# Are straight horizons overrated?



## Fred Berg (Oct 22, 2014)

It seems so...

BBC News - Slumbering lions win top wildlife photo prize

The last great picture | Michael 'Nick' Nichols | Black and White | Wildlife Photographer of the Year


----------



## tirediron (Oct 22, 2014)

No.


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 22, 2014)

It becomes a weirdly different photo if you straighten it out. A photo that feels far lesser.


----------



## Rick50 (Oct 23, 2014)

No is right.


----------



## bribrius (Oct 23, 2014)

not over rated but not necessary or even preferable in some cases


----------



## Derrel (Oct 23, 2014)

Yes, perfectly straight horizons are not necessary. For well over a century, slightly non-level horizons were quite common, and were and are still a part of the idiom of photography. I've even seen a few TPF arguments about "crooked horizons" on lakes and ponds...hilarious chit, considering that MOST ponds are somewhat round, and the "crooked horizon" is almost always actually curving land and water! Hilarious! The anal fixation on perfectly leveling every picture is probably due to so many folks switching on virtual horizon aids while shooting, and also spending untold effort to get to 0.00 angle on every frame they process. It's almost like worrying and obsessing over that last 20 Kelvin degrees...sort of an OCD-like obsession for some I think.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 23, 2014)

It really pisses me off when people say straighten your horizons most have only had a camera for a few weeks, lots of my photos have half people coming in or out of the the photo and people say crop it, NO that is the way I took it and want it


----------



## bratkinson (Oct 23, 2014)

I always try to get my horizons horizontal in the camera.  But when looking at them on my computer, sometimes they don't come out that way, so I fix them. 

Back in my 35mm slide days, 'what you shot was what you got'.  I like to think I did reasonably well back then.

Why do I semi- "obsess" on horizontal horizontals? (and vertical verticals, if possible), because in most cases, something seems a little 'off' if it's not horizontal.  My point-and-shoot photographer dentist proudly displays a sunset over the ocean shot he took about a year ago on the wall in one of the rooms with 'the hot seat'.  I looked at the otherwise pleasing photo, but in less than a second, the non-horizontal water line on the horizon made it look odd to me.

These days, however, most of my photography is indoor events at church other than weddings.  Even with all the latest horizontal and vertical adjustment capabilities in Lightroom, I oftentimes have to come up with a slight compromise on converging/diverging vertical lines.  Sometimes, I'll crop and try again and again until I get things to look pleasing.  The alignments of walls, doors, horizontal lines, etc sometimes do not lend themselves to a pleasing picture.  As a result, I may give up and trash the photo altogether, or crop the daylights out of it so most of the angular lines are no longer in the picture.


----------



## korreman (Oct 23, 2014)

Horizons are a pet peeve for me. Either the horizons angle has function in the photo, or you make it damn straight. Yea, in the good ol' days horizons might have been what they where because of missing software, but this is the 21st century, and it takes 20 seconds to get right! When the horizon isn't present, there are a huge number of things that show the horizons angle. I can't not see how straight a photo is. My brain adjusts for my eyes, but not for what I see on screen!

So yea, it's an obsessive thing for me. It's one of those things I can't ignore, like bad kerning, asymmetric architecture, crappy design, etc. So if you do digital, please straighten your photo. You might as well, it's not hard, and you're doing people like me a huge favor! Photos without straightening just look bad in my eyes.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 23, 2014)

korreman said:


> Horizons are a pet peeve for me. Either the horizons angle has function in the photo, or you make it damn straight. Yea, in the good ol' days horizons might have been what they where because of missing software, but this is the 21st century, and it takes 20 seconds to get right! When the horizon isn't present, there are a huge number of things that show the horizons angle. I can't not see how straight a photo is. My brain adjusts for my eyes, but not for what I see on screen!
> 
> So yea, it's an obsessive thing for me. It's one of those things I can't ignore, like bad kerning, asymmetric architecture, crappy design, etc. So if you do digital, please straighten your photo. You might as well, it's not hard, and you're doing people like me a huge favor! Photos without straightening just look bad in my eyes.


Worrying about horizon's like that makes photos sterile with no life


----------



## sleist (Oct 23, 2014)

It will be a distraction in many images.  Whether or not that means anything to the image or the viewer will vary by viewer and image.
In the example, fixing the horizon in post would bring the lower lion too close to the edge of the frame or clip it.  This would have ruined the image.

