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).

In view of the claim that the photo was a composite, I'm a bit surprised
that nobody in this thread has yet actually gone to Wimbledon and attempted
to reproduce the viewpoint. I'd do it myself, but for me it's a bit far...
--
Mark Brader There are people on that train!
Toronto Sure, they're Canadians, but they're still people!
-- Paul Gross, "Due South"

In message , at 18:54:59 on Sat, 25
Feb 2006, Mark Brader remarked:
In view of the claim that the photo was a composite, I'm a bit surprised
that nobody in this thread has yet actually gone to Wimbledon and attempted
to reproduce the viewpoint. I'd do it myself, but for me it's a bit far...

Although the old couple have probably moved by now. But if there's a
seat and a vending machine in those positions today, it would tend to
suggest that the picture's OK.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 18:54:59 on Sat, 25
Feb 2006, Mark Brader remarked:
In view of the claim that the photo was a composite, I'm a bit surprised
that nobody in this thread has yet actually gone to Wimbledon and
attempted
to reproduce the viewpoint. I'd do it myself, but for me it's a bit
far...

Although the old couple have probably moved by now. But if there's a seat
and a vending machine in those positions today, it would tend to suggest
that the picture's OK.

Thought about doing this yesterday but that part of the District Line was
closed over the weekend for planned engineering works.

Nick

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,

That's not obvious, actually. If the billboard really is new, then
the original photo might have been taken from the same platform with
a different lens or cropping. (If the new photo showed the same
detail of resolution as the original, this would be obvious one way
or the other.) But it's not important.

and there's a new billboard preventing an identical shot. But you
can see how it all fits in ...

Yep, that's a confirmation. The one element in the original that may
be hard to pick out in this version, depending on your display, is the
bench, but it's there all right, half hidden behind the right-hand side
of billboard. I turned up the image brightness and then it was obvious.

Thanks for doing that!
--
Mark Brader | "It doesn't have to actually *be* special, but you have
Toronto | to make people think it is, and sometimes the easiest way
| to do that is to make it special." -- Peter Reiher

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Ronnie Clark wrote:

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 think so from looking at the dirt marks on the platform floor.

You can see where the platform isn't polished where people don't walk
through the bench.

There's a gap about the width of a pillar in the exactly left-right
centre of the picture.

TIm