The space shuttle Endeavour's victory lap around the Los Angeles region Friday was a spectacle that launched a thousand camera clicks.
The shuttle, riding on top of a NASA 747, was a dramatic sight for thousands of residents who captured the Endeavour as it passed by L.A.'s most scenic backdrops: the Hollywood sign, the Santa Monica Pier, L.A. City Hall and many other local landmarks.
Many Patch readers submitted photos and videos of Endeavour and our editorial team also took photos and videos from L.A.'s scenic outlooks. Scroll through the photo gallery above to see are some of the best photos Patch published Friday.
If you have a photo or video you'd like to add to Patch's gallery, click here and click the button under the videos that says "Upload Photos And Videos." You'll see your photo or video posted right away.
That photo could have easily been captured from his vantage point (on top of the U.S. Bank building) when the shuttle flew over OTHER landmarks, not the Hollywood sign. The compression created by a 400mm lens would easily make it appear that the shuttle was much closer to the Hollywood sign that it was. But such an acclaimed photographer such as yourself should already know that, right? Gary Friedman is a highly respected professional photojournalist (unlike yourself) and I am pretty sure he would not destroy his career and reputation by Photoshopping that photo. You may call yourself a photographer, but you are not a professional, sorry. Owning an expensive camera does not make you a professional photographer and the world's expert on what is photoshopped and what isn't.
Brian-- I see your point -- The shuttle never did do any banking turns over the Hollywood sign. However, I believe the LA Times photo was not taken during the shuttle fly over of the Hollywood sign. It was taken when the shuttle was flying over the city. As Ryan was saying, when photos are taken with a long lens, compression occurs and it gives the appearance that objects are closer together than they actually are. A good example is this photo of the Griffith Observatory (many examples of it on Google images): http://www.experiencingla.com/2011/02/griffith-observatory-at-twilight.html We all know the city is not that close to the observatory, but by using a 400mm or 600mm lens, image compression gives us that impression in the photo. The same can apply for the shuttle photo taken from the US Bank Building.
When photography goes baaaad!! You guys are hilarious.
I cannot speak for him, but I highly, HIGHLY doubt Mr. Friedman would jeopradize his 30 year career as a photojournalist to doctor a space shuttle photo. This was a small event compared to some of the things he has covered in the past (According to his bio at least: http://framework.latimes.com/who-we-are/gary-friedman/). Even in a bind, it is better to go back to the office with no photo than a doctored photo. The Times had at least half a dozen photographers out that day so it wasn't like he was their only source for photos. If you get caught (and trust me, you will if you are doctoring photos), your career as a photojournalist is gone in a puff of smoke. No newspaper is going to hire you. Doctoring an image as a photojournalist is like cooking the books as an accountant. If there is one hallowed rule you follow as a photojournalist, it is "Do not alter the truth of an image." It is a principle that I follow at Patch and I know the L.A. Times photo staff follows as well. You are of course free to disagree, but that is the perspective I can offer as someone who works in the photojournalism world.
Goes a lot further to explain everything than I ever could have.
Pot calling the kettle black?
Here is the reverse angle of his shot: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10152150017085385.904160.758585384&type=1&l=21c1393c12 And the other photos I shot that morning: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10152138312190385.902091.758585384&type=1&l=8d2073c7ce
You pretentiously, publicly attacked a professional journalist for in essence lying. You owe an apology. Not a mealy-mouthed whine that you got an "arrogant" response." You owe $100 to Jon Viscott, below. And you owe an apology to the Times.
Really? Do you really think that is what NASA employees are doing widespread?
Well no, I don't think all the NASA employees are doing this kind of stuff. But it gets really frustrating for me. I know we have a lot of problems that need money and attention here, and space exploration is important too. NASA picks the best and the brightest from the military and the private sector. Having a father in the military, I always looked up to those in uniform. But when I read that stuff about the NASA love triangle, I was disappointed. Perhaps my expectations are too high? I think it's a shame. There are good and bad people everywhere. But I don't like my tax dollars buying a package of Depends for some stalker who got her feelings hurt. That was the best use of her time and our money? Not bloody likely!
Here is the reverse angle of his shot: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10152150017085385.904160.758585384&type=1&l=21c1393c12 And the other photos I shot that morning: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10152138312190385.902091.758585384&type=1&l=8d2073c7ce @Brian Michaels, what's your email address? I will send you an invoice via PayPal for that 100 bux.