DSLRUsers.com

A common critiscisim of some of my posted images is that the horizon is not always straight....or the image has a slight tilt to the left or the right. I find this rather annoying after awhile, it's almost as if there is some unspoken rule that horizons and vertical should all be perfectly aligned with reality. When we walk we rarely do so with our heads perpendicular to the ground. Not even tai chi masters can do that. So the most common position of the head is a slight tilt, either left or right...or constant movement of the head off the perpendicular. And though this does not alter the geometry of our vision, IE, horizons are still parallel to the earth.....it does change the boundries, or frame, of our vision. Our field of vision is not a circle. If we were to then transcribe that vision onto a 2 dimensional plane, such as a sheet of printing paper, then the horizon would have a tilt that corresponded to the degree of head tilt at the time the image was captured visually. If I post an image on the forum you can be sure I am aware if the image has a tilt and I would not be posting the image if the tilt in any way weakened the image or robbed it of its message. This is not to say that those who are critical of the composition have no right to be so, and are perfectly entitled to mention that a tilt, in their mind, weakens or somehow detracts from the image. I welcome all constructive comments. But it seems that some jump at every chance to announce that they have spotted a , (to their mind), weakness in the composition, whilst others care not a whit about the image geometry and are quite happy to view the subject as it is presented.
So....to tilt, creatively, or to employ the services of a theodolite every time you take a pic....what's your view?
Comments invited.

I know some can "see" a very slight tilt (e.g. < 1 degree) however I don't seem to be blessed with this "gift" when looking at posted images.

Personally though for me if it's close enough it's good enough - tho I do employ the virtual horizon in my D7000 (very happy with that little feature) with most landscapy shots I take on tripod to check my manual visual positioning was close enough (unless of course it looks "wrong" and I ignore the virtual horizon for a manual set - this doesn't happen very often but it does happen).

I reckon if you're going to have a noticeably (and here I don't know what defines noticeable) titled horizon then you should make it obvious by not just having it slightly off but rather obviously off - it doesn't have to be 30 or 45 degrees but it can't be so slight that you assume it was an accident.

I don't disagree with your analysis of the way we hold our heads, but I respectfully disagree with your conclusion.

There's some fancy wizardry going on in our brains that keeps our perception of the landscape about us vertical, even if we have our head on a crazy angle. We cannot do that with your photos (or anyone else's)

Whilst I can also see that a tilt can enhance an image, as soon as we notice that an image is not straight (in a negative way) then to my mind the enhancement by the tilt is not strong enough to save the image for that viewer. I guess, this is an artistic merit value judgement, so as the artist, your call.

Someone commenting on a posted image's tilt may bring it to the attention of others who had not noticed. +/-

Personally, I hardly ever take a deliberately tilted image. Those I take that have an unintentional tilt, I religiously correct...

Matt, I think it depends on each individual photo. I personally find a very slight tilt really annoying in most instances; whereas an obvious tilt does not detract from the image imo. If there is a definite horizon and it's tilted by a degree or so, I wanna twist it right. If its at like 30 degrees it doesn't bother me cos it seems obvious that the shot doesn't intend to have a straight horizon. It's like a portrait, if you chop like a cm of the subjects head it looks wrong, you take a few inches off and it looks perfectly normal.

If I take your latest example the tilt didnt look right to me. I also have had alot of comments saying...the dof should have been deeper. Now i personally dont like it, i like it shallow but everyone has their preference. If you like it that way then you like it that way.

I'm with Michael on this. Our brains can "auto-correct" what we see in life but have a hard time with a captured image or video. When I see a tilted image it just doesn't look right. Although, if the tilt is exaggerated, it can work, e.g. the lairs of Batman's nemeses.

Our brains do the same sort of thing with white balance. When you walk into a room lit by incandescent lamps you don't immediately think "Look how orange everything looks". Take a photo in that room with the camera's white balance set on daylight and the resulting image looks a mess.

