View Full Version : Photo Montage of Baillie Hill Windfarm
The Developer's Version 1) Distance supposedly 4.4km http://www.bailliewindfarm.co.uk/images/montage3.jpg
CWIF's antiwindfarm Version 2) 1.1km further away.http://www.caithnesshost.co.uk/CWIF/bailliefromreaysm.jpg
Well, at least someone is telling porky pies that's for sure....
Bobinovich
11-Nov-07, 23:29
Erm Rheghead, the top image is 4.4km away according to the source website, not miles!
Thanks for that, I've editted, it is weird because the grid reference on the CWIF site gives a distance of 7km to the Reay golf club and I think that is where I slipped up, anyway it doesn't detract from the fact that someone is bending the truth, if not both. The bottom image certainly looks more out of proportion though with monstrous turbines looming down onto the village. I don't think Baillie Hill is actually visible from Reay Golf Club! :)
Jeemag_USA
11-Nov-07, 23:45
I am confused, is one of these suposed to be real and one not?? Anyway, if the bottom picture is a real one, oh my gawd thats a horrific site??
Both views are supposed to be real, the turbines aren't because the wind farm isn't built yet. They are supposed to give us a realistic idea what the visual impact would be. If the photos have been manipulated in anyway(except to paste accurately-sized wind turbines in their correct positions) to misconstrue then surely they can't be trusted. I think this community deserves better than some unreliable information that someone (armed with slick graphics skills and an agenda) wants to peddle on to us.
Jeemag_USA
12-Nov-07, 00:03
I hope it doesn't end up looking like that, I am not in Caithness anymore so have been trying to stay out of the whole turbine thing, but I think that looks terrible, they woudl actually be better being white, they would disappear better against the sky than that olive drab colour :roll:
If people have been objecting online at the CWIF website to the Baillie Wind Farm on the basis of a fake photograph, then what does that say about the genuine legitimacy of those objections?:confused
Surely then the Baillie Windfarm would be approved without objection which would be wrong?:confused
Jeemag_USA
12-Nov-07, 01:38
If people have been objecting online at the CWIF website to the Baillie Wind Farm on the basis of a fake photograph, then what does that say about the genuine legitimacy of those objections?:confused
Surely then the Baillie Windfarm would be approved without objection?:confused
Fair point, if people want to know what something is going to look like, they should look at pictures of other existing site of a similar size instead of an artists impression that is only just that?
there is plenty of open space where there are no houses for miles around why dont they use some of that land, i certainly wouldnt like thao on my doorstep. but i have to say i do agree that windfarms do seem to be the way forward but just not on your doorstep.:~(
Why dont the turbine developers erect one of their turbines in or around the town centre so we can all see how big these things REALLY are .It will also allow us to see the size of foundation needed to keep these things upright .
There must be ground lying spare that could be used for 6-12 months .
Then they could take it down, dig up the found and we could all see the work and materials needed .
If the developers have nothing to hide and the EIS/EAS is correct they should be more than willing to foot the bill .
If Thurso decides to erect one how about the old Viewfirth site ,its in a good central position for the WEST of Caithness and its lying empty.
Anyone got an idea for a site in Wick for the EAST side of the county.
ywindythesecond
12-Nov-07, 22:16
Jeemag, hi. I am the Stuart Young who does the photomontages on the CWIF website, including the Reay Golf Club one.
I would like to explain some things, firstly turbine colour.
All turbines I have seen are painted a white with possibly a slight tinge of grey and this is found to be the least obtrusive colour. But they don’t look white all the time because of varying light qualities and depending on the background.
The following three pictures are all photographs of the original two turbines at Forss. They were all taken on the same day from different locations, and this shows the wide variations in appearance possible simply due to a cloud crossing the sky.
http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/632/3forsspa4.jpg (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/632/3forsspa4.jpg)
http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/632/3forsspa4.jpg
My photomontages show the proposed turbines in the correct location and to the correct scale. As regards turbine colour and texture, inserting a white turbine in a photograph of a white sky would not show up, but you know that in reality you would still see it due to light and shadow on its surface and it being a solid object silhouetted against a light background. I use the greyscale range for my turbine images, and attempt at all times to achieve realism in their appearance, but it is only a shade of grey on a photograph, it is not a photograph. Caithness folk are very familiar with turbines and can apply their own experience to judging colour and texture of the real things.
