An interesting way to present historical photographs
 

Before and after:

http://ourauckland.aucklandcouncil.g...ransformation/
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

An interesting way to present historical photographs
 

On 2018-10-06 18:10, Eric Stevens wrote:
Before and after:

http://ourauckland.aucklandcouncil.g...ransformation/

The Hobson Wharf one was the most stunning wrt change. Thx.

--
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants. Proof that we
need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
- unknown protester

An interesting way to present historical photographs
 

On 10/6/18 PDT 4:05 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2018-10-06 18:10, Eric Stevens wrote:
Before and after:

http://ourauckland.aucklandcouncil.g...ransformation/


The Hobson Wharf one was the most stunning wrt change.Â* Thx.

Very interesting!

The third one, of the Ferry building- I see nothing that would give the
photographer a clue as to where the building was or where the original
photo was shot from. Plans could give the location, but angle, aspect?

The Hobson Wharf is brilliant, but the first photo lacks similar aspect.
(May be wrong term. I mean the buildings in the background aren't
similar in scope.)

An interesting way to present historical photographs
 

RichA replies:

Also, modern clutter obscures older buildings, in those images anyway.

+1

An interesting way to present historical photographs
 

On 10/10/18 PDT 8:33 AM, John McWilliams wrote:
On 10/6/18Â*Â* PDT 4:05 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2018-10-06 18:10, Eric Stevens wrote:
Before and after:

http://ourauckland.aucklandcouncil.g...ransformation/


The Hobson Wharf one was the most stunning wrt change.Â* Thx.

Very interesting!

The third one, of the Ferry building- I see nothing that would give the
photographer a clue as to where the building was or where the original
photo was shot from. Plans could give the location, but angle, aspect?

Anyone agree or disagree with this?

The Hobson Wharf is brilliant, but the first photo lacks similar aspect.
(May be wrong term. I mean the buildings in the background aren't
similar in scope.)

Or this?

An interesting way to present historical photographs
 

On Sat, 1 Dec 2018 14:32:34 -0800, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 10/10/18 PDT 8:33 AM, John McWilliams wrote:
On 10/6/18Â*Â* PDT 4:05 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2018-10-06 18:10, Eric Stevens wrote:
Before and after:

http://ourauckland.aucklandcouncil.g...ransformation/


The Hobson Wharf one was the most stunning wrt change.Â* Thx.

Very interesting!

The third one, of the Ferry building- I see nothing that would give the
photographer a clue as to where the building was or where the original
photo was shot from. Plans could give the location, but angle, aspect?

Anyone agree or disagree with this?

I disagree. The original building is still there and as shown in the
photograph it is possible to position a camera in much the same
position as in the original.


The Hobson Wharf is brilliant, but the first photo lacks similar aspect.
(May be wrong term. I mean the buildings in the background aren't
similar in scope.)

Or this?

Fortunately, the original street corner is still in place. Admittedly
its not very obvious in the photographs.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

An interesting way to present historical photographs
 

On 12/1/18 PDT 3:14 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2018 14:32:34 -0800, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 10/10/18 PDT 8:33 AM, John McWilliams wrote:
On 10/6/18Â*Â* PDT 4:05 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2018-10-06 18:10, Eric Stevens wrote:
Before and after:

http://ourauckland.aucklandcouncil.g...ransformation/


The Hobson Wharf one was the most stunning wrt change.Â* Thx.

Very interesting!

The third one, of the Ferry building- I see nothing that would give the
photographer a clue as to where the building was or where the original
photo was shot from. Plans could give the location, but angle, aspect?

Anyone agree or disagree with this?

I disagree. The original building is still there and as shown in the
photograph it is possible to position a camera in much the same
position as in the original.


Possible but he did not do that.

An interesting way to present historical photographs
 

On Sun, 2 Dec 2018 16:39:40 -0800, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 12/1/18 PDT 3:14 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2018 14:32:34 -0800, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 10/10/18 PDT 8:33 AM, John McWilliams wrote:
On 10/6/18Â*Â* PDT 4:05 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2018-10-06 18:10, Eric Stevens wrote:
Before and after:

http://ourauckland.aucklandcouncil.g...ransformation/


The Hobson Wharf one was the most stunning wrt change.Â* Thx.

Very interesting!

The third one, of the Ferry building- I see nothing that would give the
photographer a clue as to where the building was or where the original
photo was shot from. Plans could give the location, but angle, aspect?

Anyone agree or disagree with this?

I disagree. The original building is still there and as shown in the
photograph it is possible to position a camera in much the same
position as in the original.


Possible but he did not do that.

I think he did. Admittedly he is now a bit closer but getting further
away would have him in the middle of a busy roadway. See the left-turn
arrow in front of the BMW.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens