Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Eric Myrvaagnes on February 19, 2019, 07:53:50 pm
-
Impressions...
-
and...
-
Ah, New York... colorful in any sense of the word, full of contrasts. And those garbage bags... Nice vignettes, Eric.
-
Eric,
Your first image seems alarming. Do buildings in New York lean so much, even more than the Leaning Tower of Pisa? ;)
-
It's a nice collection. Gives me a feel for what's there. :)
Kent in SD
-
Eric,
Your first image seems alarming. Do buildings in New York lean so much, even more than the Leaning Tower of Pisa? ;)
Ray,
In the Wall Street area, where the streets are narrow and the buildings are tall, a "straight" photo will always show that "lean."
I did actually partially correct the distortion in LightRoom, but wanted to keep the sense of the buildings looming over you.
-
Thanks, guys.
-
Eric, you're doing it on purpose; a fiendish ploy to make me want to escape my rural chains yet more strongly!
I already have a PLAN worked out for the day I manage that feat, but I noticed this morning that the Euromillions lottery has just been won by one mothereffer who wasn't I! That means waiting until Saturday morning, at the earliest!
But hey, I've waited this long, so what's another decade or two? In this world or the next, that olde D700 (it's coming with me) will live to fight a better battle.
:-)
-
That's the spirit, Rob. As Churchill said: "Never give up." I'll be holding my breath until you report victory on Saturday morning.
-
That's the spirit, Rob. As Churchill said: "Never give up." I'll be holding my breath until you report victory on Saturday morning.
Waking up will be victory enough!
I'm off to see the doc tomorrow in another attempt to sort out my cataracts problems, but with this political, typically English mess pending (the Scots and Irish showed more street smarts on this occasion; what the Welsh did, GOK) they may not want to get involved with somebody who may be here today, gone in April. From their jurisdiction, I mean!
;-)
Rob
-
Hey Rob,
Why don't you just take out a huge loan and buy up a million or so Euromillions tickets.
Maybe one of them will win.
Eric
-
... I did actually partially correct the distortion in LightRoom, but wanted to keep the sense of the buildings looming over you.
Eric, my rule in correcting verticals, even if I want to retain some degree of convergence, is to keep the line in the very middle of the (cropped) image straight. Anything else appears unnatural to the eye. In your case, you are off by approximately 1.5 degrees. The red line indicates what needs to be straight.
-
Eric, my rule in correcting verticals, even if I want to retain some degree of convergence, is to keep the line in the very middle of the (cropped) image straight. Anything else appears unnatural to the eye. In your case, you are off by approximately 1.5 degrees. The red line indicates what needs to be straight.
Now that's just nitpicking, Slobodan, but I'm sure you realize that, and were just making a joke. ;D
Leaning buildings do not look natural. The solution is to use a wider lens than is required to capture the parts of the scene that you preconceived, so that you don't need to crop the essential parts of the scene that were envisaged, when later using the distort and perspective tools in Photoshop.
-
Hey, Slobodan,
I'll be happy to hire you to process all my photos for me. I think my budget will let me offer you something like 25 cents per hour.
Interested? ;)
-
Eric,
Have you considered the traumatic effect on children that such severely leaning buildings might have? "Mommy, why is that building in New York leaning so much? I don't ever want to go to New York. I might get killed when a building falls over."
Answer: "Don't worry dear boy. The buildings in New York don't really lean. It just looks that way in the photo because the photographer did not do a good job". ;D
-
... The buildings in New York don't really lean. It just looks that way in the photo because the photographer did not do a good job".[/i] ;D
Ray, have you actually been in NY? I can understand how from a down-under perspective, where a two-story building is considered a skyscraper, this might look strange, but if you ever find yourself in a big city, you would realize that, when you lift your head, buildings do converge. It is called perspective, you know. Discovered already in the Renaissance.
-
Ray, have you actually been in NY? I can understand how from a down-under perspective, where a two-story building is considered a skyscraper, this might look strange, but if you ever find yourself in a big city, you would realize that, when you lift your head, buildings do converge. It is called perspective, you know. Discovered already in the Renaissance.
I've never been to New York, but of course I have been to many cities with tall skyscrapers and I get no sense of buildings leaning. This is because my mind automatically makes adjustments from the numerous perspectives I get with my 3-dimensional gaze.
