In article , David Jackson
wrote:

The message
from Sam Wilson contains these words:

I've seen it written by a professional photographer that pictures with
people in sell much more than pure landscapes

...and sometimes vice versa!

One of my photos is a "going away" shot of a Black Five westbound
through Mouldsworth CLC in the 1980s, taken from the station platform,
which had quite a few people watching the train go through. Also in the
photo is the road bridge with several "experts" ... I use that photo as one
of my Windows wallpapers, but the bridge-trolls are carefully
PhotoShopped out. g

I think that would count as cleaning up the portrait of a much loved
friend rather than messing with a landscape. :-)

Sam

"MIG" wrote in message
ups.com...

I'm now starting to be convinced that the girder-looking thing could be
the inside of the canopy, and the white area the outside of the canopy.

But there is still something unreal about the whole thing. Why are we
looking up so sharply under the canopy, when we seem to be looking
straight across at the couple? That seems to be the opposite of the
general foreshortening.

And should we really be able to see the top of the wall under the
canopy from this angle? In the picture with the train it looks as if
the canopy comes down lower than the top of the wall, which again
implies looking upwards from close, while the picture of the couple is
looking straight across.

All very odd.

Look at the pattern of shadow that the canopy casts in the genuine photo. In
the composite photo there is no shadow at all to suggest a canopy.


--
Ronnie
--
www.greatcentralrailway.com
Adjust the farmyard animals before replying

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:11:25 +0000, Paul Terry
wrote:

In message . com,
Neillw001 writes

I agree with the composite theory. The girder and white area above it
are too artificial to be original for a start.

Possible, but the Wimbledon canopy is a bit odd anyway, with very long
spans. Although on the other side of the station, the following shows
the canopy quite well:

http://tinyurl.com/k3b9l

Although dubious at first, I now agree that it is Wimbledon. If you
compare the original picture with the one at the top of this page
http://www.trainweb.org/districtdave/ you can see the style of the
canopy fits in, also the height fits well with the wall behind it, and
it also shows that the fixed red lights are slightly offset on
platforms 2 & 3, as per the original picture.

Now I can look at the original picture on my 70 quid CRT monitor rather
than the flash TFT one at work I can see that the white area above the
girder contains rivets. Amazing what this old technology can do! If you
look to the right you can see an "A" graffitied on the platform face.
This corresponds with District Tube Driver's picture, placing the
support just off frame to the right.

Neill

wrote in message
oups.com...

In question:
http://wvs.topleftpixel.com/archives...222_1471.shtml

Wimbledon:
http://ktransit.com/transit/unitedki...district01.jpg

Sorry, but every instinct is telling me that the first photo is a
composite.
The lighting is variable, the bridge at the top looks just awful and
what no
one seems to have commented on is the grey boxes off the platforms.
These
are LUL double red light "end of line" markers (seen in front of the
train
in the second photo). All three of these end-of-line markers are facing
to
the right, making all of the platform to the left of them redundant.
This
means it is definitely not Wimbledon or Richmond because the end-of-line
markers are under the canopies at both these locations - plus, without
going
to find Quail, I'm pretty sure that neither of those stations has three
terminating LUL lines. Also note that despite the end-of-line markers,
the
yellow lines on the platform continue beyond them. Note in the second
photo
that this does not happen.

I'd bet money on the first photo being a composite. I've made enough
composites myself in the past to recognise the slightly unreal quality
they
have.

I certainly think some editing has gone on, but the end of line markers
are in the correct spot and facing the correct way. Don't forget that
there is normally a lengthy overrun at terminating platforms, beyond
the stop lights. These stop lights are under the canopy here and
Wimbledon has four terminating District Line platforms (1-4). We can
see both the actual platform surfaces for these lines, with Platform 1
being the most distant. Entrance to the platforms is to the left of the
picture.