Reggy is also very familiar with turbines, he lives within five miles of the two in the photographs above (47m to the hub, 78m to the tip). He passes by them frequently. He has seen them in all their appearances from brilliant white to jet black, and even, occasionally, almost invisible. He has seen them from a few metres away and from as far away as 20 kilometres.
Yet he is unable to relate this life experience to envisaging what a proposed windfarm will look like? Reggy is no fool, he just prefers making mischief. But he should consider his words more carefully in future. People less amiable than me might take offence at some of his remarks.
With regard to the turbine images towering over the Golf Club, some facts.
Baillie Hill on which the turbines would stand is just over 110 metres high.
The proposed turbines are 70m to hub plus 40m blade, 110 metres high.
Two turbines are located above the 110m contour, the rest at levels down to 55 metres approx.
Baillie Hill cannot be seen from Reay Golf Clubhouse. Its top is 1km behind the top of Shebster Hill which is 132m high.
Reay Golf Clubhouse lies at about 12 metres above sea level.So, the tip of the turbines on top of Baillie Hill are fractionally short of being at twice the height of Baillie Hill. That is pretty towering! The 80 metre sweep of the blades is more than the height of the Forss turbines. That is pretty towering too!
If you look at the Golf Club Montage, for each turbine you can estimate how much can’t be seen behind Shebster Hill. The blade is 40m long. Use this to estimate how much tower you can see, and the rest is out of sight.
So, Jemmag, in summary, anyone with half an eye and an ounce of brain can look at the turbines at Forss and relate them to Baillie Hill.
Anyone that is but Reggy, but then, perhaps he doesn’t quite make the classification!
Here is the full photomontage from Reay Golf Clubhouse.
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/732/bailliefromreaygolfclubjc9.jpg (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/732/bailliefromreaygolfclubjc9.jpg)
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/732/bailliefromreaygolfclubjc9.jpg
Why dont the turbine developers erect one of their turbines in or around the town centre so we can all see how big these things REALLY are .It will also allow us to see the size of foundation needed to keep these things upright .
There must be ground lying spare that could be used for 6-12 months .
Then they could take it down, dig up the found and we could all see the work and materials needed .
If the developers have nothing to hide and the EIS/EAS is correct they should be more than willing to foot the bill .
If Thurso decides to erect one how about the old Viewfirth site ,its in a good central position for the WEST of Caithness and its lying empty.
Anyone got an idea for a site in Wick for the EAST side of the county.
There is one at the bottom of Whitfield in Dundee behind the Michelin factory
and it looks just terrible. :eek:
Thank you ywindythesecond for posting your lower resolution version of your original montage looking east from Reay (No thanks for the veiled threats and personal insults btw).
Anyway, to business. The full montage certainly puts the scene into a better perspective, and if you had posted that version instead of the one that was expanded and cropped to look like a view down a pair of binoculars, then I would have had no probs with the presentation. For many of Reay's residents, I am sure the turbines have now been transformed from a status of 'intrusive' to just plain 'visible'. I can only draw from your Rom-Art actions that your intention was to mislead rather than to honestly inform your visitors to the CWIF website inorder to increase the online objections.
I have a few more criticisms though, you don't get off too lightly. I fully concur with your observations of the tonal changes of the Forss site, they are determined by weather and lighting, no problem at all, as you say, I see them all the time.....given that they are photographed at a middle distance, I would expect sharper contrasts and vivid colours. However, your montage is set at a very much different scale in distance, ~6km from the golf club. Tonal contrasts tend to blend in and colours are less vivid. As Jeemag said, they are olive green when they will be grey to blend in with the background weather conditions. I rather feel that you have not got the tones quite right, so they jar the eye and stand out.
Secondly, I have spent a couple of hours transposing the coordinates of the highest turbine from the grainy (and wholly unacceptable) map that the developer has provided, onto my GPS mapping software. At this provisional moment in time, I am calculating that the turbine is approximately 900m behind Shebster Hill at a height of 108m. From our observation point, there would be a parrallax effect from the top of Shebster hill that would effectively hide more of the turbine tower than the mere difference between the heights of the Shebster hill and the turbine base, ~38m rather than ~22m. This would mean that the bottom sweep of the blades would be concealed by Shebster hill. In your montage the rotor blades are fully visible, which would give extra visual impact if my data is remotely accurate. And this parrallax effect will increase for those turbines which are furthest away, which would in fact be approximately 50m, then add on the difference in altitude between Shebster hill and the respective turbine. Quite frankly, very few turbines would be visible from Reay Golf Club except the tops of the closest ones.
