Smithford Street (inc. Ram Bridge)

Certainly looks that way, Sir

Thanks for that Rob, it's nice to know someone else has 'seen the light' as I did.

Oh, thank you, thank you, thank you. I have thought that all along but didn't like to say, I would hate to appear ignorant. I have enjoyed reading all your posts though on this subject.

Great work, Rob It was a whopping light though, wasn't it?! I still think it's aliens.

Thats great Rob. Would this have been connected to the tram system. I imagine it would be too tall to be gas and the man's pole so would it have been electricity from the same source as the tram ?

Could it be this one in the centre taken from a different angle. The Victorian photographers always seem to have a problem with depth of field !

Surely that's not the only one in the city, must be others like that.

Yes, especially as the lower part of the lamppost is obscured by a car.

I am sure you are correct Anniewiggy. But it isn't to do with depth of field. Depth of field in photography is to do with the near and far distances which are in focus. The effect achieved in the original postcard shown is more to do with perspective. When we see old pictures we think of the cameras used at the time and expect the images to show the same perspective that our eyes give us. But the photographers were more wily than that. Generally, in the 1930s commercial photographers used stand cameras with either a 6.5 x 8.5-inch (full plate) or 10 x 8-inch plate or cut film as their negative size. Standard postcard size was 3.5 x 5.5-inches. Using only a portion of the original image is much like using a telephoto lens. Some suggest that distorts the perspective - that's not really true either. From one position the perspective remains the same: it is merely that you are excluding the context as seen by the eye. I believe that the camera was actually positioned at the peak of the High Street and then was cut down to suit.

Thanks for the explanation Pixrobin. I am afraid my technical knowledge of photography is very limited. I enjoy it and have a nice camera but am ashamed to say it spends most of it's time on intelligent auto.

I think you are spot on about perspective Pixrobin, but I know exactly what Annewiggy means - she's just not "up" on photographic terminology "like what you are"! Indeed, I also thought that pole/lamp-post was halfway down Smithford Street on first viewing, but because the photo was taken from much farther back into High Street than it would seem, with a longer zoom, it makes everything in the distance look closer together. Just like Annewiggy's photo above, the one in this link shows from the other direction just how wrong we all were - it's nowhere near Smithford Street! ../robs_pics/disp_img.php?img_num=347 And in this next view, like the other one taken in 1939, it's clearer to see that the lamp-post has been turned 90 degrees - either that or the Trotter brothers have tried to unscrew it !!! ../robs_pics/disp_img.php?img_num=348

Yay solved! I did consider that it was much closer to the camera than it appeared but I never guessed that there were that many street lamps in such a small area. I knew about the ones on the street corners but not the one in the middle Well done

I'm splitting hairs here Rob but the lamppost and the bank are both indeed in 'Smithford Street', the bank being at No.1.

Well, well, I'd not have guessed that! I always imagined Smithford Street beginning at the King's Head. We learn something every day, eh!

It's easy to forget that Hertford Street was new.