However, a single, 2-dimensional perspective from a camera, produces a different effect which has to be adjusted if it is to look natural.
Sounds to me if a recreation of the Leaning Tower of Pisa were placed in New York, you wouldn't notice that it was leaning. Right? ;D
-
I've never been to New York, but of course I have been to many cities with tall skyscrapers and I get no sense of buildings leaning. This is because my mind automatically makes adjustments from the numerous perspectives I get with my 3-dimensional gaze.
However, a single, 2-dimensional perspective from a camera, produces a different effect which has to be adjusted if it is to look natural.
Sort of. On the other hand, even with a perspective-correcting tilt/shift lens, you get an "unnatural" look to some extent because the straight on POV doesn't always reconcile with the "below the median" positioning. (Am I making sense?)
The other thing I find is that many images do require at least a very (very) slight "leaning in"perspective to actually look natural.
-
OK, Slobodan and Ray,
Here are two adjusted versions. First corrects the tilt by 1.5 degrees, and the second is LR's version of what it might have looked like using a view camera.
-
And here's one more, tilted to roughly the same amount as the tower in Pisa.
-
Eric,
Maybe Photoshop has more processing options than LR. Here's my version of your image, using Canvas Size, Free Transform, Perspective, Distort, Warp and Fill.
I've tried to maintain as much of the original content in the image as possible. Whether the result is aesthetically pleasing is another issue, but at least it looks more natural, in my view. ;)
-
You two are going to make me abandon architectural photography for good :D
-
Hey Rob,
Why don't you just take out a huge loan and buy up a million or so Euromillions tickets.
Maybe one of them will win.
Eric
Too easy, Eric: I have found that for myself, what's for me will not evade me and conversely, what's not will ever elude me. Now does that imply one must sit on one's hands and await the parcel's arrival? No sir! To win it, you gotta be in it! To be in it is not dependent on a zillion tickets: one ticket, blessed by the 'fluence, is all it takes.
I mentioned in my brief, recent exposé of what made me do what I did in life, the day I suggested to my beloved that she take my portfolio and go see a brewery that I'd chased for years with zero result. She did just that, having never had a thing to do with sales in her life - she was into chemistry - and came back home to make lunch, telling me I had an appointment with the Marketing Director.
She won us our second best client ever, for whom we went on to produce many calendars.
I kinda think it proved something, though I have to admit to not being absolutely sure quite what.
-
You two are going to make me abandon architectural photography for good :D
Never gonna happen. i hope!
Rob
-
... I kinda think it proved something, though I have to admit to not being absolutely sure quite what.
It proved you won a lottery early in life :)
-
It proved you won a lottery early in life :)
That's true; what's right under one's nose is sometimes difficult to see. At least, it can easily be taken for granted until it's gone. By which time you're screwed, anyway.
It's a thing that can ride in tandem with good fortune, bringing it to an end.
:-(
-
You two are going to make me abandon architectural photography for good :D
No way!Your architectural stuff is the best I've ever seen.
My own specialty is snapshots of tilting buildings. ;)
-
I kinda think it proved something, though I have to admit to not being absolutely sure quite what.
It proves that the woman is the brains of the enterprise. That's true in my case too.
-
Eric,
Maybe Photoshop has more processing options than LR. Here's my version of your image, using Canvas Size, Free Transform, Perspective, Distort, Warp and Fill.
I've tried to maintain as much of the original content in the image as possible. Whether the result is aesthetically pleasing is another issue, but at least it looks more natural, in my view. ;)
Impressive, Ray, but I have two quibbles:
1. Your version fits the classical view camera aesthetic, with all parallels truly parallel, but the problem is it loses the emotional effect of looking at tall buildings from a narrow street at ground level. The top of the building is much farther away from the viewer than is the bottom, so it should look smaller to convey the big city tall buildings feel.
And 2. I think my snapshot isn't worth spending that much time in Photoshop. I'll agree that I should have straightened it as Slobodan did.
-
You two are going to make me abandon architectural photography for good :D
Oh My Gawd! Don't tell me you've been photographing leaning skyscrapers all over the place. ;D
-
Oh My Gawd! Don't tell me you've been photographing leaning skyscrapers all over the place. ;D
You have no idea!