I am sure your montage is correct though, as I am sure that you have accurate locations for each of the pylons and my calculations will include errors and you have included the parrallax effect in your montage. Nevertheless, I will be getting the correct data in the full goodness of time and I will check them out against the montage.
Bobinovich
13-Nov-07, 11:11
LOL Rheghead, a quick visit to the ROM-ART website (or view of my profile for that matter) would have told you that YwindY is not ROM-ART!!! That honour belongs to me :D.
As far as the CWIF site is concerned I am purely the designer - it is CWIF themselves who come up with the content. However, you can surmise that I support the aims and objectives of the group - with hand on heart I couldn't produce a pro-windfarm website, not even for profit.
I have spent time with YwindY examining his methods for producing these montages, and I can assure you that he goes to great lengths to ensure the accuracy of his images - after all it is his reputation at stake.
I also assisted with the design of the graphics 'toolkit' he uses to insert the turbines to scale, it's main limitation is that the end vector image is a simple filled shape - it cannot be graded and shaded to make it photorealistic, it can only be a single shade of black. The olive tone is almost certainly just a result of the conversion of the final image to a bitmap.
The irony of the situation is that, while CWIF and other anti-windfarm groups have very little financial backing to produce their sites and images, the windfarm developers have plenty of money to pay designers to produce photorealistic images, but they don't do it as it would jeapordise their case - instead ending up with deliberately washed out images as you've indicated above.
LOL Rheghead, a quick visit to the ROM-ART website (or view of my profile for that matter) would have told you that YwindY is not ROM-ART!!! That honour belongs to me :D.
Then accept my deepest apologies for using the ROM-ART name, I thought it was a graphics software program like Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop, nevertheless, it is his information that is up for criticism, not yours. I am not being mischievous, I am simply challenging the accuracy of his information. But thank you for clarifying why the montages on the CWIF website can never be truly representational with their tonal values.
I know Ywindythesecond puts a lot of time and effort into what he does, he should be applauded, his website is and should be a valuable source of real info, his reputation is irrelevent however, he doesn't have to take things personally, I'm certainly not after a pound of his flesh for goodness sake, he didn't even have to admit that he was the Caithnessian anti-windfarm supremo. I had my suspicions though.:)
I am sure he only wants to present real information about windfarms if they are as bad for the environment as he says. If his information isn't real or it doesn't stand up to honest critical evaluation then it is misinformation. And if he is anything like a real critical thinker then he should be glad to be corrected.
If I am wrong about anything I've said about windfarms then I am only too glad to admit I was wrong. Whether it is about their energy balance, CO2 payback, their role in climate change. If anyone can give me evidence that they don't perform as I think they do then I will be only too glad to change my point of view. But sadly, I haven't read anything that stands up to critical thought that does so. I am sorry to say that intelligent people like Ywindythesecond, kittymay to name just 2, can be given all the evidence under the sun that should challenge the deepest tenets of any critical thinker yet, they still won't believe it. That is religion, pure and simple.
I hope it doesn't end up looking like that, I am not in Caithness anymore so have been trying to stay out of the whole turbine thing, but I think that looks terrible, they woudl actually be better being white, they would disappear better against the sky than that olive drab colour :roll:
Jeemag, I think they are actually meant to be white, I suspect the dark appearance is due to shadow as a result of the direction the originals were photographed from.
All the ones I have ever seen are the sort of very stark white you see on washing powder adverts and really stand out, especially if you are on the sunny side of them. It's almost as if they are designed to make sure you can’t miss them, they are about as subtle as the neon signs in Las Vegas! There never seems to be any attempt to blend them into their surroundings.
ywindythesecond
13-Nov-07, 19:07
Reggy, I will shortly post the information you need to check out my images. Meantime, in the interest of balance and fairness, how about providing your critique of the developers photomontage you showed in your first post on this thread?
ywindy
Reggy, I will shortly post the information you need to check out my images. Meantime, in the interest of balance and fairness, how about providing your critique of the developers photomontage you showed in your first post on this thread?
ywindy
Thanks for that, I have got the National Grid references for each of the turbines now, but I noticed from the book that some of the turbines have been resited and my coordinates are the ones which are up to date as published Jan 2006. Your montage may be based on old data and may explain any difference in height which I have calculated, especially in relation to Turbine 7.
Please feel free to post your info though, I'd appreciate it.
