UNSEEN AND UNPUBLISHED - LIVER STREET - 1939 AND 1973

[Oudeis]

2 reasons for this.

1) Subsidence or

2) The photo was bent.

I go for No.2

It looks to me to be a 'fault' in the lens. The focal point is on the pub sign and all around, the image bends more and more. I don't know quite why this is. I do recall that you are given a crude choice of focal lengths on some cameras (let's face it, on the cheaper/every day type). Did you check to see that the camera was set to take pictures at distance? On the other hand this does give the shot more of a 'Dickensian' look. Like the abode of Fagin (I do hope I have spelled that right, for obvious reasons) in the B&W movie.

---------- Post added at 01:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:04 PM ----------

P.S.
Silly me. I have just noticed the cars in the newer shot. It aint that new. The problems of yesteryear need not detain us, keep up the good work.

[John Doh]

It looks to me to be a 'fault' in the lens. The focal point is on the pub sign and all around, the image bends more and more. I don't know quite why this is. I do recall that you are given a crude choice of focal lengths on some cameras (let's face it, on the cheaper/every day type). Did you check to see that the camera was set to take pictures at distance? On the other hand this does give the shot more of a 'Dickensian' look. Like the abode of Fagin (I do hope I have spelled that right, for obvious reasons) in the B&W movie.

---------- Post added at 01:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:04 PM ----------

P.S.
Silly me. I have just noticed the cars in the newer shot. It aint that new. The problems of yesteryear need not detain us, keep up the good work.

My first impression was that it was an example of pincushion distortion. This usually occurs when a poor quality telephoto lens is used at its maximum; it's the opposite of barrel distortion that happens with a wide angle lens.

But the bending that occurs here is very extreme and the shot has clearly been taken from a close position, nearer than in the earlier photo, so this is unlikely. My guess is that the shot was rephotographed with the camera at an angle, with the top and left of the original being somewhat closer to the camera.