Camouflaged Czech Gripen

[pollie]

http://www.czechairspotters.com/photo.php?id=1292

It looks real and I'd like some decals!

[Phantom726]

PS'ed:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Czech-Repub...next_id=1161472

[pollie]

Well, his PS skills are way better than mine!

[Ivan-otter]

Well, his PS skills are way better than mine!

Looks very nice. Looks a bit like the old Swedish camo for Viggen, though.

[jaydeesan]

Well, his PS skills are way better than mine!

It's actually not that hard, as long as you have the patience to do the selection of what needs to be painted over very accurately. Then you paint on a new layer (or mask or whatever; I don't really understand this stuff, just play with Paint Shop Pro occasionally) and blend it together, which will keep all the details, panel lines, shiny spots, etc. I'm sure there are some tweaks that the experts would do, but that's the basic idea.

[Flankerman]

It just proves that the old adage "photographs don't lie" is no longer true.

We have now reached a point where people start to question every image - asking whether its real or not.

Remember the photo of the Su-30 flown by Anatoly Kvochur flying very low in China ??

Everyone immediately shouted 'Photoshop' - but the reverse was true - it was a real photo

Now this one looks real - but it isn't.

I wonder how long it will take for the word "PS'd" to make it into the OED ??

Ken

[dehowie]

Mmmm just wondering why you would say its photoshopped when they are different photos??? Different angles different nosegear positions and different perspectives.

So again why would this be a photoshop job when they are very very clearly different pics...

[Tigermaster]

PS'd, very simple: the CZECH are NOT ALLOWED by SAAB / SWEDEN to paint anything onto the 'leased' airframes.

For the NATO Tiger Meets they always have to use stickers to put on the canards / tails so that they can be

removed easily.

Gert

[ross blackford]

;), Ah, fellas, in addition to what dehowie has said, please have a look at the info under each pic. The grey Gripen was taken exactly 4 years to the day before the camo one and under the camo one is an explanation of its purpose. Just because the two are taken at the same parking spot at Pardubice doesn't mean it's a PS pic. Another thing I noticed is that the small dark stain on the tarmac just aft of the right wing leading edge is in a different spot relative to both the trailing edge and the fin mounted pitot probe. In the camo aircraft pic it's directly in line with the probe, in the grey aircraft pic it isn't. So maybe the camera doesn't lie afterall. In a quick 5 minute lookover I found at least 10 differences between the 2 pics, so I don't believe one is a PS of the other.

,

Ross.

Tigermaster, is it not possible that this requirement has been changed or relaxed in the last 4 years. Even a week in the military and in politics is a long time. Could the Czechs have bought the airframes in that time? I don't know, so I'm depending on knowledgeable European members (preferrably a Swedish or Czech member) to set us all to rights on this subject. Could it be that the camo has been applied in a water soluble distemper so it can be easily washed off after the trials are finished. Just as an aside, I would hate to be relying on some of you as photo interpreters. In other words, have a really good look first, in the last few minutes I have picked up another 5 differences.

Edited December 14, 2010 by ross blackford

[jgrease]

Easiest way to see it's faked - look at the national insignia. No reflections, perfect color, no lines or imperfections. Also, if they are four years apart, how did the fire extinguisher wind up in the exact same place, the small piece by the nose pitot is in the exact same angle, and the grass has grown in the exact same way. The flaps on the wings are in the exact same position, and in four years, the markings on the ground haven't been worn out or repainted. THey are from the same series of photos, which would explain the slight change in angle. Fake fake fake.

[dehowie]

PS'd, very simple: the CZECH are NOT ALLOWED by SAAB / SWEDEN to paint anything onto the 'leased' airframes.

For the NATO Tiger Meets they always have to use stickers to put on the canards / tails so that they can be

removed easily.

Gert

Dont think its quite that easy Gert.

Photoshopping a subject like this would take hundreds of hours i mean hundreds.

Its not just adding a new layer or two in PS and cloning in some colors. The shading etc and reflections are way way difficult..way.