In the interest of balance and fairness, I felt that the developers montage gave a better perspective of distance, but that was all. Its most serious fault was in the lack of clarity of the turbines themselves and I did feel they were trying to trivialise the visual impact by partially obscuring the site with Achvarasdal wood.
The other montages as seen from Lythmore and Broupster were much better, both in perspective and clarity however.
ywindythesecond
13-Nov-07, 20:27
Thanks for that, I have got the National Grid references for each of the turbines now, but I noticed from the book that some of the turbines have been resited and my coordinates are the ones which are up to date as published Jan 2006. Your montage may be based on old data and may explain any difference in height which I have calculated, especially in relation to Turbine 7.
Please feel free to post your info though, I'd appreciate it.
In the interest of balance and fairness, I felt that the developers montage gave a better perspective of distance, but that was all. Its most serious fault was in the lack of clarity of the turbines themselves and I did feel they were trying to trivialise the visual impact by partially obscuring the site with Achvarasdal wood.
The other montages as seen from Lythmore and Broupster were much better, both in perspective and clarity however.
Reggy, I have also used Jan 2006 data.
How serious a fault, do you think, is "lack of clarity of the turbines themselves" in a document which is the basis of assessment by lay decision makers, and the principal official provision of information for the general public to rely on?
Anyway, here is the info promised;
Most prominent turbine (above the road leaving Reay) is No 7 at ND 02581 65577 (6.0km)
Nearest turbine (on the left of No 07) is No 1 at ND 01912 65613 (5.4km)
Furthest away turbine to the left of the picture is No 15 at ND 03195 66220 (6.7km) Furthest away turbine to the right of the picture is No 20 at ND 03668 64976 (7.1km)
Viewpoint at Reay Golf Clubhouse is at NC 96595 64934.
Interpolated Ground levels are:
No7-106m
No1-75m
No15-70m
No20-83m
Reay viewpoint- 12m
ywy2
Thank you for the info. OK, ywindythesecond, since you think that Turbine 7 is the most prominent, I will use it as my case study.
From your montage, I estimated by basic measurement that turbine 7 was 48m tall at the hub on the horizon with 22m hidden by Shebster hill.
Compare this figure with the result, 52m from my calculatation of what the actual height of the turbine 7 was hidden by Shebster hill
Here is my calculation.
From your position to your coordinates of turbine 7, my GPS software gave a distance of 6km to the nearest 50m.
Your height above sea level is 12m
The distance from your position to the apex of Shebster(in a line with turbine 7) is 4650m. The height of that horizon as the crow flies(through to turbine 7) is 125m.
Therefore, the observation gradient to the horizon is (125-12)/4650=0.024301075.
If we extrapolate this gradient from the observation point to the distance of turbine 7, 6km, we get a height of (0.024301075X6000)+12=158m above sea level. The height you gave me of the base was 106m above sea level.
Therefore the height of turbine 7 which is hidden by Shebster Hill is 158m-106m=52m, some 30 metres different to my visual estimation based on the CWIF montage, and somewhat less visually impacting, if correct.
Can you tell me where I have gone wrong?
EDIT I've since used a program called 'Memory map' to profile the height of the horizon to be 122 metres, still, the height of turbine 7 which is hidden by Shebster hill would work out to be 48 metres.
ywindythesecond
14-Nov-07, 00:01
Thank you for the info. OK, ywindythesecond, since you think that Turbine 7 is the most prominent, I will use it as my case study.
From your montage, I estimated by basic measurement that turbine 7 was 48m tall at the hub on the horizon with 22m hidden by Shebster hill.
Compare this figure with the result, 52m from my calculatation of what the actual height of the turbine 7 was hidden by Shebster hill
Here is my calculation.
From your position to your coordinates of turbine 7, my GPS software gave a distance of 6km to the nearest 50m.
Your height above sea level is 12m
The distance from your position to the apex of Shebster(in a line with turbine 7) is 4650m. The height of that horizon as the crow flies(through to turbine 7) is 125m.
Therefore, the observation gradient to the horizon is (125-12)/4650=0.024301075.
If we extrapolate this gradient from the observation point to the distance of turbine 7, 6km, we get a height of (0.024301075X6000)+12=158m above sea level. The height you gave me of the base was 106m above sea level.
Therefore the height of turbine 7 which is hidden by Shebster Hill is 158m-106m=52m, some 30 metres different to my visual estimation based on the CWIF montage, and somewhat less visually impacting, if correct.
