[COM] 20 Toms Court | 49m | 14 Levels | Hotel

[wilkiebarkid]

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.

[SRW]

The photo is compositionally correct -- the buildings are where they're supposed to be -- but depth and contrast appear to be affected in some way.

It's a great shot, still, from a perspective we don't often see.

[Will]

The photo is from an apartment for sale in the old ETSA building on Greenhill road.

[Ozbear73]

If the photo is actually taken from Air Apartments (old ETSA), then I also have 100% certainty the photo is compositionally correct...where viewers of the photo are probably getting tricked is that the depth of field of the photo is extremely compressed...ie in extreme zoom mode

[wilkiebarkid]

Here 2 photos taken from the sixth floor of AIR Apartments. Big difference.

[Jaymz]

Ummm yeah, bit different because there are trees in the way Now imagine those trees aren't there, you would find the composition of the buildings in the disputed photo are correct.

Bohem is on the corner of Wright/Morphett, Central Adelaide is on the corner of Grote/Morphett and West on Franklin on the corner of Franklin/Morphett. So from the south eastern angle the photo is taken from, all the buildings are in their correct place.

[cmet]

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.

Clearly a real photo, just playing with focal length/zoom


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ynotsfables]

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]

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.

[cmet]

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.

yeah no


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SBD]

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.

[wilkiebarkid]

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.

Look at the last image on page 4. Although 262 South Terrace isn't built yet you get the idea of the real perspective and how the montage is badly wrong. Certainly Bohem, City Central and West Franklin would not appear in a genuine photo from that angle.

[floplo]

If you want to triangulate you have
- Bohem behind Credit Union
- Central City behind 262 South Terrace
- West Franklin North behind Penny Place

Put those lines on a map and they intersect right around where the picture is supposed to be taken....

[gnrc_louis]

Can this discussion get moved to the pub, it doesn’t relate to this development.

[Ben]

According to Facebook this will top out tomorrow.