Getting it right in the first place would have been ideal.  Not like the lions were going anywhere and it takes 5 seconds.
Checking horizons is part of framing an image.

In this image I find it a distraction.  This is not just a picture of lions.  The sunset rays, clouds, and ocean are a huge parts of this image and that makes this a landscape shot in my mind.  Ask a landscape photographer if level horizons are important.


----------



## sleist (Oct 23, 2014)

gsgary said:


> korreman said:
> 
> 
> > Horizons are a pet peeve for me. Either the horizons angle has function in the photo, or you make it damn straight. Yea, in the good ol' days horizons might have been what they where because of missing software, but this is the 21st century, and it takes 20 seconds to get right! When the horizon isn't present, there are a huge number of things that show the horizons angle. I can't not see how straight a photo is. My brain adjusts for my eyes, but not for what I see on screen!
> ...



I'm willing to bet that if you asked the photographer of "Slumbering Lions" if he _*intended*_ to frame this shot with a crooked horizon, he would say no.  I imagine he was bothered enough to consider fixing it, but realized he framed the shot too tight to allow for any correction.  The tilt is small enough to get away with here, but at the same time it's also small enough to have corrected without altering the composition - had it not been for the lion at the bottom.

As for level horizons making for sterile images - this is an argument lazy photographers make after the fact.  If the intent was there, then yes it's a creative element.   If there was no intent prior to pressing the shutter, then it was a mistake.  If the mistake works, then it's an accident.  Accidental art does not make you an artist.


----------



## korreman (Oct 23, 2014)

gsgary said:


> korreman said:
> 
> 
> > Horizons are a pet peeve for me. Either the horizons angle has function in the photo, or you make it damn straight. Yea, in the good ol' days horizons might have been what they where because of missing software, but this is the 21st century, and it takes 20 seconds to get right! When the horizon isn't present, there are a huge number of things that show the horizons angle. I can't not see how straight a photo is. My brain adjusts for my eyes, but not for what I see on screen!
> ...



It's not that I choose to worry about it, I just see it when it's there. It's not like I worry about it when taking a photo or doing the photo-specific post processing. I recognize that I, and a part of viewers, will find it annoying, and it might ruin the images for them. So it just becomes part of my standard work-flow, like sharpening or adjusting the white balance. Of course I'm not necessarily going for 0.00°, but whatever works for the image and it's "weight" when I'm doing my post processing. So, IMO, it doesn't make my photos sterile, it's just another technical aspect to take into account. I'd rather do this and be aware of it than not care about it and take photos where this aspect is not taken into account.


----------



## runnah (Oct 23, 2014)

Sounds like some people need to broaden their horizons rather than straighten.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 23, 2014)

korreman said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > korreman said:
> ...


That where we differ I don't care what the viewer thinks if I like the photo it is good


----------



## gsgary (Oct 23, 2014)

sleist said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > korreman said:
> ...


In the rules you are only allowed basic adjustments and I'm not sure if you are allowed to crop, how do you know if it is level the horizon could be slopping because there is no sea to check


----------



## Designer (Oct 23, 2014)

It's entirely possible that the land (the assumed "horizon line") is not level.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 23, 2014)

Since the earth is flat we need flat horizons.

I've seen the local newspaper's photos gone from professional to ... someone walking buy took a cell phone shot on their internet site.  They seem to fix things before they print their newspaper though.  

It seems as though they go for the shot or parts of it, rather then correcting everything of which only the most particular people will catch. 

Most people just look at a picture for a second or too then press "Like" and move on.


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 23, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Yes, perfectly straight horizons are not necessary. For well over a century, slightly non-level horizons were quite common, and were and are still a part of the idiom of photography. I've even seen a few TPF arguments about "crooked horizons" on lakes and ponds...hilarious chit, considering that MOST ponds are somewhat round, and the "crooked horizon" is almost always actually curving land and water! Hilarious! The anal fixation on perfectly leveling every picture is probably due to so many folks switching on virtual horizon aids while shooting, and also spending untold effort to get to 0.00 angle on every frame they process. It's almost like worrying and obsessing over that last 20 Kelvin degrees...sort of an OCD-like obsession for some I think.





gsgary said:


> It really pisses me off when people say straighten your horizons most have only had a camera for a few weeks, lots of my photos have half people coming in or out of the the photo and people say crop it, NO that is the way I took it and want it





gsgary said:


> korreman said:
> 
> 
> > Horizons are a pet peeve for me. Either the horizons angle has function in the photo, or you make it damn straight. Yea, in the good ol' days horizons might have been what they where because of missing software, but this is the 21st century, and it takes 20 seconds to get right! When the horizon isn't present, there are a huge number of things that show the horizons angle. I can't not see how straight a photo is. My brain adjusts for my eyes, but not for what I see on screen!
> ...





runnah said:


> Sounds like some people need to broaden their horizons rather than straighten.


