Glenn Standing
Average Member
Australia
14
Posts |
 Posted - 02/08/2010 :
15:25:08 
|
Hi Bill,
Perhaps you have misunderstood what I am endeavoring to demonstrate.
I have no problem with the camera angles. They are pretty much as you
have drawn them.
I do disagree with the Hut 2 fire place location as you would have it.
In order to fit the Burman images the Hut 2 fire place would need to
be some distance behind the central tree.
What I am demonstrating is the area where the Hut 2 fire place would
have to be within the Burman images.
By following your suggested Hut 1 fire place position. (Near the
standing figure)
We know this Hut faces almost due East.
As you have said previously. Your scaled drawing could be a little bit
out.
You have done an excellent job with the layout. But things can be
moved around a little here and there. It can be too open for debate.
So for the time being I have chosen to ignore the scaled drawing and
use the Burman images themselves. Primary evidence.
We can obtain the NSEW co ordinates by using the 2 posts which would
then be the side of Hut 1. Same method for the end of the hut. As I
have done.
By using these co ordinates along with the known layout & distances of
the two fire places. The Hut 2 fire place would be some where near to
or at the large tree behind the seated figure. Far left side of Burman
1 image. This tree is not in the Burman 2 image.
Hut 2 fire place would be out of view to the left of the Burman 1
image.
Possibly in view in the Burman 2 image. But not visible.
In fact. The Hut 2 fire place would be no where near the Hut 2 fire
place in the Burman images.
Using the same scenario. Suggested Hut 1 fire place location.
If we look straight down the Burman 2 image we would be looking
towards the SW.
Once again I say that the two hut fire places do not fit the scene.
1 would have thought I have clearly demonstrated this in my previous
posting but can further demonstrate this if need be. I admit though, I
am rather hopeless at attaching images. Computers are not my friends.
Regards,
Glenn
|
 |
|
bill denheld
Advanced Member
Australia
121
Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2010 :
15:52:21
|
Hello All,
I am afraid my digital camera that took the image is at fault.
I had noticed quite some time ago that there was a lean to the right
of the trees in all my recent shots.
To show what I mean.
South east at the current site east bank
East from the picnic ground
South westerly from near the Kelly tree but more south of it
PoorFlour, As your teacher points out, - trees do follow the
sun and are affected by ground slope and compensation for a lean as
the tree wants to remain stable.
Early on (2002) Gary Dean also observed the lean of the trees in the
Burman photos. Perhaps we need to do some tests using a laser level to
check all the trees
along SBC west bank to see if there is a leaning trend. One positive
but impractical way would be for you to climb up all the tall tree
trunks and drop a plumb bob to expose the lean.
Does anyone want to buy a cheap camera ? Seems the lens mechanism on
retractable lenses on digital cameras can get out of alignment being
the cause for the leaning trees.
Reading a book on early cameras of the 1870's I see the lens and photo
plates were connected through a flexible concertina mechanism where a
lens mount
could be moved around to make corrections and reduce the projected
image being distorted.
We will never know if the Burman photos also suffered from the leaning
tree syndrome.
And yes Bruce, you are right photos do lie !
Robert, at my webpage
http://www.denheldid.com/twohuts/story.html#Story3 Burman
photo2 orientation I had long ago concluded it was looking south
purely from
photo details. Looking at a large image see the shadow details on
foreground branches, the light and dark side on the draped fabric,
Mc's hat and boots, the photographers camera case
all show the predominant light coming from the upper Right hand side
of the photo. In the Burman photo2, it was these saplings lying
horizontally that looked like a little fence on a slope
that led Gary Dean and myself to explore the west bank for clues to
human interference to the terrain. It was then that I stumbled over
the overgrown fireplace rocks of the first hut.
Robert, When you walked back from the east bank site, you say the sun
was from the North East. That means on your right most of the time ?
The standing figure according to McIntyre was Kennedy approaching the
camp from the N. West from elevated ground to Mc's left.
Bill |
|
|
|
poorflour
Average Member
17
Posts |
|
Glenn Standing
Average Member
Australia
14
Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2010 :
16:47:16
|
Out of interest I have a
question.
Where does the log which lays behind the center tree end up? This log
can be seen in both Burman images. |
|
|
|
robert mcgarrigle
Advanced Member
Australia
100
Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2010 : 17:39:57
|
Poorflour, I don't know what you
mean about the photos being taken between the siege and the trial. The
Burman photos were taken just after the shoot out in 1878 not as late
as 1880.You are correct in saying that the sun would be in a different
position when I visited in March. I will have to visit there one day in
October the month of the shooting. I wasn't asking Joe about the logs
on the ground, I was asking Joe about logs on the slope in the right of
one of the photos. Joe kindly showed me what he referred to as logs on
that slope which I could not see from Keiths book. As far as the logs
on the foreground you maybe correct but the two that you have marked 1
and 4 could be the same log and in one piece. If that damn stupid stump
wasn't there we would know for sure. Thanks Poorflour for answering my
question. Your photo along with Joes seems a lot clearer than the ones
shown in the books that I have.
Yes Bill the sun was always in front of us to the right and we both
agree that it is NE. This was why I asked the question of the Burman
photo as I thought the glow in the left of the photo might be the sun
and thus would be the north. I remember someone on your forum page a
couple of years ago asking a similar question and I can see why he
also thought the same as I.
Bruce what do you think of arranging a visit to SBC on the anniversary
of the shootout in October.I would certainly come down from Sydney if
it meant we could all meet fellow forum members and we could kill 2
birds with the one stone. We could visit all the sites we think might
be the spot and get to put faces to each other. I am sure then we could
talk to each other face to face and give a chance to everyone to throw
in their ideas. I know this would all depend on the weather and the
numbers that would like to participate. This is only an idea from the
Mexican of the North.
|
|
|
|
Thomas McIntyre
Senior Member
23
Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2010 :
21:54:08
|
Hello again Robert. Its good to
see you didn't take to heart the comment of Mr Denheld.
Now your question of: "As we now have the reincarnated Mr McIntyre now
with us,please Mc where is the sun and when were the photos taken?".
Well Robert, as you know I was not at the photography session so I am
sorry I cannot say much except that the cameras used back then, and
indeed for decades later, did not come with all the fancy gadgetry to
allow for light, close-up, far away, speeding animals and so forth to
be allowed for in taking a photograph.
But I can say that good photographers of the day tried as much as
possible to be able to do their alfresco work on clear sunny days and
during the hours of best sunlight which of course will be subject to
the location in the country, indeed the world.
In those neck of the woods in which we are concentrating, and the time
of year, I would suggest that between the hours of around the 11 am to
3 pm would be the best for the photographer.The sun would be above the
tree canopy line and the higher period in the sky as it approached
noon would be the most ideal.
Oh, I and my riding colleagues have been able to have a good laugh
today (and we needed one as the inclement weather recently in the
ranges has made our riding expedition a little cold and wet).
The leaning trees indeed.
We have wondered if only trees are affected by this most interesting
phenomenon allegedly caused by use of the new fandangled digital
contraptions. And now we have also been posed the question that Mr
Burman may also have been similarly affected by the leaning tree
syndrome.
We do hope it has afflicted only those who have chosen to photograph
trees.
Perhaps others may have a similar experience and can share their
leaning trees (which perhaps are in fact leaning in the real bush)
photographs within this forum? (We also have discussed how that tower
in Pisa would have looked in a photograph).
In mirth and amazement, I remain your humble correspondent.
Thomas.
|
|
