the day don't realise that a photograph can resemble a painting. It's all to do with the light. Now that I'm not so new there, I've gained their trust and they take the images for what they are now.

So, all in all, don't be disheartened. We know you took the shot.

H

[Chancellor (Jeff)]

Hi Chris
I fell in love with your photo the first time I saw it on IIS and have been reading about it for the last few days in a few places.

I just wanted to say congratulations on your photo. One hell of a lot of planning really payed off to get that shot.