Some are so tall that you can literally see the vanishing point ;)
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5584/14227434340_95ee800ebf_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nFejy5)
Transamerica Pyramid, San Francisco (https://flic.kr/p/nFejy5) by Slobodan Blagojevic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/slobodan_blagojevic/), on Flickr
-
You have no idea!
Some are so tall that you can literally see the vanishing point ;)
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5584/14227434340_95ee800ebf_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nFejy5)
Transamerica Pyramid, San Francisco (https://flic.kr/p/nFejy5) by Slobodan Blagojevic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/slobodan_blagojevic/), on Flickr
Good photo, but I don't see any leaning buildings, as in Eric's shot. ;)
-
But shouldn't the two sides be parallel? ;D :D
-
You have no idea!
Some are so tall that you can literally see the vanishing point ;)
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5584/14227434340_95ee800ebf_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nFejy5)
Transamerica Pyramid, San Francisco (https://flic.kr/p/nFejy5) by Slobodan Blagojevic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/slobodan_blagojevic/), on Flickr
Finally: the definitive photograph of the Ku Klux Klan Prayer!
Rob
-
But shouldn't the two sides be parallel? ;D :D
Not in a Pyramid. Didn't you know that, mathematician? :D ;D
-
Here is an example to illustrate the effect of different focal lengths on "leaning" buildings. A shot done with a 56mm lens, and the same shot with a 28mm lens (both on iPhone, same standpoint). If one uses a wider angle and keep the camera parallel to the building, you can get buildings almost perfectly vertical. The price to pay is that you lose a half of the pixels, if the composition does not require the bottom part. Megapixel cameras would come handy, of course.
-
There's a distiction to be made between a building which has sides which are converging towards the top, producing a sense of height from the perspective of the viewer at the base, and a building which is leaning like the Leaning Tower of Pisa, and looks as though it is in danger of toppling over.
-
Ray, have you actually been in NY? I can understand how from a down-under perspective, where a two-story building is considered a skyscraper, this might look strange, but if you ever find yourself in a big city, you would realize that, when you lift your head, buildings do converge. It is called perspective, you know. Discovered already in the Renaissance.
Yup... and isn’t it interesting that we’re only bothered in the vertical, but railroad tracks going toward the horizon and converging don’t bother us at all. Same exact thing. If you want to freak out your brain, take a photo of said tracks and make them perfectly parallel going off into the horizon (the way they “actually do,” i.e. remain parallel).
-
Yup... and isn’t it interesting that we’re only bothered in the vertical, but railroad tracks going toward the horizon and converging don’t bother us at all. Same exact thing. If you want to freak out your brain, take a photo of said tracks and make them perfectly parallel going off into the horizon (the way they “actually do,” i.e. remain parallel).
There seems to be a lot of confusion on this issue. The greater the distance of any observed object from the viewer, the smaller that object appears to the viewer. This is how we can estimate the distance of any object. The human mind gradually develops from birth and early childhood to automatically understand this. The size of recognizable objects enables us to determine the distance between ourselves and those objects.
The average house viewed from a distance of a few hundred metres looks as small as a child's doll's house. However, I doubt that anyone would confuse such a house at a distance, with a doll's house or a small accurate model of a house which is situated much closer. This is because there are so many recognizable objects between the house in the distance, and the viewer, and each of these objects between the house and the viewer, such as grass, trees, fences, or railway lines, also look smaller in proportion to their distance from the viewer.
Both the camera and the natural eye will capture these effects, provided there are sufficient recognizable objects in the foreground. This means that the camera must have an appropriate focal length of lens in order to capture the objects in the foreground. However, an extremely wide-angle lens, such as 12 mm or 14 mm, will tend to unnaturally exaggerate the size of close objects and unnaturally diminish the size of distant objects. Likewise, a long telephoto lens, or a macro lens, which excludes most of what the natural eye sees in the foreground and surrounding area, can make small objects appear huge. However, if we recognize those objects, such as a species of insect or bird, we can deduce they are not huge monsters. Also, adjacent objects such as leaves next to a shot of a bird taken with a telephoto lens, provide a clue as to the size of the bird when we are unfamiliar with the species.
