DSLRUsers.com

I'm getting frustrated by everyone saying that a horizon must be straight, and after thinking deeply and soulfully, I drew the bottom line... It is a taste thing only.

I'll take a punt. I believe the more technically minded of us will be biased towards straight horizons, while the artsy ones like me think a straight horizon is boring.

This post is going to see how the people here are divided.

EDIT- TO put it simply, the photos that I was thinking about the most are the ones where the actual horizon is in the photo. For example this shot posted by killakoala was suggested that a straightening is necessary:



Thread here: http://www.d70users.com/viewtopic.php?p=92233#92233

Hi Heath
interesting topic. I feel that it should be determined by the type/mood of the photo. An arty looking photo (such as Leigh's current POTW), I feel is enhanced by the non-straight lines. A nice landscape photo however, often loses it's punch if the horizon is not straight.

That is not to say that you can never have a nice landscape photo with a tilted horizon....it comes down to what YOU, the photographic artist, prefers. When you start taking photos to please everyone else you'll soon find your passion for your art will dwindle away.

If you like your horizon's tilted, so be it. That's your spin on things. Doesn't mean that everyone - or anyone for that matter) has to like it.

Therefore, I decided to post my response as the two choices in the poll were too limited....for me.

Clearly Heath according to your post it is going to divide the community into those with taste or without taste given the parameters of your preferences.

I am a little uncertain as to what you mean exactly by a straight horizon. Do you mean straight as in not displaying the aberrations of optical distortion? Or do you mean straight as in level - as it appears in the world (just as well too, I might add, or all the ships would slide off to one side.)

If your comment is based upon the optical distortion and curvature away from straight then I think that we will see a growing tolerance for this as an increasing number of retro-focus and zoom objectives come into use and a decreasing number of true wide-angle lenses such as are used on a view camera are utilised due to the need for a miror box on reflex cameras. This slow shift in attitude can be seen by the prevalence of imagery in the world (especially cinema and television) where convergence of parallels in vertical structures is evident and growing in acceptance. Could it be that the camera-obscura which was initially devised to facilitate the rendering of accurate proportion, scale and orientation in accord with Renaissance notions of the geometry of the world has developed to a point where it is finally negating those old conventions? A new Renaissance loometh, perhaps!

On the other hand, if your comment is regarding the depiction of a LEVEL horizon then I believe that we are faced with a question of degree and also with a question of subject. An horizon which is just a nat's tit off level is an aggravation in a landscape whereas if the level is considerably off the horizontal it is less obtrusive and becomes a part of the design. Again, this would be far more jarring in a panoramic seascape, for instance, then in the background of a picture of a foreground subject.

The photographer, like the artist, is the author of an image and all responisibility for every component of an image rests squarely on the photographer's shoulders. Each of us will have a different preference and this will largely be the product of the influences we have encountered and our reaction to them. Some will like geometric precision and others will get party hats on tyheir gonads for images less structured.

I can't vote because the two choices do not include my preference which is to do what best suits the picture as a whole.

Yes, a picture can be spoiled by an incorrect horizon, but ....

Sometimes horizons aren't straight.

We could have hills or slopes which simply aren't horizontal.

More commonly though, we have a horizon which isn't perpendicular to the viewer. If it runs on an angle across the image, it may appear to be crooked when it is not.

You can liken this effect to a railway track disappearing into the distance - the parallel lines of the track will appear to converge, when they logically do not.

I prefer to consider the horizon in conjunction with verticals from trees, buildings, boat masts etc. If "straightening the horizon" causes a vertical to cease being vertical, it's a fair bet that the horizon isn't actually straight.

Trev,

True, the visible horizon is not always level, but it should not be overlooked that many structures are not vertically 'true' either - not so much buildings, but certainly power poles and lamp posts. By virtue of the fact that they are afloat yacht masts can never be vertical.

I do not recall the last time I took a photograph without the aid of a spirit level either mounted on the camera (in the case of roll-film cameras or DSLRs) or as a part of the camera in the more frequent use of my view camera. Whether the intention is to have the horizon level or not doesn't matter, I just find it immensely useful to know where the null point is so I can quantify the deviation. I might add that for over 25 years I shot nothing but nudes for editorial features and the spirit level was used on them also - maybe part of why I left that milieu for architecture was that I had inherently looked on the human form with the same discipline as architecture. Things like the use of a tripod, or a mono-pod or a spirit level very quickly become second nature and don't intrude into the connection between photographer and motif.

