I have a photo with trees to the side of the axis and I have a tree and a small shed to the other side. The tree and shed are not there now. I am trying to find where they were as precisely as possible in distance from the photographer.
I can post the photo if anybody thinks it might help.
I have still got the digital camera, the pic was taken with no zoom and at 6mm.
The picture seems to show everything much closer to each other.
All trees are gone but the stumps remain except of course the one that matters.
I imagine I cannot just measure equivalent distances on the photo because of the shortening and because the trees are off axis.
Any 'magic' will be considered.
[Edit] I have sort of overlayed a new picture and made the original semi transparent to show the trees growing out of the stumps. Perhaps it would be possible to transfer the missing tree only to the new picture, which would put it in its position (maybe??) but still don't know if it would be the correct distance depth???
_________________
You only stop learning when you die! |