As a rule I ignore tilts as well as focus and well as exposure blowouts... unless any of those things are really detremental to the intent of the photo. I think C&C of shots here has improved somewhat over the years but we do tend to still feel a need to comment on a few technical aspects rather than overall artistic merit. Of course we all come at our photography from different backgrounds and experience and that will always influence our perception of what is important... I seem to remember one particular, very blurry shot that received quite a bit of criticism (but I rather liked it). I posted one composition some time ago and the overriding concern seemed to be about the blowout from the sun (try looking straight into the sun and see what you see... I was fully aware of the blowout and it was part of the shot).

And anyways... I always understood that you only ever shot after a drink or three so expect that very few compositions would be from a sober aspect... head up Matt...

It is why critiquing an image is so difficult. What one person sees as artistic, another sees as a technical mistake.

A tilted image is like a toothpaste tube squeezed from the top - of no import to some, but a cardinal error to others.

Tilts annoy the bejesus out of me so if it's one of my shots I generally straighten it in PP. Likewise I'm prone to use the perspective correction tool on architectural shots for a similar reason (and don't start me on blown highlights).

But that's my work and my approach to my images. A tilted image we see from another photographer, assuming PP has been applied, can be assumed to be meant that way or else the photographer would have corrected in PP so while I may occasionally comment on the tilt of an image in a critique, generally my focus is on the composition as a whole of which the tilt is but a part.

Usually I'll mention tilt if it's too forced (not a big fan of uber tilted car in motion shots for example), but then the comment is dictated by my taste and how the composition seems to me. Ultimately the call as to what to do with/to an image comes down to one person - the taker of the shot

And finally Matt, thanks for sharing your annoyance. I think this can be an opportunity for some useful commentary on this (and related) topics.

ATJ wrote:I'm with Michael on this. Our brains can "auto-correct" what we see in life but have a hard time with a captured image or video. When I see a tilted image it just doesn't look right. Although, if the tilt is exaggerated, it can work, e.g. the lairs of Batman's nemeses.

Our brains do the same sort of thing with white balance. When you walk into a room lit by incandescent lamps you don't immediately think "Look how orange everything looks". Take a photo in that room with the camera's white balance set on daylight and the resulting image looks a mess.

Pretty much what I was going to say.Down to the WB reference.

As possibly the one who mentioned tilt who set you off, the mention was that the tilt bothered me. It doesn't always, and I by no means think that horizontals must be horizontal ( nor verticals vertical). In fact I rarely notice it as I look at the gestalt rather than particular elements of a composition. In that particular photo, something felt wrong. After looking at it for a while I decided the tilt was the offending aspect. So I commented. But it is MY reaction to the photo. I own that. You are welcome to have your own reaction, but if you place a photo in the comment and critique section, you must accept my reaction, even when you disagree.

The tilt is no different to any other aspect. Who's to say that you didn't intentionally overexpose or crop the arms off or whatever else is generally regarded as a fault.
I guess if you're a novice you may need to be made aware of the possible flaws but I can see why someone of Matt's experience may get annoyed. At the end of the day, when you put a photo up for critique you have to be able to accept criticism regardless of your opinion of it.

Greg
I always respect your comments both positive and negative, and yes, it was your comment that made me look more closely at my posted image. That's how we grow and learn. Your post inspired me to put down my thoughts on tilts in the hope of getting a lively debate going. Thanks for taking the time to critque.

I often post images with slight tilts in them, unintentional...and when someone points it out I notice them. This is helpful to me when I am not after a tilt (most of the time) but there are times when it feels like it is the only critique you have gotten

Please continue to tell me about tilts in my images! BUT I would also like to get deeper comments about my work so I can grow and learn.

I am a tilt-misser so usually glad when someone points out a tilt in especially landscapes which was usually 'ruined' if you print it with a tilt.
For a while I thought it was because my monitor was at an angle.

the foto fanatic wrote:It is why critiquing an image is so difficult. What one person sees as artistic, another sees as a technical mistake.