Can you tell me where I have gone wrong?
EDIT I've since used a program called 'Memory map' to profile the height of the horizon to be 122 metres, still, the height of turbine 7 which is hidden by Shebster hill would work out to be 48 metres.
Right Reggy, I can't find my original calculations so I have started from scratch. You haven't gone wrong. You have approached the size not visible from a calculation angle while I do it by drawing. My basic level and distance information is probably more accurate than yours, but my recalculation of size not visible is 43m by my method and 45 if I use yours, backed up by your latest check at 48m. So as regards T7, you are more accurate than I was originally. I have also revisited T1, and I find that I have made a similar error, but in the opposite direction, it should be more visible. I must now clearly revisit my calculations from this viewpoint.
Might I suggest that you carry on to calculate visibility for each turbine by your methodology and I will so so by mine, and then we compare the results.
ywindythesecond
28-Nov-07, 00:16
This thread came to a standstill while Reggy had a good look at my photomontages to see how accurate they were. I gave him all the information he needed and agreed that the big central turbine was wrong in that it was too high. A few other small height variations were found, not necessarily errors as they rely on assessment of heights between contours on OS maps, but by and large I took on board Reggy’s results and I have redone the photomontage of Baillie WF from Reay Golf Clubhouse. I have shown the turbines white because that is the colour they are painted although they change with light conditions. I have shown a wide angle view instead of a close up. You can find this on http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/) and check the difference for yourself.
Reggy is happy to publish the results of his investigation into my photomontages. Over to you Reggy.
Also over to you Reggy is some unfinished business from my post on 13th November.
Quote
Originally Posted by Rheghead
In the interest of balance and fairness, I felt that the developers montage gave a better perspective of distance, but that was all. Its most serious fault was in the lack of clarity of the turbines themselves and I did feel they were trying to trivialise the visual impact by partially obscuring the site with Achvarasdal wood.
The other montages as seen from Lythmore and Broupster were much better, both in perspective and clarity however.
”How serious a fault, do you think, is "lack of clarity of the turbines themselves" in a document which is the basis of assessment by lay decision makers, and the principal official provision of information for the general public to rely on?” ywy2
This is a photograph I took from Isauld Bridge. It is the developer’s view you showed in the first post. My photograph is clear, not blurred. There is no good reason for showing a blurry picture in a technical document intended to inform.
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/4939/syisauldvpoq5.jpg
This is a photograph of Forss windfarm from a similar distance from the developer’s view from Isauld Bridge. These turbines are 78m high. The proposed Baillie ones are 110m high.
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/7800/forsswfnearestapp45kmds5.jpg
Don’t you think that a photomontage from Isauld bridge would show the Baillie turbines just as clearly?
Reggy, how about subjecting the developer’s images to the same rigorous examination as you did to mine? I am sure they will co-operate with you as freely as I did.
”How serious a fault, do you think, is "lack of clarity of the turbines themselves" in a document which is the basis of assessment by lay decision makers, and the principal official provision of information for the general public to rely on?” ywy2
This is a photograph I took from Isauld Bridge. It is the developer’s view you showed in the first post. My photograph is clear, not blurred. There is no good reason for showing a blurry picture in a technical document intended to inform.
From what I understand (from subsequent good authority, as a result of this thread), the photomontage industry, (at least the officially recognised one as recognised by SNH and Highland Council, that is) have a strict code of standard when producing these montages. They are supposed to inform the public about the proposal in a representation which indicates an 'average' of all weather conditions. Which means that the official montages aren't supposed to be be mega-clear with sharp definitions. You've said yourself, on occasion the turbines are invisible due to the harr etc. So, depending on your point of view, the developer's montages could be more representative aesthetically rather than to inform technically, the difference being akin to comparing an oil painting to a 'blueprint', I suppose. Thus, if you were an architect or a draughtsperson you will find the montages lacking but to an artist they may give a better represention, when applied to 'visual impact', then I'd say the aesthetic approach is more representative. That is my take on what is being discussed here anyway.
In regards to the choice of montage observation point that has been placed on the developer's website, I have been informed that that has been taken by Scottish Natural Heritage and Highland Council, this has been done to ensure that the developer is being fair with the representation to the public. In other words, the developer hasn't been largely involved in the thought process of where the montages were taken. Which seems strange to me because the developer would be more familiar with the terrain, this may be a reason why the Isauld viewpoint was unclear(from one perspective). However, I thought the Lythmore and Broupster viewpoints were more representational, imo.
