Finding the angle that a photo was taken from

[DavidAllen]

Hi
I am a member of a History Society and my main task is to collect, restore and publish old photos for our website.
I have a couple of photos that have been shot from an angle above the ground & we are trying to discover just where the photographer stood when he/she took the photo.
Is there any way, by measuring the angles of buildings on the photos (or otherwise) to discover approximately how high above the ground the camera was when the shot was taken?

[dem]

The first image was taken from the first floor (the one above the ground floor) close to the windowsill level, from the point closer to the right hand side of the street where "C. Clayton" is located.

I would say the perspective distortion seems typical for a 50 mm full frame format. This places the camera about 10 meters from "C. Clayton".

[DavidAllen]

Yes but it seems far too close to the middle of the road for that unless the camera was on a selfie stick which didn't exist in 1950.

[george013]

If the camera was horizontal, and that seems to be looking at the vertical lines, than the line of stones parallel to the horizontal line of the picture is the level at which the camera was.
Just to explain why it's the first floor.

George

[dem]

See the flat roof in the second image behind the car? The image was taken from a height above the height of the flat roof but below the top of the chimney.

I'd say about a third of the height of the chimney - about the same height as the top of the roof of the building on the left.

[DavidAllen]

OK, Occam's razor, I'll go with that. Thanks.

[dem]

Yes but it seems far too close to the middle of the road for that unless the camera was on a selfie stick which didn't exist in 1950.

How about ladders? Looking at what height brick lines, sings and windowsills remain horizontal in the image, it appears that the camera was placed slightly below the windowsill level of the first floor.

[DavidAllen]

Yes, now the second one is interesting because the only buildings looking on to the photo at that angle were a couple of bungalows.
With the first photo I have attempted to duplicate the horizontal angles (albeit from ground level) & it puts me almost in the middle of the road.
But lacking cherry pickers, drones or selfie sticks I guess the photographer must have leaned well out of the window.
Oh well, thanks for looking anyway.

[DavidAllen]

Yeah, that's a possibility

[shreds]

An interesting thread. A couple of things to remember though;

* not all buildings would have had their first floor levels at the same height especially if they date from an earlier time,
* maybe the tripod, if used, was positioned on the back of an open, flat backed lorry to gain a height advantage?

Also on your website, there is an undated photograph of a train at the railway station. My research (RCHS Railway Passenger Stations in England Scotland and Wales, A Chronology 3rd Edition. by ME Quick 2005), shows this station was opened on 7th July 1862 by the LNWR and was closed on 1st January 1968.

Clearly with the type of lower quadrant signal, the locomotive and stock, it is in the earlier years, if not soon after or around the opening time, given the un-completed railway ballast around the track crossover, although as other photos are dated 1910, this might be a possibility, if there had been changes or maintenance/renewals).

Some of the dates shown for the railway scenes however are clearly in error, as they show British Railways numbered stock (Locomotive and guards van) which are likely later than 1948 and are more likely 1950s or 1960s especially given the apparent British Railways numbering and the British Railways later style of 'lion and wheel' logo on the locomotive tender) (prints GDSH 4570 & 4571)

Hope that helps.

[William W]

... Is there any way, by measuring the angles of buildings on the photos (or otherwise) to discover approximately how high above the ground the camera was when the shot was taken?

Not sure if you are asking the question exactly as written – but:

Alignment of horizontal lines within the frame (as Dem interpreted) will provide a good indication of the CAMERA ELEVATION (i.e. "how high above the ground the camera was"), but that height above ground level will be at the location in the frame where those reference horizontal lines are situated.

Hence, that does not take into account the local topography: for example (in the first image) if the road is inclining or declining; in the second image, the camera could easily be at eye level (i.e. only 5ft above the ground level), as there could be an hill the photographer climbed up to get that view.

For the first image, probably the road still exists in that same condition as it appears in the photo and an inspection of that road to reckon any incline or decline (or neither) would more accurately assess the Camera Elevation for the shot.

Although the image is low resolution, there are indicators that the road is slightly declining as it comes toward the camera – but I would bet a Mars bar on that without being able to count bricks accurately. However if I am correct, then the camera is actually higher than first floor window level.

If you have the negative, then much more can be ascertained – the Camera’s Format would be useful to know: my guess is that a TLR 6x6 or a 6x7 or 6x9 Compact Bellows Camera would probably have been more likely used, than 135 Format Camera for that first shot . . . that first shot looks very close to 6:9 Aspect Ratio to my eye – but we do not know if you have cropped it.

