On 8/2/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
They're actually quite interesting in comparison. Most of the foliage in your version is more grown - look at the top of the main arch - but there are some patches where yours is denuded and the earlier one has growth. What, if anything, that indicates I don't know, but it's something.
Yeah I was looking at that, trying to decide "what it all means". Was the foliage in the previous version artificially pruned? Are we seeing the same foliage, or is this an annual growth? etc.
So, there's some benefit in multiple photos of the same thing over differet years :)
Haven't yet made up my mind if I like captioning photos "July 2006" or whatever in the article itself.
Steve