Rather than argue from memory or experience of photo manipulation, I
went to Wimbledon and took this really horrible photo with my phone:

http://www.deptj.demon.co.uk/pics/wimbledon_photo.jpg

(and there's also an even worse magnification:

http://www.deptj.demon.co.uk/pics/wi...hoto_large.jpg
)

I was one platform further back than the original photographer,

That's not obvious, actually. If the billboard really is new, then
the original photo might have been taken from the same platform with
a different lens or cropping. (If the new photo showed the same
detail of resolution as the original, this would be obvious one way
or the other.) But it's not important.

and there's a new billboard preventing an identical shot. But you
can see how it all fits in ...

Yep, that's a confirmation. The one element in the original that may
be hard to pick out in this version, depending on your display, is the
bench, but it's there all right, half hidden behind the right-hand side
of billboard. I turned up the image brightness and then it was obvious.

Thanks for doing that!
--
Mark Brader | "It doesn't have to actually *be* special, but you have
Toronto | to make people think it is, and sometimes the easiest way
| to do that is to make it special." -- Peter Reiher

My text in this article is in the public domain.