I understand differing artistic opinions but they seem much less valid  and based on male chest thumping when  there is an insistence that one's own way is the only right way and everyone else is stupid or misinformed in some way.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 23, 2014)

Is some what right in my case


----------



## gsgary (Oct 23, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, perfectly straight horizons are not necessary. For well over a century, slightly non-level horizons were quite common, and were and are still a part of the idiom of photography. I've even seen a few TPF arguments about "crooked horizons" on lakes and ponds...hilarious chit, considering that MOST ponds are somewhat round, and the "crooked horizon" is almost always actually curving land and water! Hilarious! The anal fixation on perfectly leveling every picture is probably due to so many folks switching on virtual horizon aids while shooting, and also spending untold effort to get to 0.00 angle on every frame they process. It's almost like worrying and obsessing over that last 20 Kelvin degrees...sort of an OCD-like obsession for some I think.
> ...


The earth is round


----------



## gsgary (Oct 23, 2014)

My missus says I'm always right and I believe her


----------



## sashbar (Oct 23, 2014)

There is a huge difference between an overlooked tilted horizon and  the one that was tilted by the author for a valid artistic/compositional reason. 99% are just overlooked and not justified IMHO, even though the photographer is subconsciously trying to compensate for the visual weight imbalance.


----------



## runnah (Oct 23, 2014)

I think you can get away with it if the horizon is obscured by enough elements but when it's wide open like that you can't help noticed how off it is.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 23, 2014)

First of all, remember the difference between "level" and "straight".  A horizon may not be straight, but it should always be level, when averaged out across the visual frame.  It's also important to remember that a lot of times we use the word "horizon" when simply refering to the background of an image.  That may well NOT be the horizon ("_the line at which the earth's surface and the sky appear to meet._"). 

While there can be a case made for artistic license with respect to angled images or horizons ("Dutch tilt"), at the end of the day, water is ALWAYS level, and IMO, that should be reflected in one's images.


----------



## jsecordphoto (Oct 23, 2014)

It's a pet peeve for me, when processing photos. Sometimes are worse than others and I will stand back from my computer to check to see if it looks level. I know in LR you can drag the line across your frame to level it, but in scenes where the horizon isn't really level to start with, it drives me insane sometimes.


----------



## baturn (Oct 23, 2014)

I try to straighten/level all keepers. If others don't, it affects me not at all.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 23, 2014)

The biggest issue I have is the website is white on black.  I can't stand reading text like that.... I have to copy it and paste it into a word program to read it.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 23, 2014)

480sparky said:


> The biggest issue I have is the website is white on black.  I can't stand reading text like that.... I have to copy it and paste it into a word program to read it.


----------



## lambertpix (Oct 23, 2014)

Fred Berg said:


> It seems so...
> 
> BBC News - Slumbering lions win top wildlife photo prize
> 
> The last great picture | Michael 'Nick' Nichols | Black and White | Wildlife Photographer of the Year



I personally would've wanted the horizon straight, if possible.  I don't know what the uncropped photo looked like, but if we're looking at the real bottom of the frame, straightening this shot would've cut off the bottom lion, I think, so the lesser of two evils is probably a little tilt to the horizon.  Even with the tilt, though, it's still a nice shot.

As tirediron mentioned, there might be artistic reasons to tilt the horizon, and in those cases, I'd want the tilt to be pronounced enough that it's clear it's an artistic choice rather than a mistake, and as Darrel mentioned, sometimes there are elements in a photo that suggest a tilt when it's not really there.  I don't think this is one of those cases.


----------



## Alexr25 (Oct 23, 2014)

Fred Berg said:


> It seems so...
> 
> BBC News - Slumbering lions win top wildlife photo prize
> 
> The last great picture | Michael 'Nick' Nichols | Black and White | Wildlife Photographer of the Year


What make you think this horizon should be level? That background is the plains, it is not water, its a land/sky horizon so the angle it presents to the viewer need not be level and will depend on the configuration of the land.


