So many comments here are casual dismissals of the photographer’s style, and while I generally prefer a lighter touch in post-processing, there are some incredibly cool photos in here, some of which are products of interesting light and canopy effects.
I think the artistic decisions make some sense when you consider the purpose of a photo shoot like this. These photos are meant to communicate a story about a mysterious spy plane, and to appeal to a broad audience.
For better or worse, people absolutely eat up this art style, which is why I think many here have been conditioned to associate it with cheap digital filters so ubiquitous on social media. Photos of a famous spy plane can’t be seen as less cool than the latest movie franchise, and so I suspect that’s why the military chose to work with a photographer who works in this style.
Again, not my first choice, but there’s plenty to appreciate in the work, and some of those photos are not as manipulated as one might suspect, and are products of a camera capable of gathering a ton of light even at low exposures.
> So many comments here are casual dismissals of the photographer’s style, and while I generally prefer a lighter touch in post-processing, there are some incredibly cool photos in here.
I kind of feel bad of the photographer, but I think his style has is probably collateral damage of generative "AI." I literally did not believe his photos were real, because the uncanniness and the subject matter just screamed AI-generated to me. Especially that photo of the pilots in the space suits. A lot of the night shots of the plane also looked like renders.
It's almost like it's too easy to fake cool, which then devalues cool, so to be believable someone an artist almost has to miss the mark in just the right way.
There's probably a deeper point there, but I can't make it.
I would not have guessed that this is a particular post-processing style (I no nothing about photography); my first impression was that some of the pictures were either AI generated (the general aesthetic is quite common in AI generated pictures), or 3D renders.
Are there good explanations for why AI generated pictures tend to emulate this particular post-processing style? Is it a simple matter of choice of training data, or does it have to do with the "unnatural smoothness patterns" of the generated (or in the article's case, post-processed) image?
Apart from that, I find it quite surprising that this is the first photoshoot. Isn't U2, first and foremost, a high altitude photography platform? Sure, they probably mostly cared about photographing the surface of the planet, and perhaps the plane's (fixed) equipment was even such that it could only photograph the surface. But did no one pilot, co-pilot, etc. ever care to try and take pictures with even a humble consumer camera in a U2?
Finally: could the post-processing style have been chosen on purpose to hide details which are (for whatever reason) still "sensitive information"?
I thought the extreme HDR look went out of fashion when it became too easy for phones to do, and was overused.
These pictures don't have bad HDR artifacts (EG haloing) but even a casual observer will notice they don't feel natural at all. It's a shame because the framing and colors of those pictures are really nice, but the contrast (both high and low freq) gives them a completely synthetic feel. I'm guessing the sky was swapped out with a very dramatic overcast version, which also adds to the uncanny valley effect.
Isn’t it amusing to be discussing HDR processing artefacts when the subjects have full sun illumination, yet the background is pitch black. Without some measure of artistic license, you’re not going to get an image with any contrast without manipulation.
The couple of photos by Blair Bunting in that article that have people in them look so over processed that I hesitate to believe they aren't entirely AI or otherwise computer generated.
While I'll stipulate that every artist is allowed to have their own style, I too would love to have seen some of these same images much less stylized. I want to see the plane! So I would not be buying a coffee table book with this overly stylized imagery, but I'll restrain myself from calling it shitty.
Part of the article stipulates that much of the plane is still classified to a certain extent, it could be possible that there were requirements to not show too much detail. That would lend to the highly stylized look to being used. I'd have assumed some photoshopping to paint over areas that needed redacting.
I honestly thought they were screenshots from Microsoft Flight Simulator and that this whole thing was going to end with him at a PC and an advertisement to join Xbox Live so you can flight the U2 as well.
The colors may have been there in the raw image, but it's clear to anyone who has experience in photography and photo editing that these images were at the very least, enhanced to bring out those colors. The simplest version of doing this is turning the saturation knob way up - but professionals typically use much more nuanced tools than that.