I think it's relatively easy to critique a photograph, but to do so in a tactful/helpful manner is quite an art. Often too much tact can come across as condescending! I guess the idea of a good critique is that it makes everyone feel good (if possible) and provides helpful feedback for improvement (if required).

Mj wrote:we do tend to still feel a need to comment on a few technical aspects rather than overall artistic merit.

I think both aspects are relevant for each and every photograph that we critique.

phillipb wrote:I guess if you're a novice you may need to be made aware of the possible flaws but I can see why someone of Matt's experience may get annoyed

This brings up an important part of image critique. I reckon you just need to critique the image rather than the photographer or their talent.

Your reading too much into it. Solution. Fix the tilt.

... or alternatively, just have a title: "Please consume at least one glass of whiskey before critiquing this image".

I just put a wedge of paper under one side of my monitor ....

Murray Foote wrote:... or alternatively, just have a title: "Please consume at least one glass of whiskey before critiquing this image".

But depending on what way you list that could make things worse

slightly tilted horizons are one of those things that just standsout like dogs balls to me (note just about all my shots actually are crooked - but thats cause my monitor is crooked and I am too lazy to do anything about it!)

Really for me, if some one is picking up tilted horizons in my images its more of a compliment, its the most insignificant feature of a photo in terms of teh end product, 2 seconds rework can fix it, I would rather have a session full of tilted horizons then a session of poorly composed images fullstop. Hence if thats all people pick up its gotta be pretty good otherwise

Horizons with people in them - don't matter to me, actually a tilt can add a sense of candid capture..
Landscape images, where teh horizon is a prominent feature, ie sunrise or sunset - fix it.

Matt, how about a couple of examples? The one of teh break dancers the other day is probably a good one, was it delibrate in this case? does it matter whether its delibrate or not? will it affect the end use of the image?

Hi Gerry
Here are 3 recent (X10) images that have "tilts". In no way was I concerned with having a horizontal horizon when I took these....nor would I consider altering the images in order to "correct" the perspective. They are fine by me. I was far more interested in other elements of the composition such as balance and colour. Not sure what others would think.

Hey Matt, cheers for the samples. I find the second image is one where teh tilt actually adds to the frame and sense of shot. Call me a ignorant philistine but the first would be straightened in my books as it does not add anything IMHO.

The last one, what tilt I can only see teh woman in teh bottom corner

Hey Matt, out of curiosity, do you carry your camera bag on your right shoulder or left?
All your tilted photos seem to tilt to the left.
I tried comparing your photo of the pink house with a straightened version of it side by side, and I must admit that I prefer the straight one.

The first doesn't bother me cost the boat is straight, if you adjust the horizon then the boat would look like its gonna take off. The second doesn't bother me cos it's a hill and the people are straight. The third is annoying as all hell to me.

Despite what you are inferring, you're not thinking any differently to the rest of us when taking the image. I doubt any of us are sitting there thinking...fuck the subject, the horizon has to be straight. I would hope any one of us are thinking about compositions and structuring the image based on the primary subject. All we are saying is we are inclined to correct these things in post.

I think the only test is to straighten them, put each pair up against each other, and then see what looks best. Sometimes when you straighten an image you suddenly realise the bits you thought were straight looked bent. Alternatively, if bent is better, maybe it should be more bent. In Image 2 you also have the option of straightening the ground and then maybe the peoples and building are just affected by a strong wind.

Murray Foote wrote: In Image 2 you also have the option of straightening the ground

If you look closely, you will see that that is what he's done: he's negated the slope of the hill, making the bottom of the building parallel to the bottom edge of the image. The incline of the hill is evident at the top of the image/building, however. and the walls of the buildings appear tilted as a result.

One the pic is how you saw it but it is not reality per se.

In two absolutely spot on

Three so the Chinese have built a leaning tower of Pisa (or is it pizza).

Just one point Matt, you are absolutely correct in your belief in your own pics but you are absolutely wrong in getting hot-under-the-collar when somebody offers critique that includes horizon levelling.

That is why it is called critique and not, Oh! what a loverly picture guv’ (misspelling intentional)