----------



## JacaRanda (Oct 23, 2014)

runnah said:


> I think you can get away with it if the horizon is obscured by enough elements but when it's wide open like that you can't help noticed how off it is.



Photographer types notice.  Prior to tpf, I would have never noticed (I don't think).  I may have felt it, but not known exactly what it was or why I felt it.

It would have been 'ooh, cool lions, cool clouds, cool rays, cool picture and where is the color'.


----------



## Designer (Oct 23, 2014)

This "line" is off level enough to cause consternation in me.  The photograph has tension because of it.  I don't know if the photographer intended it or just overlooked the non-levelness of the line.


----------



## Gary A. (Oct 23, 2014)

Usually, more often than not it is always straight horizons for me. But I was schooled as a documentarian. Sometimes I tilt the camera. Buy my tilts are significant and clearly show intent.


----------



## Gary A. (Oct 23, 2014)

I believe consistently attaining straight horizons also attest to a skill level and an attention to detail, possessed by the photographer.


----------



## MSnowy (Oct 23, 2014)

I'm in the building business so I have to have things straight and level. This carries over to photography for me. Crooked horizons bug the crap out of me. I'm so bad that I straighten pictures hanging on walls in people's homes and business.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Oct 23, 2014)

All depends on what you're shooting. If it's sports and they are playing on a level field/ice surface  yes they should be straight.  Motorsports, depending on type, a lot of tracks the horizon line isn't straight, except drag racing, which should be level.   In the lion photo, it is a long horizon line and personally I would have made sure it was straight.  There may have be a reason why it isn't that would have to be explained by the photographer.  Regardless it is a nice image.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 23, 2014)

Gary A. said:


> Usually, more often than not it is always straight horizons for me. But I was schooled as a documentarian. Sometimes I tilt the camera. Buy my tilts are significant and clearly show intent.


I'm a joiner and I don't carry it over to photograhy 2 different things


MSnowy said:


> I'm in the building business so I have to have things straight and level. This carries over to photography for me. Crooked horizons bug the crap out of me. I'm so bad that I straighten pictures hanging on walls in people's homes and business.


----------



## Vince.1551 (Oct 23, 2014)

It depends...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## gsgary (Oct 23, 2014)

Sorry quoted wrong post


----------



## Derrel (Oct 23, 2014)

It's obvious. His photo is utter chit. Worthless, fertilizer-grade chit. Because, you know, the horizon is not at 0.00. That is pretty much the prevailing criteria here it seems for judging images. Thankfully, the contest judges were not a TPF panel.


----------



## JTPhotography (Oct 23, 2014)

Level horizons work in some cases, in this case, it doesn't. It should have been leveled. I am wondering if the reason he didn't is because it would have caused a bottom crop that would have been too close to the lion. That probably could have been dealt with. If I had been one of the judges, I would have passed on this one. Sorry, it is just one of those fatal flaws (in a landscape image with a clearly defined horizon) that can't be overlooked. No different than a portrait where there is a tree coming out of the top of someone's head. These types of flaws are different from, say, a centered horizon, which is generally a no-no, but can be justified.


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 23, 2014)

It's possible the horizon is just an error, unfixable because as noted the crop might well destroy the lower left.

The tilted horizon seems to add tension or dynamism. Straighten the horizon and it's just a bunch of sleepy cats. Still a pretty cool photo, but not an award winner.


----------



## TheStunch (Oct 23, 2014)

This is kindof a non issue.  Crooked horizon? eyes not perfectly in focus? killing rule of thrids?  Sometimes important sometimes not: 

Good photos do not need to adhere to standard photography rules if they are good.  What is good?  You'll know it when you see it.


----------



## Gary A. (Oct 23, 2014)

Derrel said:


> It's obvious. His photo is utter chit. Worthless, fertilizer-grade chit. Because, you know, the horizon is not at 0.00. That is pretty much the prevailing criteria here it seems for judging images. Thankfully, the contest judges were not a TPF panel.


Maybe his photo was so good that in spite of a crooked horizon, it was successful.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 23, 2014)

I thought that was a lake beyond the lions ... not plains.
Guess I should look at it for 2 seconds and move on .. lol


----------



## bribrius (Oct 23, 2014)

I thought a image was as good as what it conveyed. If it isn't interfering with that and potentially adds to effect or to convey what it is meant to intend then there should not be a problem. Does it detract from the image? I don't believe so. If it was taken upside down, well that could be a problem but in some cases even that is workable. some do seem really stuck on this horizon thing. Photography is 360 degrees.