Browsing the website further reveals:

http://ktransit.com/transit/unitedki...district03.jpg

This shows a somewhat wider view of Wimbledon station which explains some of
the features of what I am still certain is a composite photo:

The girders at the top - The white section is the front of the canopy for
platform 2, the brown section is the inside edge of the canopy for platform
1. I think the main reason that the girders at the top look so fake is that
there is very little to associate them with the rest of the photo. Looking
at the construction of the canopyn the other pictures, though, it would seem
that a support stantion is just a little off the right edge of composite
photo (the dip in the canopy at the right hand side is the clue - the
canopies dip down level with the stantion, but due to parallaxing, the
stantion is just off the edge of the photo).

There's no question that the wall is the Wimbledon wall - the features of
the brickwork and concrete are identical between photos, though the
graffitti has increased for the composite. I'd also say the platforms are
the same, though curiously in lon-hr-district03.jpg it is clearly shown that
the yellow lines stop adjacent to the marker lights. Perhaps a more recent
repaint has adjusted this.

However, I am certain that the old couple are a later addition. The source
of light is completely different on the couple (front, right) to how it is
on the marker lights (above left, behind). They are also rather diminutive.
In the other photos, the marker lights are shown to be about the size of an
outstretched humand hand. In the composite, even the lights behind the old
couple are larger than their heads! So look at lon-hr-district03.jpg again.
The single person on the platform, whose stature is admittedly unkown, shows
the bench to be rather squat - the top of the back no higher than about the
level of the rear-end. Sitting on the bench, therefore would hardly allow it
to reach shoulder height as shown with the old couple. As for the vending
machine, hard to say for certain. The angle of light is possibly different,
but the front of the machine is also presumably a type of clear plastic - it
does at least cast a consistent shadow, unlike the old couple who somehow
have managed to position their feet such that a shadow is cast on either
side.

It's light and shade that do the damage on composites - no matter how hard
you try, it's virtually impossible to make a fully realistic composite that
doesn't at least set of some kind of warning in the brain. I spent a few
hours on:

http://www.blugman.freeserve.co.uk/rush_eastleighke.jpg
Sources:
http://www.blugman.freeserve.co.uk/rush1.jpg
http://www.blugman.freeserve.co.uk/rush2.jpg

Note that it is the shading of the bridge rather than the recolouring that
distracts the attention.

--
Ronnie
--
www.greatcentralrailway.com
Adjust the farmyard animals before replying

On 23 Feb 2006 05:48:00 -0800, "john b" wrote:

MIG wrote:
A Canadian posts the following picture he
http://wvs.topleftpixel.com/archives...222_1471.shtml
with the caption:
"a metro station in london, england. unfortunately I don't remember
the name of the station."
And surprisingly none of the copmmenters so far have identified it.

Without a doubt, it is the District line terminus at Wimbledon. Compare
the wall features at the back of the photo with the following:
http://ktransit.com/transit/unitedki...district01.jpg

But where's that shelter and its pillars? Although otherwise it does
look the same though, and I'm sure there's a shelter at Richmond
anyway.

What's that at the top that looks like a bridge? And why is it just
blank white above it? Is it maybe a trick composite?

The bridge is a bridge. The 'blank white' is the top of the bridge (you
can see the rivets); the dark grey is the girder on the underside of
the bridge.

Wimbledon:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl...7,0.002025&t=k

Richmond:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl...6,0.002025&t=k

Both have terminating platforms that extend beyond the length of the
canopy (north at Richmond, left-hand-side at Wimbledon), but neither
appears to have benches or a vending machine. There doesn't seem to be
an obvious candidate for the bridge, either: the one at Richmond is at
the wrong angle, and there isn't one at Wimbledon.

Does it have to be a LUL station? A Canadian wouldn't necessarily
distinguish between a LUL or National Rail metro service... I've added
uk.railway, maybe they'll be able to help.

The "bridge" looks like the station canopy in profile and the bit of
pipework about a yard up the wall seems to go for a dive in the same
position in both the topleftpixel and ktransit photographs with the
vending machine looking like it is just out of view to the right in
the latter photograph or maybe not there at all if the time difference
between the photographs is enough.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On 23 Feb 2006 05:48:00 -0800, "john b" wrote:

The "bridge" looks like the station canopy in profile and the bit of
pipework about a yard up the wall seems to go for a dive in the same
position in both the topleftpixel and ktransit photographs with the
vending machine looking like it is just out of view to the right in
the latter photograph or maybe not there at all if the time difference
between the photographs is enough.