The issue of objects appearing to lean to one side in a photograph, is quite different from the above issue which I've tried to explain. In the real world I get no sense of tall buildings leaning to one side when I walk through a city center with tall skyscrapers. Perhaps I am only speaking for myself. Perhaps there actually are people who do get a sense of leaning skyscrapers when they walk through a city. If that is the case, please mention it and explain how you can tell the difference between something that just appears to be leaning and something which actually is leaning, like the leaning Tower of Pisa.
As I sit here in my house, at my computer desk, I am surrounded by dozens of verticals and horizontals, such as door frames, window frames, cupboards, TV frame, wall edges, table legs, and so on. Whether I'm standing up, sitting down, or lying on the floor, all those verticals remain vertical as I view them naturally with my eyes.
However, when I look through the camera viewfinder through a wide-angle lens, those verticals change. From a lower position, kneeling on the floor, with camera tilted slightly upwards, in order to capture the top of the door and window frames, the verticals all lean towards the centre, creating the impression that each door and window frame has the shape of a pyramid. When I point the camera down, from a standing position, the reverse impression occurs, like a pyramid standing on its head. And of course, if I tilt the camera to one side, the horizontals cease to be horizontal. It's a terrible distortion, and is why Photoshop has introduced the 'distort, warp and perspective' controls, and a cropping format which can be tilted.
Now you might wonder what the reason is for this effect. After all, the camera has the reputation for capturing what the eye sees in reality.
Here's my explanation, but please feel free to correct me if you think my argument is not sound.
Einstein's Theory of Relativity is relevant here. A vertical is only vertical in relation to something else which is not vertical. The camera always introduces its own verticals and horizontals, separate from the scene, and which are imposed on every scene which is captured. In other words, it's the camera format, whether square or rectangular, which is the source of the distortion, and such format restrictions are always reproduced in the print.
The natural eye does not impose such external format restrictions. We have a central view of focus, but that view includes a wide range of 'out-of-focus' areas on all sides of the object we are viewing. We can also move our eyeballs from left to right, and up and down, without moving our head, in order to shift that focus.
Being able to distinguish between what is really vertical and what is really leaning is an essential part of human evolution.
To finish my long-winded post, I'll include an image of the Leaning Tower of Pisa (from the internet, not mine) in which the inherent distortions of the camera imply that the tower of Pisa is not leaning any more than the cathedral next to it, and possibly less. ;D
-
However, after a bit of perspective adjustment in Photoshop, the tower appears to be leaning as one would expect. ;)
Refer attached image.
-
However, after a bit of perspective adjustment in Photoshop, the tower appears to be leaning as one would expect. ;)
Refer attached image.
Even the people at the right edge of the tower seem to be leaning. They must be thinking it is expected in Pisa.
-
Even the people at the right edge of the tower seem to be leaning. They must be thinking it is expected in Pisa.
No, they are not. They are upright. Look more carefully. Zoom in. ;)
-
Okay! I've zoomed in for you, to save you the trouble. Here's an extremely high resolution crop. ;)
-
Ray, what your silly posts have to do with the thread?
-
Ray, what your silly posts have to do with the thread?
+1. ;)
-
Ray, what your silly posts have to do with the thread?
I'm amazed you can't work that out and have to ask. :o
-
I'm amazed you can't work that out and have to ask. :o
I have pointed out in reply #11 that the central building is indeed leaning by about 1.5 degrees. You said I must be joking and nitpicking. You then kept talking on two pages about leaning buildings and Pisa, blah, blah, an unnecessary repetition of what I already stated in the reply #11.
-
As the one who started this thread, I think I should be permitted to express my opinion.
To wit, Slobodan's posts #11 and #15 said all that needed to be said about the sloppiness of my original image, and my posts #18, 19 and 28 acknowledged Slobodan's correction and showed some further variants.
Anything beyond that is surely nothing but hijacking of the thread. If any one wants to start a separate thread about tilting of buildings and whether all vertical parallels should always appear parallel, or whether pigs have wings, feel free to do so.
But please: no more of it here.
-
I have pointed out in reply #11 that the central building is indeed leaning by about 1.5 degrees. You said I must be joking and nitpicking. You then kept talking on two pages about leaning buildings and Pisa, blah, blah, an unnecessary repetition of what I already stated in the reply #11.
And I pointed out, in response, that the leaning of the central building was very slight and of little consequence compared with the much greater leaning of the building on the right side of the image, which appeared to be leaning even more than the famous Tower of Pisa.