----------



## korreman (Oct 23, 2014)

Alexr25 said:


> Fred Berg said:
> 
> 
> > It seems so...
> ...



There's a small pool in you can use for reference. It's round, but other aspects of it will tell you how it's tilted. A lot of the clouds show tilt too, as they layer in a horizontal way. The "horizon" might tilt a bit sometimes yea, but it tilts a whole lot here. Pretty much every physical aspect to look at tells me that gravity is suddenly off by a number of degrees. It's not that I'm_ looking_ _for_ these things, I just _see_ that a tilted photo is tilted when I look at it. 

And jeez. I'm not saying my way is the right way, or that this is thing black and white (har har), but saying that one should NOT think about the tilt is stupid, it's like saying that one should not think about DoF or shutter speed or composition. It affects the photo. You might choose to keep the photo the way it was for artistic/photographic reasons, or you might decide another tilt is way better. But at least think about the tilt and how it affects the image.

In this photo, the tilt is obvious. Sometimes it can't be corrected cause of composition, like a slightly OOF photo can't be refocused, and then one has to decide whether the photograph is still good. Of course it's not always about correcting the photo, but just take the tilt into account. Not doing so is kind of sloppy, when you don't even have to consider it that much in the field. A tilted photo can be good, just like any photo with something which is not spot on can be good.


----------



## sashbar (Oct 23, 2014)

There was The Best Urban Photograph world competition (basically street photography)  and the winners were not nearly as good as some images by some unknown photographers I saw on some websites, like Urban Picnic.


----------



## MSnowy (Oct 23, 2014)

Took this today. Note sure if I like the tilt.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 23, 2014)

Gary A. said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > It's obvious. His photo is utter chit. Worthless, fertilizer-grade chit. Because, you know, the horizon is not at 0.00. That is pretty much the prevailing criteria here it seems for judging images. Thankfully, the contest judges were not a TPF panel.
> ...



Exactly, Gary. MANY extremely good photographs have technical flaws, aesthetic flaws, and so on. A lot of Photoshop jockeys cannot seem to make a distinction between photography,you know, the act done with a camera, and "digital imaging", and the way their compulsion to render perfectly every last little aspect of all images is rearing its ugly head more and more often as we move away from real photography, and into the era of _digital imaging_. We're moving toward a point where reality and real photography is being devalued unless it has been run through the perfecting,rotating,and microscopically accurate leveling process in Photoshop. Focusing on the horizon line,the horizon line,the horizon line has reached the point of OCD-category obsession among some people.

It's pretty short-sighted to insist that a horizon line that is either actually not level, or which is visually a bit out of level, is always a seriously fatal fault or flaw. Same with insisting on tack-sharp focus, zero blur, perfect Zone System control, and all that other crap.

Again...the guy won a *photography contest*. Not a *Photoshop horizon-leveling contest*. My goal here is often to make people think about things. I have opinions I will state, emphatically at times. Some people here (not you Gary) miiiiight wanna get used to that. It's a type of writing where the goal is not to be Miss Manners and never take any position that might cause anybody's widdle feeewings to get hwurttt...it's to state a point, an opinion.

I need to get a meme that says,"Other blowhards need not correct this blowhard.""


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 23, 2014)

Several of us need t shirts that say

*Hey! I'm bloviatin' here!
*


----------



## Fred Berg (Oct 23, 2014)

My intention in posting this thread (and links) was to propose that photographs don't need to be "perfect" to be good or even great. Far too often, it seems to me, people get hung up about certain points: the attitude of horizons being a favorite bone of contention with many. The photo which the links lead to won a prestigious award despite its "inconsistencies" with popularly held views.

I just wanted to clarify my position.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 23, 2014)

Designer said:


> This "line" is off level enough to cause consternation in me.  The photograph has tension because of it.  I don't know if the photographer intended it or just overlooked the non-levelness of the line.



Tension is a good thing


----------



## tirediron (Oct 23, 2014)

Derrel said:


> [...MANY extremely good photographs have technical flaws, aesthetic flaws, and so on. A lot of Photoshop jockeys cannot seem to make a distinction between photography,you know, the act done with a camera, and "digital imaging", ....   Again...the guy won a *photography contest*. Not a *Photoshop horizon-leveling contest*.