Cheers,

Sheetshooter wrote:Trev,

I might add that for over 25 years I shot nothing but nudes for editorial features and the spirit level was used on them also - maybe part of why I left that milieu for architecture was that I had inherently looked on the human form with the same discipline as architecture. Things like the use of a tripod, or a mono-pod or a spirit level very quickly become second nature and don't intrude into the connection between photographer and motif.

Cheers,

SS,
Thanx for your input. Valid points.

Wow, I am impressed with your discipline. I can't imagine myself being able to look at a spirit level with nude models in the room

I would like to add that the horizon in my photo is actually BENT so even if i did straighten it, as i usually do in a photo like this one, it would still look bent. It was taken at 18mm so has a certain level of distortion in it.

I think the uneven horizon matches the cloud bands in the sky on the opposing 1/3rd so it doesn't really detract from the compostion. Plus the mast is at an almost 90 degree aspect from both the cloud bands and the horizon.

I will try it with a straight horizon, but i think that it will require cropping and may lose some of it's compostional power, as that image you see there is straight out of the camera.

I could go either way with the poll, as it depends on the image the photographer wants to portray, and artists can also be non-conformists

Trev,

At least the dames knew I was on the level.

May I digress to relate an anecdote that really happened? Years ago I was doing a feature article portrait of Kiwi songstress Sharon O'Neill where I had her incorporated into some angular architecture. Of course there was the ubiquitous spirit-level in the flash shoe of the Leica I was using at the time. An old derelict drunk wearing a surplus store great-coat staggered towards me - my worst nightmare, I thought. He pointed to the spirit-level and enquired about it with a slurred diction. I did my usual of telling him it was a V.U. Meter for seances and with that he reached into his coat and pulled out an 18 inch builder's level and started telling me how important it was for things to be level. He already knew that neither the light pole nor the bus seat were level.

back to normal programming, sorry.

Killakoala wrote:I would like to add that the horizon in my photo is actually BENT so even if i did straighten it, as i usually do in a photo like this one, it would still look bent. It was taken at 18mm so has a certain level of distortion in it.

I agree Killa. I don't see this horizon as an issue, and I figured it was a WA shot.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything here - it's interesting how perception varies amongst us all.
But to me the boat looks "square" in the image and the fact that the horizon may not run along a ruler is of no import to the pic.

SS -

HB - put simply, land masses need not be horizontal because of the nature of the land. But to see an ocean that is not level is totally unatural unless it is in the context of a surfer shot as posted by ozimax where the horizon has little import on the pic.

There was a pic posted the other day that was excellent but the ship on the horizon would have been sliding off the left hand side of the horizon, but thankfully, it was only a pic.

I am not making specific comment on Steve’s excellent shot only to say that due to the nature of water the mast need not be vertical, but a horizon(tal) is horizontal.

Maybe we should keep in mind that art is in the eye of the beholder as is critique

Heath

I'm pretty much like the others. Horizon straightening is an artefact of the pic. If the horizon is crooked for artistic reasons or because of distortion then straightening it is unlikely to make the image better. OTOH if the horizon is crooked because of unintentional camera tilt, for whatever reason, then I'd say it should be straightened.

Damn this fence is painful to sit on

In my view, horizon is expected to be horizontal (that's how the noun is derived) in most shots unless there is a reason(s) why it has to be crooked. It's de rigueur from what I've seen, and I'm willing to bet that the same critique will be levelled against the picture (which is excellent by the way, like I said) on any other photography forum. It's the only technical, for the lack of a better word, flaw in the photo.

This is why photographers like you and I want on-demand grid lines in the viewfinder.

It's frustrating, oh yes. But in this picture's case, it's not in anyway fatal. Far from it. Since the photographer is asking for critique, us armchair photographers can only do nought but suggest some. At the end of the day, all of us benefit from reading each others' suggestions as we strive for ways to improve our images. It's like a martial art - learn, digest, practise, improve, again and again. Then rinse and repeat.

I didn't realise that the horizon is "bent". Now that I have to see!

Andoru wrote:This is why photographers like you and I want on-demand grid lines in the viewfinder.

It's a pity the D70 viewfinder gridlines aren't 100% straight...from what I've read and noticed on a couple of my own shots

OMG really?!!!! LOL!

It looks like the water is draining to the right. I like them nice and sqaure

--Wade