Anyway let’s assume the first image was made with a 6x9 compact bellows camera, then the lens was around FL = 105mm and that I believe would make the camera slightly closer to the sign "C. Clayton". It would be good if the camera were a bit closer because that means it would be less likely to get a shadow in the bottom of the frame.

If the road is reasonably straight, then I think that the concept that the Photographer used a ladder has merit. Could also have stood on the roadway used a pole and a Bulb Release.

Referencing the Upper and Lower Vanishing Points of the front two buildings, I concur that it is very likely the position of the Camera was closer to the foreground RH Building than the foreground LH Building.

If the first photo was taken with a Field or View Camera, then, as already mentioned, if we know the local topography (road incline or decline) we can establish a reasonable estimate of the Camera Elevation using the methods Dem used: but estimating the Camera Position on the roadway, would be more difficult.

***

In the second photo, maybe the surrounding area has been excavated, which would make it more difficult to accurately assess the Camera Elevation for that image: but it certainly looks like there is an hill or mound where the Photographer is standing – in which case the camera would probably be about 5ft above ground level: but as I wrote first up, I am not sure if that was exactly the question you were asking.

WW

(BTW, Dem I reckoned that with a 50mm lens on 135 Format Camera the distance from that sign would be about 15~18 mtrs – but again, if it were made with a 135 Format Camera then something has been cropped out.)

[DavidAllen]

For the first image, probably the road still exists in that same condition as it appears in the photo and an inspection of that road to reckon any incline or decline (or neither) would more accurately assess the Camera Elevation for the shot.

Although the image is low resolution, there are indicators that the road is slightly declining as it comes toward the camera – but I would bet a Mars bar on that without being able to count bricks accurately. However if I am correct, then the camera is actually higher than first floor window level.

If you have the negative, then much more can be ascertained – the Camera’s Format would be useful to know: my guess is that a TLR 6x6 or a 6x7 or 6x9 Compact Bellows Camera would probably have been more likely used, than 135 Format Camera for that first shot . . . that first shot looks very close to 6:9 Aspect Ratio to my eye – but we do not know if you have cropped it.

Anyway let’s assume the first image was made with a 6x9 compact bellows camera, then the lens was around FL = 105mm and that I believe would make the camera slightly closer to the sign "C. Clayton". It would be good if the camera were a bit closer because that means it would be less likely to get a shadow in the bottom of the frame.

If the road is reasonably straight, then I think that the concept that the Photographer used a ladder has merit. Could also have stood on the roadway used a pole and a Bulb Release.

Referencing the Upper and Lower Vanishing Points of the front two buildings, I concur that it is very likely the position of the Camera was closer to the foreground RH Building than the foreground LH Building.

If the first photo was taken with a Field or View Camera, then, as already mentioned, if we know the local topography (road incline or decline) we can establish a reasonable estimate of the Camera Elevation using the methods Dem used: but estimating the Camera Position on the roadway, would be more difficult.

Wow! Thanks for taking the time to study this.
The street (Mill St.) in question doesn't have an appreciable incline (see GDHS0726 & GDHS0722 on the website). The photo is from a postcard and has not been cropped by me but that doesn't mean it hasn't.
GDHS0249 shows the buildings on the right. One of the shops to the left of the two cars is G Clayton. GDHS0261 shows the buildings to the left as does GDHS0263.
The more I look at it the more I favour the ladder idea.

[DavidAllen]

Also on your website, there is an undated photograph of a train at the railway station. My research (RCHS Railway Passenger Stations in England Scotland and Wales, A Chronology 3rd Edition. by ME Quick 2005), shows this station was opened on 7th July 1862 by the LNWR and was closed on 1st January 1968.

Clearly with the type of lower quadrant signal, the locomotive and stock, it is in the earlier years, if not soon after or around the opening time, given the un-completed railway ballast around the track crossover, although as other photos are dated 1910, this might be a possibility, if there had been changes or maintenance/renewals).

Some of the dates shown for the railway scenes however are clearly in error, as they show British Railways numbered stock (Locomotive and guards van) which are likely later than 1948 and are more likely 1950s or 1960s especially given the apparent British Railways numbering and the British Railways later style of 'lion and wheel' logo on the locomotive tender) (prints GDSH 4570 & 4571)

Hope that helps.