I've been taking pics for 30 years and using photoshop for 13 and i'd say this isan original pic without any hesitation. Any...

really contractual things change continuously and i'd be very very surprised.

Find it very funny that these days people automatically assume a pic is photoshopped if it doesnt match with information they have so it automatically must be a photoshop job rather than the info they having being wrong or having changed.

Photo shopping is way way harder than what any laymen may think particularly in a mulit toned reflection affected photo.

Also websites like the one it is posted on do NOT appreciate heavily manipulated photos being posted on them. The photographer also shoots with good gear and from his other stuff looks totally above board so again id like to see some EVIDENCE that its been photoshopped like artifacts in the photo which give away that it has been completely altered.

Simply saying it shouldnt be that way doesnt cut it as opposed to accusing the photographer of uploading a completely manipulated photo...

[dehowie]

Easiest way to see it's faked - look at the national insignia. No reflections, perfect color, no lines or imperfections. Also, if they are four years apart, how did the fire extinguisher wind up in the exact same place, the small piece by the nose pitot is in the exact same angle, and the grass has grown in the exact same way. The flaps on the wings are in the exact same position, and in four years, the markings on the ground haven't been worn out or repainted. They are from the same series of photos, which would explain the slight change in angle. Fake fake fake.

Mmmm so the fact that there are no reflections off the area surrounding the markings means that there should be reflections off the markings..lol.

Sorry but this is a real aircraft and markings arnt decals which reflect light they reflect the same amount of light as the are around them.

As for fire extinguishers being in the same place have you ever visited an airport in your life..

So obviously taking any photo from the same location maybe a shelter roof or similar will mean ALL pics after the first one are fake..lol.

In that case thousands of pics from Nellis etc are ALL fake as i can show you hundreds from the same location similar angles so i assume every one after the first is fake showing new camo schemes on USAF F15's etc..

Ridiculous..

[Modelmkr]

Easiest way to see it's faked - look at the national insignia. No reflections, perfect color, no lines or imperfections. Also, if they are four years apart, how did the fire extinguisher wind up in the exact same place, the small piece by the nose pitot is in the exact same angle, and the grass has grown in the exact same way. The flaps on the wings are in the exact same position, and in four years, the markings on the ground haven't been worn out or repainted. THey are from the same series of photos, which would explain the slight change in angle. Fake fake fake.

Agreed. Fakedy, fake, fake.

Other than the national insignia give away, there's also the external enviromental details. As was said, the fire extinguisher is in *exactly* the same place. Then there are the other indicators... the shadows. If you look at their relative locations to landmark details on the tarmac, the shadows fall in *exactly* the same place. Trying to put two aircraft in the same position, and at the same time of day on the same day of the year (if more than a year apart) to intentionaly duplicate shadows would be ridiculous; doing so coincidentally even more so. Switching out aircraft on the same day quickly enough so the shadows don't move would be impossible; time marches on.

So, for me, the bigget giveaway that it is PS'd is in the shadows.

Edited December 14, 2010 by Modelmkr

[Modelmkr]

More support that it is PS'd.

Mother nature may be miraculous, but even she cannot produce grass blade paterrns, colouring and distribution to be exactly the same four years apart. And *if* we accept that perhaps these are pictures of two planes taken on the same day, look at the port leading edge slat grease/ soot stain patterns, the exhaust cone stain patterns, the spotty pattern aft of that little vent at the wing fuse join, all exactly the same (not to mention the flap and elevators exactly at the same random angles... on two "different" a/c). I'm all for thinking that aircraft are precision engineered, but there is no way two different aircraft will produce, down to the last streak, the same dirt/grease/weathering patterns.

'Nuf said.

[jaydeesan]

...

Photoshopping a subject like this would take hundreds of hours i mean hundreds.

Its not just adding a new layer or two in PS and cloning in some colors. The shading etc and reflections are way way difficult..way.

I've been taking pics for 30 years and using photoshop for 13 and i'd say this is an original pic without any hesitation. Any...

