- Lens mechanics can alter the shape of buildings' depth, width and height.
Actually, height and depth are the easiest to distort through the use of
wide-angle lenses. Wide-angles "expand" space while telephotos "compress"
I have some examples of perspective distortion (as the phenomenon is called)
in pictures I've taken myself. If anyone is interested, I can scan them and
post them to the site.
From what I've seen, a lot of early postcards were taken with wide-angle
lenses. Take, for instance, a rather popular view of the Kingsboro Hotel in
Gloversville. You'd think the place was a mile tall!
Even the shots of the old Windsor Hotel make it look much longer than the
space where it used to fit.
From: Randy & Lorraine Decker <rldecker@...>
To: FJGRailroad@onelist.com <FJGRailroad@onelist.com>
Date: Thursday, January 27, 2000 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: [FJGRailroad] Tribes Hill
>From: "Randy & Lorraine Decker" <rldecker@...>is
>This is an interesting debate. I cant see how any photo distorted shot
>could over exaggerate the size of the building I have photo's of by this
>much?? Saul is the only one that has come up with actual numbers and 161'
>is not small but in the photo's this thing is almost square so this thing
>eihter 77' by 77' or 161' by 161' cant be both?? If this is true thenothing
>photographer that took this shot must have had a camera lens that looked
>like one of the mirrors in a carnival fun house!
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Aaron Keller <aakeller@...>
>Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2000 5:15 AM
>Subject: [FJGRailroad] Tribes Hill
>> From: "Aaron Keller" <aakeller@...>
>> Yes, the foundation that's still there is much less the distance of two
>> coaches coupled.
>> If we wanted an interesting comparison, look at how huge the Gloversville
>> station looks in pictures, compared to the spot it sat on. I have the
>> perimeter dimensions of that building (at home, of course); it was
>> near the size it looks in the postcards.