The vending machine is missing in:

http://ktransit.com/transit/unitedki...district03.jpg

However, that photo was clearly some time before the one in question - the
graffitti multiplied after the above was taken.


--
Ronnie
--
www.greatcentralrailway.com
Adjust the farmyard animals before replying

Ronnie Clark wrote:
However, I am certain that the old couple are a later addition. The
source of light is completely different on the couple (front, right)
to how it is on the marker lights (above left, behind).

Yes, well, the couple are under the canopy, whereas the lights are in
the open, and you can't see the right-hand side of the lights.

They are also rather diminutive. In the other photos, the marker
lights are shown to be about the size of an outstretched humand
hand.

You cannot deduce that from the other photos, which anyway show them
from the back.

In the composite, even the lights behind the old couple are larger
than
their heads!

That's not true. If you enlarge that part of the photo and draw
rectangles around the lights and the heads, you'll find they are both
about 13x15 pixels. You have seen one of these lights have you?

So look at lon-hr-district03.jpg again. The single
person on the platform, whose stature is admittedly unkown, shows the
bench to be rather squat - the top of the back no higher than about
the level of the rear-end. Sitting on the bench, therefore would
hardly allow it to reach shoulder height as shown with the old
couple.

Another bit of false logic. I agree that the bench does look squat. At
a casual glance, I would say the legs are shorter than one might expect
compared to the back. So the overall height is low, but this doesn't
affect where one's shoulders are in relation to the back of the bench

As for the vending machine, hard to say for certain. The
angle of light is possibly different, but the front of the machine is
also presumably a type of clear plastic - it does at least cast a
consistent shadow, unlike the old couple who somehow have managed to
position their feet such that a shadow is cast on either side.

I think you'll find that most of the rather indistinct shadow (it's a
dull day, and they are under the canopy) comes from the bench and their
bodies, not just their legs.

It's light and shade that do the damage on composites - no matter how
hard you try, it's virtually impossible to make a fully realistic
composite that doesn't at least set of some kind of warning in the
brain. I spent a few hours on: ...

Yes, no doubt. Perhaps you could explain why all this expert knowledge
of yours led to a conclusion earlier today that "it is definitely not
Wimbledon".
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as MIG
gently breathed:

And should we really be able to see the top of the wall under the
canopy from this angle? In the picture with the train it looks as if
the canopy comes down lower than the top of the wall, which again
implies looking upwards from close, while the picture of the couple is
looking straight across.

All very odd.

The girder-looking-thing is indeed the canopy edge support, you can see
how it rises and falls in a gentle arch in both shots. However, this
canopy is on the same platform as the photographer, while the platform
the couple are sitting on is canopyless. At first I thought the plain
white area above the girder has clearly (and very crudely) been blanked
out in an image editor, but it could just be a very over-exposed outer
face of the same canopy (in which case the photographer is one platform
further back than I originally thought).

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. http://www.sheepish.net

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = http://www.wytches.net = The UK's Pagan ISP!
http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk http://www.revival.stormshadow.com

In message .com,
Chailey writes
A Canadian posts the following picture he

http://wvs.topleftpixel.com/archives...222_1471.shtml

with the caption:

"a metro station in london, england. unfortunately I don't remember
the name of the station."


Well, didn't this produce a lot of speculation. The location was argued
about, though eventually most people seemed to agree that it was
Wimbledon. Then there were all the arguments for a composite, is there
or isn't there a canopy, is the vending machine real, are the people
real.

Rather than argue from memory or experience of photo manipulation, I
went to Wimbledon and took this really horrible photo with my phone:

http://www.deptj.demon.co.uk/pics/wimbledon_photo.jpg

(and there's also an even worse magnification:

http://www.deptj.demon.co.uk/pics/wi...hoto_large.jpg
)

I was one platform further back than the original photographer, and
there's a new billboard preventing an identical shot. But you can see
how it all fits in - the original has the outside of the platform two
canopy facing, the inside of the platform 1 canopy facing, the pillar is
just excluded, and there is no reason to think the people weren't really
there.

--
1089