Especially in the ground pictures, a lot of work was done on the global/local contrast to achieve detail across the brightness range. In addition, manually brightening and darkening some of the areas to guide the eye. These are things photographers have always done since the early days of photography - however with modern tools, it's easier to achieve a look that goes too far, and starts coming off as "synthetic" or "video-gamey".
I also think they just did a swap of the sky in some of the dramatic cloudy shots.
At the risk of joining the tinfoil hat brigade, this is a 70 year old design. The sr 71 is retired and publicly there’s nothing like it. Has aircraft development regressed since the end of the Cold War or are there successors to these craft out there?
What makes the U2 quite amazing is not just that it's a 70 year old design still in operation.
It's also that the U2 was developed by Lockheed Skunk Works on a $22.5 million contract, where they delivered 20 working aircraft in less than 2 years from project start and went $3.5 million under budget. They paid back the money. And as a bonus deliverable, the team also developed a new testing site with extra long paved runway, hangars, workshop etc. on a salt flat known as Area 51.
1. Satellites can now conduct imagery intelligence at a similar or higher quality without alerting targets, conducting refueling, or risking pilots.
2. There are more satellites with higher maneuverability than before.
3. Unmanned high altitude drones will replace the existing U-2S role in the next decade or so; or already have. Consider the U-2S role in the Chinese balloon incident. The military wanted intelligence on the balloon that would not otherwise come from a satellite and therefore utilized the U-2S.
To echo other commenters, it's simply because it's not needed as heavily anymore, and it's a very optimal design for the purpose.
Consider what satellite imagery was like six decades ago. The CORONA program used massive and complex satellites to take photos on film reels, then jettison and recover them using parachutes and catch them on a hook from an aircraft. Yes, really. Back then, it was much more effective to send a plane over and take some images manually.
Very soon after, even as early as the mid 70s, digital image processing and transmission made these obsolete with the launch of the KH-11 series. By this point, it was substantially faster, cheaper, and more reliable to use satellite imagery rather than spyplanes for general purpose surveillance.
The other thing to consider is the rise of surface to air missiles and air defense systems. These greatly changed the calculus of manned surveillance flights.
IIRC The SR71 stopped being useful as a spy plane because missile defence improved to the point they could be shot down, and spy satellites took over the duties of reconnaissance.
These old airframes do get incremental upgrades to software/avionics/engines etc, and there is actually a SR-72 in development as a UAV.
From what I've read, the SR-71 missile defense system was just to throttle up. Back when it was the fastest bird in the sky, this worked well, but we have supersonic missiles that can probably match its speed, and hypersonic missiles are even starting to be used in Ukraine.
The surveillance and EW electronics on the U-2 are kept up to date. You'd have to think long and hard about the value in developing an all-new successor to the airframe, rather than an incremental update to the U-2. The design is already very well suited to a very specific flight envelope. (as a practical matter, an all-new replacement made today targeting the "piloted and subsonic and fly as high as possible for a long time" would be required to have working stealth features and would be huge and cost a zillion dollars, and nobody involved wants to pay for that)
Regarding the aircraft comparison: the U-2 is surprisingly cheap to operate. It's brilliant. The SR-71 pretty much pegged the meter in terms of operating cost.
Precisely; it's dead-end technology supplanted by satellites, drones, and stealth. Doesn't mean it wasn't incredibly useful in its prime, but we've got plenty of unclassified better stuff now.
It's more that this is close to the best design possible for this mission, it would take decades and lots of money to develop another aircraft that does the same thing that might not produce that much of an advantage. There are lots of designs that have been around for ages because they are effective and there is no reason to replace them. Even in the civilian world, there are lots of aircraft types that have been around for 50+ years because there is no real reason to get rid of them as long as they can be upgraded to the latest systems.