Eric attempted to justify this effect by claiming his image represented the effect that one normally sees, of towering tall buildings in New York. I responded to Eric by stating truthfully that I never get any impression of vertical buildings leaning to one side as I walk through a city with tall skyscrapers, and I tried to explain why the natural human vision does not produce this effect that vertical buildings can appear to lean simply because they are tall and viewed from the ground.
You then went on to demonstrate that tall buildings do appear to taper towards the top, like a pyramid, from the perspective of the viewer on the ground, and posted an image demonstrating this effect.
I have simply pointed out that this effect is a separate issue, and that 'tapering towards the top', like a pyramid, is not an example of an entire building appearing to lean. If anyone has hijacked this thread, it is you who have hijacked my criticism of one of Eric's photos, by presenting false and/or irrelevant arguments.
What's the matter with you two? Can't accept a bit of criticism? Dear me! :(
-
If any one wants to start a separate thread about tilting of buildings and whether all vertical parallels should always appear parallel, or whether pigs have wings, feel free to do so.
But please: no more of it here.
Really! You think people on this forum should be free to start threads on 'whether pigs have wings', or whether 'all vertical parallels should always appear parallel', which is clearly nonsense, yet you seem to object to my very sensible and rational criticism. How puzzling!
-
Ray, those buildings (denoted by the green lines) do not lean, they converge, which is perspective. If those two green lines would be parallel (but not vertical) then you could argue they are leaning. It is either amusing or annoying, depending on how charitable one is, that you are debating this.
-
Ray, those buildings (denoted by the green lines) do not lean, they converge, which is perspective. If those two green lines would be parallel (but not vertical) then you could argue they are leaning. It is either amusing or annoying, depending on how charitable one is, that you are debating this.
Slobodan,
We know, or at least assume, those buildings denoted by the green line are not leaning. If they actually were leaning, the New York authorities would deal with the issue because the buildings would be an obvious danger.
The point I'm trying to get across is that the camera is distorting the perspective and is not portraying what the photographer sees before he puts his eye to the viewfinder. This distortion can be observed in your own living room. Tilt your eyes up and focus on the ceiling above a door frame, or glass sliding door. The verticals remain vertical. There's no sense of converging towards the top of the door frame.
Do the same whilst looking through the camera viewfinder, with camera tilted upwards. It's quite noticeable that the vertical door frames converge towards the top, as seen through the viewfinder. Tilt the camera up and then down. The verticals will converge to the top and then converge to the bottom. Tilt your eyes up and then down, without the camera. There's no sense of converging verticals at all. Got it?
-
Slobodan,
We know, or at least assume, those buildings denoted by the green line are not leaning. If they actually were leaning, the New York authorities would deal with the issue because the buildings would be an obvious danger.
The point I'm trying to get across is that the camera is distorting the perspective and is not portraying what the photographer sees before he puts his eye to the viewfinder. This distortion can be observed in your own living room. Tilt your eyes up and focus on the ceiling above a door frame, or glass sliding door. The verticals remain vertical. There's no sense of converging towards the top of the door frame.
Do the same whilst looking through the camera viewfinder, with camera tilted upwards. It's quite noticeable that the vertical door frames converge towards the top, as seen through the viewfinder. Tilt the camera up and then down. The verticals will converge to the top and then converge to the bottom. Tilt your eyes up and then down, without the camera. There's no sense of converging verticals at all. Got it?
And have you noticed that, if you stand by a high wall and look upwards at the sky, the clouds stand still but the building careers across the scene? It can make you feel totally disorientated.
Rob
-
Ray, you are unbelievable. In post after post you were talking about “leaning” buildings and I kept saying it is perspective. Now you apparently agree it is perspective and that, aside from Pisa, there are no leaning buildings, at last not in New York. Good Lord!
If camera (lens actually) is exaggerating perspective, it is doing it to perspective, still not causing leaning of buildings.
-
... Tilt your eyes up and focus on the ceiling above a door frame...
Someone once told me that "low ceilings" (both temporal and physical) may often lead to distorted vision/perspective ;)
-
I just discovered this thread and reading it is giving me a sense of vertigo. (Attached: Intersection of Routes 4 and 20, Tokyo, 2017)
-
I just discovered this thread and reading it is giving me a sense of vertigo. (Attached: Intersection of Routes 4 and 20, Tokyo, 2017)
Amazing!