Thanks. It helps a great deal. Dating some of the photos has been very difficult and in many cases the dates are just guesses.

[odds]

...Is there any way, by measuring the angles of buildings on the photos (or otherwise) to discover approximately how high above the ground the camera was when the shot was taken?

Hi David,
Your post prompted me (long time lurker) to register and post here in the hope that you may find the work of Per Berntsen useful. Among other things he uses old photographs to set up his camera for re-photographing subjects and landscapes. You will find his web (you probably want to select the English variant) here http://www.perberntsen.com/index.php and a page describing equipment and technique here http://www.perberntsen.com/_text/for...r/foran-pb.php

--
Odd S.

[george013]

Thanks. It helps a great deal. Dating some of the photos has been very difficult and in many cases the dates are just guesses.

There must be a way to calculate the used angle of view. It's the change of the ratio between the real change in distance and the relative change in sizes of that distance on the photo.

I can't give an example, but I'm pretty sure it can be done. I call it the perspective of/in the photo. I've had more discussions on this.

George

[DavidAllen]

Hi David,
Your post prompted me (long time lurker) to register and post here in the hope that you may find the work of Per Berntsen useful. Among other things he uses old photographs to set up his camera for re-photographing subjects and landscapes. You will find his web (you probably want to select the English variant) here http://www.perberntsen.com/index.php and a page describing equipment and technique here http://www.perberntsen.com/_text/for...r/foran-pb.php

--
Odd S.

Thanks for the link - very interesting.
I am doing a similar project, although far less technical or exacting. My results so far can be seen on the 'Then & Now' page of the website.
There's an app available for android tablets that allow you to match scenes more exactly. It's a camera app that displays a semi-transparent image of the old photo so that you can line up the new one on top. Haven't used it very successfully so far as I dislike taking photos with a tablet.

[shreds]

A quick web search reveals the BR steam loco on your website as follows:

Class Code B1
Built 17/06/1947
Builder:North British Locomotive Company, Glasgow
1948 Shed: Kings Cross
Last Shed: March
Withdrawn 23/07/1962
Disposal details Doncaster Works
Disposal Date 31/07/1962

So given the location, it is likely it was when the engine was allocated to March and the date of the shot must be before July 1962

[DavidAllen]

Also on your website, there is an undated photograph of a train at the railway station. My research (RCHS Railway Passenger Stations in England Scotland and Wales, A Chronology 3rd Edition. by ME Quick 2005), shows this station was opened on 7th July 1862 by the LNWR and was closed on 1st January 1968.

Yes, that's the information we had.

Clearly with the type of lower quadrant signal, the locomotive and stock, it is in the earlier years, if not soon after or around the opening time, given the un-completed railway ballast around the track crossover, although as other photos are dated 1910, this might be a possibility, if there had been changes or maintenance/renewals).

So what would you suggest for GDHS0713: pre 1900?

Some of the dates shown for the railway scenes however are clearly in error, as they show British Railways numbered stock (Locomotive and guards van) which are likely later than 1948 and are more likely 1950s or 1960s especially given the apparent British Railways numbering and the British Railways later style of 'lion and wheel' logo on the locomotive tender) (prints GDHS4570 & GDHS4571)

Thank you, I'll corect the dates on those two.


Well, this has been serendipitous. Who'd have thought a query about camera angles would lead to information on trains!


Thanks for your help

[DavidAllen]

A quick web search reveals the BR steam loco on your website as follows:

Class Code B1
Built 17/06/1947
Builder:North British Locomotive Company, Glasgow
1948 Shed: Kings Cross
Last Shed: March
Withdrawn 23/07/1962
Disposal details Doncaster Works
Disposal Date 31/07/1962

So given the location, it is likely it was when the engine was allocated to March and the date of the shot must be before July 1962

Which photo number is this?

[Cantab]

Hi David,
Your post prompted me (long time lurker) to register and post here in the hope that you may find the work of Per Berntsen useful. Among other things he uses old photographs to set up his camera for re-photographing subjects and landscapes. You will find his web (you probably want to select the English variant) here http://www.perberntsen.com/index.php and a page describing equipment and technique here http://www.perberntsen.com/_text/for...r/foran-pb.php

--
Odd S.

Odd, first of all, welcome to CiC. I've had an initial look at the second link in your post. It's fascinating, thanks for posting it.