It's really only when an aircraft can no longer be upgraded or its mission no longer exists and can't be adapted easily for another one is when it's retired.
Those aircraft were designed to maximally exploit the physical properties of statosphere via airfoils, gas turbines and materials science. There's no more there there other than more efficient turbines and materials which aren't really needed to accomplish the limited mission. Anything higher or faster would be less an aircraft and more a rocket so much more logical to jump the mesosphere and go straight to space.
I would say the F-22 and F-35 are _far_ more advanced than either the SR-71 or the U-2. I think spy planes have been made less critical and more vulnerable with advancements in spy satellites, drones, and air defense and so are not a focus of R&D.
I skimmed through the article but wasn't able to find such.
What I read on diversity seems to make sense to me; that, if all other factors equal (degree and such), then you hire the most marginalized person. It might seem unfair (and on a micro level it might be) but on a macro level it is fair since the least marginalized personae are going to be able to easier get the job elsewhere where they don't prioritize the marginalized personae.
This almost never happens btw since HR looks further than degree. We also have the issue of old age (due to babyboomer dominance) and these babyboomers mean there's an ample amount of jobs available.
Also, you can exploit the unique abilities of a marginalized person. For example, their bilingual expertise (example being customer support) or their knowledge on LGBT issues (for example, a quest in a game involving such) or their first hand experience and/or literature derived knowledge on disabilities (for example usability issues with a product) or spot say (even unintentional) racism in the product (example being AI/ML)
Are you describing what is in the article, or what happens in the real world? If you are describing what happens in real life, I basically agree, it is good that we’re pushing for diversity. But the article has quotes like:
> For example, within hedge funds, the ideal entry-level candidate might be an experienced former investment banker who went to a top MBA program. This preferred pedigree sets a minimum bar for both competence and work ethic. This first-pass filter enormously winnows the field of underrepresented candidates. To relax requirements for diversity’s sake, this will be diluted in various ways. First, the work experience might be stripped. Next, the role gets offered to MBA interns.
And
> By the 1960s, the systematic selection for competence came into direct conflict with the political imperatives of the civil rights movement. During the period from 1961 to 1972, a series of Supreme Court rulings, executive orders, and laws—most critically, the Civil Rights Act of 1964—put meritocracy and the new political imperative of protected-group diversity on a collision course.
I don’t see how it could be read in a way that is compatible with your description.
No kidding - despite the fact that the images are all credited as "Photo by", I simply don't believe they are photos. They look more like videogame loading screen artwork (especially the images with engineers working on planes)
So you invest a lot of money to send a photographer to the edge of space, and then you get images that don't even look like real photos anymore. Imagine the irony...
I don't get how you go and get access to something that not many people get to see, and then you edit the photos so much that they look computer generated.
Looking at his portfolio it seems like he his better at photoshop than at taking photos.
I thought it was universally known that photographs usually have post processing effects (filters) applied to them. Post processing effects allow the artist to place their hand on the picture. It's clear that the photos have been touched by the artist and they have achieved a look that the photographer was going for.
Most serious photographers alter data while not straying far from reality. Cheap instagram-style filters are sign of amateurs trying to grab attention, not pros.
Or in 2023 we can call it 'midjourney look'. Whatever the name, it looks cheap to many. Hardly the effect desired by author.
I think the curvature of the earth on those photos is exaggerated and camera artifacts. If you extrapolate, the earth would be much smaller in these photos.
I'm no flat earth idiot but I can understand why they find such footage unconvincing. Find some gopro videos of tennis players, take a few stills from their videos and try tracing the tennis court lines with a line tool in an image editor. Straight lines on tennis courts turn into curved lines in gopro footage.
If you're not going to take the time to learn and understand the physics of lenses while attempting to use images from those lenses as proof of a controversial claim, then buckle up buttercup, as the condescending criticism is going to be fierce. Sheer mockery and laughter will be well deserved.
> If you extrapolate, the earth would be much smaller in these photos.