All the buildings to the right of the highway are tilting to the right, and all the buildings to the left are tilting to the left! ::)
-
All the buildings to the right of the highway are tilting to the right, and all the buildings to the left are tilting to the left!
It's a real relief to hear you say that. I thought it was just me.
-
Ray, you are unbelievable. In post after post you were talking about “leaning” buildings and I kept saying it is perspective. Now you apparently agree it is perspective and that, aside from Pisa, there are no leaning buildings, at last not in New York. Good Lord!
If camera (lens actually) is exaggerating perspective, it is doing it to perspective, still not causing leaning of buildings.
Of course a camera can't cause a building to lean. That would be the silliest statement of all. ;D
The camera (and lens) distorts the perspective in a way that makes the building appear to lean. Photoshop has tools to correct for this.
If you were to show Eric's first photo in this thread to someone who was not familiar with photos in general and knew nothing about photography, such as a young child from a remote village or even an adult in that remote village, such a person would express certainty that the buildings on the left and right of the image are leaning.
You make me feel as though I'm communicating with someone who's in a complete state of denial. ;D
-
Someone once told me that "low ceilings" (both temporal and physical) may often lead to distorted vision/perspective ;)
Try looking at a row of tall trees with straight, vertical trunks, like Pine trees. Whilst standing at the base of the trees, with eye to the viewfinder and camera held vertically, tilt the camera slowly up and down. As you slowly tilt the camera up, in order to see the top of the trees, you should notice the trees on each side of the viewfinder frame, gradually lean towards the centre, in slow motion, then gradually lean in the opposite direction as you tilt the camera down.
Try the same eye movements from the same position but without the camera. There should be no impression of any leaning. I've tried it. Maybe your mind works differently. ;D
-
You have no idea!
Some are so tall that you can literally see the vanishing point ;)
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5584/14227434340_95ee800ebf_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nFejy5)
Transamerica Pyramid, San Francisco (https://flic.kr/p/nFejy5) by Slobodan Blagojevic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/slobodan_blagojevic/), on Flickr
Slobodan, I’m fascinated to know how this was lit? Is it simply the sun and you’ve filtered the sky to black? Or is there more to it?
It’s a lovely image.
-
... If you were to show Eric's first photo in this thread to someone who was not familiar with photos in general and knew nothing about photography, such as a young child from a remote village or even an adult* in that remote village, such a person would express certainty that the buildings on the left and right of the image are leaning...
And you showed them a mirror, they'd think you are the devil himself ;)
* Didn't realize you live in a remote village and know nothing about photography. It is all much clearer now ;)
-
Slobodan, I’m fascinated to know how this was lit? Is it simply the sun and you’ve filtered the sky to black? Or is there more to it?
It’s a lovely image.
Thanks. It is pretty much it, as you suspected.
-
Didn't realize you live in a remote village and know nothing about photography. It is all much clearer now ;)
Didn't realize you see everything as though you are looking through a camera viewfinder. I'm a bit concerned for you. I hope you do not find yourself in a situation where you confuse something that is actually leaning dangerously, with something that just appears to be leaning because of perspective distortion. That could be disastrous. :(
-
Some are so tall that you can literally see the vanishing point ;)
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5584/14227434340_95ee800ebf_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nFejy5)
Transamerica Pyramid, San Francisco (https://flic.kr/p/nFejy5) by Slobodan Blagojevic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/slobodan_blagojevic/), on Flickr
And some stretch out the other way.
-
Amazing!
All the buildings to the right of the highway are tilting to the right, and all the buildings to the left are tilting to the left! ::)
You missed the most frightening aspect of them all, Eric: the buildings in the middle are about to shoot straight up into space!
Too many pictures... too much stress!
Rob
-
Amazing!
All the buildings to the right of the highway are tilting to the right, and all the buildings to the left are tilting to the left! ::)
Easy explanation, Eric. The road must have been built on a watershed line.
-
Easy explanation, Eric. The road must have been built on a watershed line.
That's why experts exist!
:-)
-
Boy, I'm sure glad we have all the experts we need right here on LuLa! :D