...

Until you said that I was thinking that you're just having a hard time letting go; I understand that you must have been very excited and proud when you noticed the slight change of angle between the two pictures (taken within seconds and about half a step apart) - but the above is just really embarassing. Maybe in your 14th year of using PS you can experiment with layer blending for a few minutes and see for yourself...

[Jennings]

Here's a simple test: If it's real, I absolutely *GUARANTEE* somebody else took another photo of it from another angle. If it's PS'd, this will be the only photo. So who's got the corroborating evidence that it's real?

J

[Flemming Hansen]

Mmmm so the fact that there are no reflections off the area surrounding the markings means that there should be reflections off the markings..lol.

Sorry but this is a real aircraft and markings arnt decals which reflect light they reflect the same amount of light as the are around them.

As for fire extinguishers being in the same place have you ever visited an airport in your life..

So obviously taking any photo from the same location maybe a shelter roof or similar will mean ALL pics after the first one are fake..lol.

In that case thousands of pics from Nellis etc are ALL fake as i can show you hundreds from the same location similar angles so i assume every one after the first is fake showing new camo schemes on USAF F15's etc..

Ridiculous..

Hi

I won't judge if it is PS'ed or not - but there are a lot of indications that something fishy is going on. Look at the finer details of the airframe- EXACTLY the same sheen in EXACTLY the same places. The same dirt in EXACTLY the same places.

But the biggest give away is this: Look at the black box in the righthand upper corner. That is in the same place. Not likely in the first place - but the rubble behind it is in EXACTLY the same place? Not likely at all. After four years of sweeping, blowing and snow removing?

Flemming

[jaydeesan]

Here, dehowie, just for kicks: (about 47 seconds in PSP)

Trivia: the blend method used was, ironically, 'burn'

Edited December 14, 2010 by jaydeesan

[JeskiM]

I suspect that if it were PS's; that this would be the original:

And the suspect:

- Matt

Edited December 14, 2010 by JeskiM

[mingwin]

My turn! my turn!!

it's Obviously Photoshopped!

thoses colors are way too vibrants!

have you seen any green camo lately in europe?

I loved the undreds of hours to photoshop this... that takes 47 seconds...

[Jennings]

Told ya so

[The Dude]

Yeah i'm not buying it as a real picture either. The evidence from other folks that posted up in this thread plus the camo area behind the canopy has a fake look about it. Looks like a drawing in that area; albeit a good one IMO. Non-the-less it is still pretty cool 'picture'.

[AlCZ]

Hi, it is really a photoshop only. Czech Republic have Gripens only leased for 2015. But today - with new czech goverment is here a problem with supersonic over "Czech crown lands". Ministry of defence have three variants - two calculate with supersonic and one - bye bye supersonic... Maybe we have supersonic before 2015 but - not Gripens ! It here a problem - with corruption... It is a great affair with corruption in czech from BAE/Saab. Maybe CZAF return JAS-39 to Sweden and coming new type - i mean probably a F-16C... Or not...and czech sky go on the defense of others NATO partners... It is ironic - CZAF 211th Fighter squadron is newest Tiger squad. in NATO - and on three years maybe can be "fighter command Czech Republic" only history... Maybe is Gripen our last fighter - realy last.... :/ I like Gripen, it is a elegant and beautiful airplane with smooth lines and sexy curves... I'm proud to Gripen and his skilled pilots-they are a followers of hundred years tradition in Czech...

[Kevan Vogler]

The national insignia on the wing was playing with my eyes from the moment I looked at the picture, there simply is something not right with the way it sits.

It's as if it slightly deviates from the plane of the wing itself, like whoever did it didn't set the elipse quite right to get the finished roundel to sit properly on the wing.

[David Hingtgen]

In addition to the 'pasted on' insignias---just the outline of the plane. Almost like mild edge-enhancement. Especially port LE and port canard. Top of v.stab to a lesser degree.

Edited December 14, 2010 by David Hingtgen