Oh, and thank you for taking my points onboard whilst making changes to the Reay montage.
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/4939/syisauldvpoq5.jpg
This is a photograph of Forss windfarm from a similar distance from the developer’s view from Isauld Bridge. These turbines are 78m high. The proposed Baillie ones are 110m high.
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/7800/forsswfnearestapp45kmds5.jpg
Don’t you think that a photomontage from Isauld bridge would show the Baillie turbines just as clearly?
I can confirm that the distances are the approximately the same but your question is loaded, meaning, you haven't used the same camera settings for both photos or you have enlarged and cropped the latter photo. Again, you haven't learned, have you?
Clears it all up - just because you won't be able to see it on a less than a clear day makes the required simulation of it less important.
Oh hey, why not just not show the visual impact at all? I mean for 8 - 10 hours of the day you won't see them at all - it will be too dark...
Pathetic.........
Clears it all up - just because you won't be able to see it on a less than a clear day makes the required simulation of it less important.
So just because you will be able to see it on a clear day makes the required simulation of it more important?:confused
Of course it does. Otherwise planners for airports could only use the sound footprints from gliders or small quiet single engined aircraft.
You have to include the 'worst case scenario' if you are planning such developments.
I have stayed out of recent windfarm threads because I am tired of reading the same old apologist counter arguments from you. You are obviously for windfarms irrespective of the impact they will have on the countryside.
You win - cover the UK in chuffing wind turbines - I don't give a toss anymore.
You win - cover the UK in chuffing wind turbines - I don't give a toss anymore.
You are wrong, I don't want to have the countryside covered in them. But I do recognise that if the ones that are planned are put in the best locations both for visual impact and for energy output then that will mitigate windfarm proliferation and impact. A blanket 'non' is not an option. At the moment, the best places are being refused therefore more will have to be built elsewhere to make up our renewable targets.
Of course it does. Otherwise planners for airports could only use the sound footprints from gliders or small quiet single engined aircraft.
You have to include the 'worst case scenario' if you are planning such developments.
Can't see your logic here, darkness won't dampen the noise from aircraft, nor are most anti windys against small turbines for domestic use.
ywindythesecond
29-Nov-07, 00:35
I can confirm that the distances are the approximately the same but your question is loaded, meaning, you haven't used the same camera settings for both photos or you have enlarged and cropped the latter photo. Again, you haven't learned, have you?
Don't jump to conclusions Reggy. I used the same camera settings for both photos, and I have neither enlarged or cropped the Forss Windfarm photo.
The Isauld bridge pic is a panorama compiled from 8 photos, so it is quite wide. The Forss pic is a single photo at the same size settings as for Isauld.
Between Imageshack and the .org, the pictures are shown to fit a website, not a technical inquisition.
The following view from Isauld bridge has the Forss pic inset. Both are at the same scale. Both are photographs.
http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/253/syisauldvpandforsskd8.jpg
Forss turbines are 78m high, Baillie turbines are 110m high.
I ask you again, don't you think that the developer's photomontage from this location should show Baillie Windfarm a bit more clearly?
I can confirm that the distances are the approximately the same but your question is loaded, meaning, you haven't used the same camera settings for both photos or you have enlarged and cropped the latter photo. Again, you haven't learned, have you?
Reggy,
Interesting thread but I think you're missing the point. Our eyes do not have wide angle lenses - our eyes adjust and crop - and we look at the world through our eyes and not cameras. Therefore, we do not see a built windfarm in the same way a hypothetical windfarm is portrayed in developers' environmental statements. Go drive past the Causewaymire turbines again if you disagree with me.
Cheers.
Can't see your logic here, darkness won't dampen the noise from aircraft, nor are most anti windys against small turbines for domestic use.
I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse.
Just as you state that showing the wind factory in the best possible lighting/viewing conditions is unfair because they are not always going to be visible due to mist/blizzard etc and so an 'average image' is superimposed onto the montage, I put forward that as it is night time for 8-10 hours why bother to show them at all?
The airport portion of my argument uses the same "logic" that you put forward about not using the brightest most visible representation of the turbines. The airport planners could say well we'll use smallish aircraft because the big ones only use the airport a few times a day. Or night if you insist.
Both scenarios, and any planning application which impacts on the environment, should use the most extreme (loudest/brightest/smelliest) set of figures rather than the lowest.
