andrewmore
Too many cameras....
The names came from the latest version and largest scale OS map I could access; however names of buildings do seem to change e.g. the name of the pub. However I assume that Dick Turpin's Cottage which lies out of sight behind what ever Amboise cottage is currently called is still called by the same name as this seems to be one of the claims to fame of this location.
Regards
Andrew More
Regards
Andrew More
Muggins
Junk magnet
Yes, the pub went through a spell when the name changed with the wind!
I must confess that I thought I was lining up on Dick Turpin's Cottage... Will have to check when I go back, won't I?
Adrian
I must confess that I thought I was lining up on Dick Turpin's Cottage... Will have to check when I go back, won't I?
Adrian
andrewmore
Too many cameras....
My mistake - I've had another go at driving Google Street View. The fancy roofed cottage is indeed Dick Turpin's Cottage. I think the original photograph would have been taken level with what is now Amboise (a house built with wings at 90°) on the right. This is one house south of Dick Turpin's Cottage. I'll have another go with Street View and see if I can puzzle out the left (west) side of the road.
Another thought: has anyone pondered the height the original camera was mounted at? Would this have had a significant effect?
Regards
Andrew More
Another thought: has anyone pondered the height the original camera was mounted at? Would this have had a significant effect?
Regards
Andrew More
Muggins
Junk magnet
Right - here we are again. I went back and had another go. What does everyone think?
(perhaps I should reduce them to be seen on one screen? Ah well, I'll remember that if I ever put the project online!)
I managed to find a time without too much traffic (and, thinking about it, no car parked on the road - which I've realised was why I used the other side), and I think this is much closer. I've thought about it, and realised that I was also confused by the 4/3 format, which is much broader than the original postcard format, and I've cropped the bottom of the comparison shot (I tried to match the chimney up with the top edge as per the postcard) to a similar aspect ratio to the original as well. I didn't get the original photographer's list to starboard, though - in my defence I was trying to line the shot up with one hand, compare with the original in the other, and listen out for traffic, so I was a bit short of spare brain to think with. If you are fussy about it, try lifting the bottom left-hand corner of your monitor when you look at the second picture!
An unexpected discovery is that the equivalent focal length is approximately 65mm, not the 165mm we were thinking.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts,
Adrian
(perhaps I should reduce them to be seen on one screen? Ah well, I'll remember that if I ever put the project online!)
I managed to find a time without too much traffic (and, thinking about it, no car parked on the road - which I've realised was why I used the other side), and I think this is much closer. I've thought about it, and realised that I was also confused by the 4/3 format, which is much broader than the original postcard format, and I've cropped the bottom of the comparison shot (I tried to match the chimney up with the top edge as per the postcard) to a similar aspect ratio to the original as well. I didn't get the original photographer's list to starboard, though - in my defence I was trying to line the shot up with one hand, compare with the original in the other, and listen out for traffic, so I was a bit short of spare brain to think with. If you are fussy about it, try lifting the bottom left-hand corner of your monitor when you look at the second picture!
An unexpected discovery is that the equivalent focal length is approximately 65mm, not the 165mm we were thinking.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts,
Adrian
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
This is an interesting project, reminds me of my successful search for the house in Garry Windogrand's "New Mexico 1957" image, and an attempt to replicate his perspective using a Lumix G1 camera.
In your most recent images, I think you're very close. The only two things that stand out to me are: 1) The house at the far end of the road on the left appears a bit smaller in the original image, and 2) The house on the right in the foreground appears to be captured a bit too front-on in your replicated image, judging from the angle of the roof gable ... although, to be fair, it's a bit hard to tell because in the original image the detached garage obscures much of the front of the structure.
But enough criticism, I'm mostly nit-picking anyway. I think you've done a great job of recreating a classic old photograph, great job in photographic archaeology. Well done.
~Joe
In your most recent images, I think you're very close. The only two things that stand out to me are: 1) The house at the far end of the road on the left appears a bit smaller in the original image, and 2) The house on the right in the foreground appears to be captured a bit too front-on in your replicated image, judging from the angle of the roof gable ... although, to be fair, it's a bit hard to tell because in the original image the detached garage obscures much of the front of the structure.
But enough criticism, I'm mostly nit-picking anyway. I think you've done a great job of recreating a classic old photograph, great job in photographic archaeology. Well done.
~Joe
graywolf
Well-known
The old post card size in the US, and I think elsewhere, was 3.5x5.5 inches. Some of you will notice that that is also the contact print size from 122 film.
graywolf
Well-known
You need to back down the road a bit farther. Looks like you are getting close to where the original photo was taken from. I wonder what there have been no comments for the past 3 weeks. Folks busy over the holidays no doubt.
Muggins
Junk magnet
I think most people are happy that I'm close enough, Tom! Given that there's a hedge just behind, which would really muck up the comparison (not a good road to stand in...), and how awkward it is to line up on a different format camera - the 4/3 G10 is much closer to square than the postcard - another comparison can wait until I sort out the one up the road where I got the position about right, but blew the white house out...
65mm or thereabouts equivalent? Hmm... I wonder if it was actually a 6x4.5 neg originally? No way of finding out, of course, but an interesting thought.
Adrian
65mm or thereabouts equivalent? Hmm... I wonder if it was actually a 6x4.5 neg originally? No way of finding out, of course, but an interesting thought.
Adrian
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Adrian, way to go, that looks perfect!