Sensational-Adelaide.com

Ozbear73 wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 17, 2020 7:08 am

Im 99.9% certain this photo is not a montage but a correct photograph that has been taken from the new development on the corner of George St/Greenhill Road.

The line of sight of all buildings shown in that photo, when lined up from said development on Greenhill Road, are true and correct.

The Wesf Franklin development is actually in the photograph, one just needs to look carefully with a keen eye....but the City Central development is positioned actuslly too far east to be included in the photo.

There is no trickery involved here, as much as it may seem so.....

wilkiebarkid wrote:

Ozbear73 wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 17, 2020 7:08 am

Im 99.9% certain this photo is not a montage but a correct photograph that has been taken from the new development on the corner of George St/Greenhill Road.

The line of sight of all buildings shown in that photo, when lined up from said development on Greenhill Road, are true and correct.

The Wesf Franklin development is actually in the photograph, one just needs to look carefully with a keen eye....but the City Central development is positioned actuslly too far east to be included in the photo.

There is no trickery involved here, as much as it may seem so.....

It's so badly out of whack it beggars belief you can't see it. West Franklin in the background of Penny Place??? I don't think so. West Franklin is west of Morphett Street. This picture is an abomination to the eye.

ynotsfables wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 18, 2020 10:04 am

By examining the photo close up the depth of field seems to be correct if the sharpest point of focus is the closest building, baring in mind a telephoto lens has a shallower depth of field than say a standard or wide angle focal length lens, meaning this has not been cropped to the degree of using either a standard or wide angle lens otherwise the depth of field would be deeper, it has definitively been taken with a telephoto lens of possibly 600 mm with a small aperture.

Secondly the pix-elation is consistent with both fore ground and back ground even as the foreground is sharper.
Had the back ground been as sharp as the fore ground in focus then there may be a problem.

Thirdly the focal length of the lens has not only compressed the background with the foreground it has also changed the perspective too.

Then take into consideration the angle of view, which is obviously from a height way above the trees and the fact that there is no halo or smudge effect when looking at the buildings close up, were they to be montage d.

I would say this is the genuine article,we may have to accept the fact Adelaide is becoming more dense.

wilkiebarkid wrote:

ynotsfables wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 18, 2020 10:04 am

By examining the photo close up the depth of field seems to be correct if the sharpest point of focus is the closest building, baring in mind a telephoto lens has a shallower depth of field than say a standard or wide angle focal length lens, meaning this has not been cropped to the degree of using either a standard or wide angle lens otherwise the depth of field would be deeper, it has definitively been taken with a telephoto lens of possibly 600 mm with a small aperture.

Secondly the pix-elation is consistent with both fore ground and back ground even as the foreground is sharper.
Had the back ground been as sharp as the fore ground in focus then there may be a problem.

Thirdly the focal length of the lens has not only compressed the background with the foreground it has also changed the perspective too.

Then take into consideration the angle of view, which is obviously from a height way above the trees and the fact that there is no halo or smudge effect when looking at the buildings close up, were they to be montage d.

I would say this is the genuine article,we may have to accept the fact Adelaide is becoming more dense.

Dense is the appropriate word here.

Have a look at this real photo from South Terrace against the montage. Bohem is 1.2km from 262 South Terrace their is no way it would appear as large as it does in the montage. In the true phot Bohem is 300 metres from the building on the corner.

Some of you lack real judgement and perspective.

SBD wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 24, 2020 10:51 pm

I don't know the city, especially its southern part, well enough to be certain of which buildings are in either picture. I think that the disputed photo shows a narrow stripe across the "real" photo.

Could someone please either A) draw the edges of the long-range photo across the South Terrace photo or B) identify a few buildings that appear in both images, highlighted in both pictures? Not being familiar with them, I am failing to reconcile the southern/western face in the first image (the one with a building on South Terrace highlighted) with the southeastern/eastern aspect in the second (disputed) photo.