If I fail to explain my point I apologise but I am in a fair bit of pain right now and the drugs are dulling more than they should...
Don't jump to conclusions Reggy. I used the same camera settings for both photos, and I have neither enlarged or cropped the Forss Windfarm photo.
The Isauld bridge pic is a panorama compiled from 8 photos, so it is quite wide. The Forss pic is a single photo at the same size settings as for Isauld.
Between Imageshack and the .org, the pictures are shown to fit a website, not a technical inquisition.
The following view from Isauld bridge has the Forss pic inset. Both are at the same scale. Both are photographs.
http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/253/syisauldvpandforsskd8.jpg
Forss turbines are 78m high, Baillie turbines are 110m high.
I ask you again, don't you think that the developer's photomontage from this location should show Baillie Windfarm a bit more clearly?
http://www.bailliewindfarm.co.uk/images/montage3.jpg
Well you have certainly done something or altered the scale so they are more similiar this time, and I certainly think that your inset photo of Forss is less clear now and more akin to the developers montage of Baillie. If the point of the exercise was to show that the Baillie windfarm would not have a visually intrusive effect on any observation points further west than Isauld then I think you have succeeded. To make a comparison is difficult because the weather and lighting is different, as you say, the turbines go from jet black to white.
Reggy,
Interesting thread but I think you're missing the point. Our eyes do not have wide angle lenses - our eyes adjust and crop - and we look at the world through our eyes and not cameras. Therefore, we do not see a built windfarm in the same way a hypothetical windfarm is portrayed in developers' environmental statements. Go drive past the Causewaymire turbines again if you disagree with me.
Cheers.
It depends on how you see the world and which side of your brain is dominant. The right side of the brain is arguably more powerful and will faithfully make you see the world as is, the left hand side will make you see a windfarm and ignore the rest of the vista. This is a known fact.
Both scenarios, and any planning application which impacts on the environment, should use the most extreme (loudest/brightest/smelliest) set of figures rather than the lowest.
If I fail to explain my point I apologise but I am in a fair bit of pain right now and the drugs are dulling more than they should...
Hi Mad P,
I got your point. I'm sorry you're hurting.
I'm awaiting a reply to my post from the Great and the Good, but I don't post very often so may not be worthy, even though I thought I'd made a valid point.
SOrry Rheghead, I was impatient.
The right side of the brain is arguably more powerful and will faithfully make you see the world as is, the left hand side will make you see a windfarm and ignore the rest of the vista. This is a known fact.
Is it a known fact? Source please? If I am left-brained, am I being misled? (Am left-handed - doesn't that make me right-brained?)
I think we're going off the topic here. Are you so powerfully right-brained you cannot understand my southpaw post? If you see a windfarm in front of you where it patently should not be (like within half a mile of your house), it is a bit in-your-face, is it not?
I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse.
Just as you state that showing the wind factory in the best possible lighting/viewing conditions is unfair because they are not always going to be visible due to mist/blizzard etc and so an 'average image' is superimposed onto the montage, I put forward that as it is night time for 8-10 hours why bother to show them at all?
The airport portion of my argument uses the same "logic" that you put forward about not using the brightest most visible representation of the turbines. The airport planners could say well we'll use smallish aircraft because the big ones only use the airport a few times a day. Or night if you insist.
Both scenarios, and any planning application which impacts on the environment, should use the most extreme (loudest/brightest/smelliest) set of figures rather than the lowest.
If I fail to explain my point I apologise but I am in a fair bit of pain right now and the drugs are dulling more than they should...
OK, I admit to being obtuse, but I think I needed to be.
Lets take this issue to the Nth degree.
If the developers montage showed the Isauld montage in misty conditions, would you have an issue with the fairness of the intentions of the developer? YES, of course you would, and you would be right to have one.
Let us take it the other way, supposing they had a montage that was supposedly to represent a sunrise shot on a clear summer morning with a dark cloud behind, the turbines would look totally glary and out of place, now in all honesty would you now have an issue with the montage enough to complain about it? Probably not, in fact I would chance my next month's mortgage payment you wouldn't because it would support your point of view that onshore windfarms look visually intrusive and you would be clapping because in your opinion the developer has done himself no favours.
So, the developer's graphics contractor has taken the middle ground (and not being specious by doing a nightime shot like you flippantly suggested) and done an average of 'weather' conditions montage.