At that height, the horizon would appear nearly as a perfect straight line. With a pinhole camera, it would be projected as a straight line in the image plane. Thus, the curvature here has to do with the wide-angle geometry of the lens. If the camera was pointing higher, you would see the horizon curved in the other direction (which would look even cooler!).
The curvature does look sort of uncanny but then again, we don't often see photos from this vantage point. While some of these are wide angle photos which can have lens distortion, photo processing tools also have lens correction options to remove such distorions. Looking at the photos with the aircraft's wings visible, it doesn't appear as though there's much lens distortion remaining.
One of the coolest aspects of the photos to me is the way you can see terrain in a fairly typical aircraft view underneath and still see the curvature of the horizon toward the edges.
Since it's on a photography-centric site, I was a little disappointed there was no discussion of the camera gear or lens selection. I was also hoping to see camera EXIF metadata alongside the images which would typically reflect lens type, focal length, shutter speed, aperture, etc.
Going to go out on a limb and ask if anyone would do forensics on these 'photos.' There is a pretense here, maybe even aside from the door being green, which might justify a little magic.
> let me translate that - they get asked to do all kinds of useless things so they can always obey the commands given.
IMHO, that's a pretty disrespectful take that seems to be founded on stereotypes.
The real reason is probably more along the lines of: they work for a big organization, big organizations force "standards" decisions on the grunts that don't make sense in a lot of contexts, and for a multitude of reasons there's no will to change them once made.
I can't speak for the US, but in my country that was sometimes the case, but not always.
I was an engineer and had 'non-camo' uniform, and only wore camo in the field or on exercise.
People who's job was primarily 'in the field' though (e.g. the Army) didn't have that, and would wear camo as their uniform 90% of the time (the exception was formal dress uniform for parades etc.)
Once upon a time, I used to support these very aircraft. I worked as a technician on the flightline. As an airman, you show up to work every day in a uniform. For us, it was either a set of camo BDUs or 'blues.'
No one I knew that I worked with preferred blues over BDUs. One would wear blues only if absolutely required.
I assume someone connected has the supply contract and thought it would be a great idea if their clothes were worn at all times. Like why on earth are sailors dressed in blue camouflage. I think it also helps hide how out of shape many of them have gotten which would be more obvious if they still wore khakis.
In Mary Roach's book "Grunt" she talks about some of the poor decisions that went in to uniforms and how the style influences come full circle. Military camo influences fashion designers which influence commanders picking uniforms for troops. This article [0] talks about some portions of the book and the camo:
'In the early 2000s the Army attempted to come up with a Unified Field Theory, not for physics but for camouflage uniforms: they wanted one pattern that would hide troops in the woods, city streets and the desert. The uniform designers and engineers came up with 13 patterns for testing. But before the results were in, a general went ahead and picked a pattern—one that was not even among the 13 agreed-on contenders. “The new camouflage performed so poorly in Afghanistan that in 2009,” Roach notes, “the Army spent $3.4 million developing a new and safer pattern for troops deployed there.”
Meanwhile the Navy currently wears blue camouflage as its working uniform. “I asked a Navy commander about the rationale,” Roach recounts. “He looked down at his trousers and sighed. ‘That's so no one can see you if you fall overboard.'”'
I think the artistic decisions make some sense when you consider the purpose of a photo shoot like this. These photos are meant to communicate a story about a mysterious spy plane, and to appeal to a broad audience.
For better or worse, people absolutely eat up this art style, which is why I think many here have been conditioned to associate it with cheap digital filters so ubiquitous on social media. Photos of a famous spy plane can’t be seen as less cool than the latest movie franchise, and so I suspect that’s why the military chose to work with a photographer who works in this style.
Again, not my first choice, but there’s plenty to appreciate in the work, and some of those photos are not as manipulated as one might suspect, and are products of a camera capable of gathering a ton of light even at low exposures.