Now take a step back, look at the big picture, do the math and the logic and tell me who is really being biased here?:confused
SOrry Rheghead, I was impatient.
Is it a known fact? Source please? If I am left-brained, am I being misled? (Am left-handed - doesn't that make me right-brained?)
I think we're going off the topic here. Are you so powerfully right-brained you cannot understand my southpaw post? If you see a windfarm in front of you where it patently should not be (like within half a mile of your house), it is a bit in-your-face, is it not?
Firstly, I am not being obtuse, I am just being demonstrative here.
Take a look and assess this photo.
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/7800/forsswfnearestapp45kmds5.jpg
What do you see?
An extreme leftbrainer will see the windfarm and little else.
He knows there is a windfarm there, he can see it, the windfarms dominates his perception of the view, he has read all the bad press and if asked to draw it from memory, he will make the windfarm massive and vivid and forget anything else.
A rightbrainer will see the shape of the landscape, the perspective, he will subconsiously see that the windfarm only occupies probably less than 0.1% of the pixels of the photograph, he will take in the tonal values, he will give visual credit to the farm and the shadows of the hedgerow, etc etc
Now who is really a proper judge of visual impact? The lefty or righty?:confused
What does the no brainer see?
I'm out of here now.....
What does the no brainer see?
I'm out of here now.....
You have a good eye, now use it.:lol:
Now who is really a proper judge of visual impact? The lefty or righty?:confused
Neither one. I take your point, if we're talking solely visual impact, and admit to being the (dreaded) left-(pea)brained one because I see the windfarm. I also see cumulative impact, unmitigable effects on European Annex 1 protected species and habitat (white-fronted geese and Hoopers), impact on amenity of residents, impact on the economy - tourism and so on. I also read the news about climate change and figure Baillie windfarm will have an insignificant effect on the depth of ice at the N. Pole and floods in Bangladesh (though it's a given we have to start somewhere but preferably nearer points of energy consumption or through energy conservation or more viable renewable alternatives and nuclear). I don't know the answers Rheghead, I'm sorry. 100 years from now they'll know who was on the right track. Meanwhile, decisions lie in the hands of muddled and fairly ignorant bureaucrats who rely on reports produced by those who are commercially driven to make millions. And so to bed. Goodnight.
ywindythesecond
29-Nov-07, 09:20
If the point of the exercise was to show that the Baillie windfarm would not have a visually intrusive effect on any observation points further west than Isauld then I think you have succeeded. e.
How come I can clearly see Forss windfarm from Drumholliston? Same camera setting as before.
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/8625/img1098vw3.jpg
ywindythesecond
29-Nov-07, 09:42
[quote=Rheghead;303307]
Well you have certainly done something or altered the scale so they are more similiar this time, and I certainly think that your inset photo of Forss is less clear now and more akin to the developers montage of Baillie. [/quote
The scale is unaltered. Simple copy and paste of two equally scaled images.
More akin to the developers montage? Don't think so. Remember Baillie turbines are over 40% higher and the sweep of the rotor is 66% greater than Forss turbines. And there are 21 of them.
http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/43/esisauldvpwithforssqe0.jpg
You have a good eye, now use it.:lol:
That is my blind eye........
How come I can clearly see Forss windfarm from Drumholliston? Same camera setting as before.
Well the turbines are literally specks on the landscape from that distance, folks gaze would be drawn to the nuke plant first. But the vista is still a stunning one and well worth a stop and a look. I asked my mrs what she thought of the wind farm in the photo, she said 'What wind farm?'
ywindythesecond
30-Nov-07, 20:27
Well the turbines are literally specks on the landscape from that distance, folks gaze would be drawn to the nuke plant first. But the vista is still a stunning one and well worth a stop and a look. I asked my mrs what she thought of the wind farm in the photo, she said 'What wind farm?'
There is no point now in arguing the case. Time has actually run out. Highland Council Caithness Sutherland and Ross-shire Planning committee are to consider the application on Tuesday 4th December, that is next Tuesday.
It will ultimately be decided by the Scottish Executive, but if the Council says no, there will be a public inquiry. If it says yes, the Executive will simply rubber stamp it.
This is my final post on this thread, but Reggy has a public announcement to make about the accuracy of my photomontages.
There is no point now in arguing the case. Time has actually run out.
I am glad you can be so economical in thought about windfarms. Until the next cut-off date eh? I think you will find the new date is 14th December, but feel free to attend on the date you mentioned.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.