But really, what has Photoshop to do with it?  One of the first things my instructor taught me when printing was that the easel wasn't bolted to the enlarger table, and you could rotate it as required to make verticals vertical and horizontals horizontal.  I agree whole-heartedly that you can have a great image with technical "flaws", but when they're correctable, why not correct them?


----------



## gsgary (Oct 23, 2014)

MSnowy said:


> Took this today. Note sure if I like the tilt.



Thats pefectly level its a wave and the wave has pushed the lighthouse off plumb


----------



## JTPhotography (Oct 23, 2014)

What if the lions were out of focus, that is a technical flaw, would it still be a great photo?


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 23, 2014)

JTPhotography said:


> What if the lions were out of focus, that is a technical flaw, would it still be a great photo?



_Migrant Mother _is a great example of an iconic (and considered a 'great photo') image that is OOF.


----------



## JTPhotography (Oct 23, 2014)

480sparky said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > What if the lions were out of focus, that is a technical flaw, would it still be a great photo?
> ...



Is that yes or no? 

If the horizon is purposely skewed, I would like to know why. If not, it should have been fixed. You could survey the top 1000 landscape photographers or photojournalists in the world and I bet 95+ % would agree. 

So if it was not intentional, if the lions were unintentionally oof, would it still be a great photo?


----------



## Gary A. (Oct 23, 2014)

Back when I was on my game, if I had a tilted horizon, I would print it ... Then I would dump it and kick myself in the butt for not properly using the camera. For me it aws all part of learning and getting better. Sometimes/often the message would outshine the flaws ... but I always think to myself that a strong message delivered with squared-off horizons is better than a strong message with a flawed horizon. 

A strong photo with no/minor imperfections is better than a strong image with significant imperfections.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 23, 2014)

JTPhotography said:


> Is that yes or no?
> 
> If the horizon is purposely skewed, I would like to know why. If not, it should have been fixed. You could survey the top 1000 landscape photographers or photojournalists in the world and I bet 95+ % would agree.
> 
> So if it was not intentional, if the lions were unintentionally oof, would it still be a great photo?



Neither. Just pointing out that even OOF images can be 'great'.


----------



## Gary A. (Oct 23, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



LOL ... so you don't want me to get used to it ... lol.

I understand. 

Actually I understand your point that I deleted and your point that I included. I don't have any problems with you voicing your opinion(s). I think your opinions come from a serious and wide spectrum of photographic knowledge, a sincere desire to help others based upon your years of experience and a frustration of watching this craft digitally explode and now having to deal with people which cameras (as opposed to photographers) who think their chit don't stink. 

I'm the neophyte here while we may not see eye-to-eye on everything, I think we come pretty close. I will always defer to your TPF seniority and treat your photographic experience and skill with respect.  

Gary


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 23, 2014)

I'm going to repeat this again, because the consensus seems to be that the photo is pretty good except for the flaw of the tilted horizon.

I submit the following idea for consideration:

_It's not a flaw. The picture requires the tilted horizon for dramatic tension._


----------



## Gary A. (Oct 23, 2014)

480sparky said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Is that yes or no?
> ...



"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept" - Henri Cartier-Bresson

I've used to not give this idea much credit. I thought this was a statement by Henri to cover his butt because so much of what he shot wasn't sharp. But lately I've been revisiting this concept.  

To me, all this stuff is about overcoming distractions. An unintentional titled horizon is a distraction. A enormous amount of noise is a distraction, an unsharp subject is a distraction, a muddy image is a distraction ... and the photographer needs to overcome said distraction(s) with subject impact. The photographer needs greater subject impact in order to craft a successful image that contains distractions than an image which does not contain distractions or less distraction.

I have long ago figured out, that I cannot not fathom the reasoning non-photographer utilize to judge photographs. 

Gary


----------



## Gary A. (Oct 23, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> I'm going to repeat this again, because the consensus seems to be that the photo is pretty good except for the flaw of the tilted horizon.
> 
> I submit the following idea for consideration:
> 
> _It's not a flaw. The picture requires the tilted horizon for dramatic tension._



And conversely, squaring off the horizon, which in-turn places the lion's paw against the edge of the frame will also create a 'crowding' dramatic tension as opposed to a tilted dramatic tension. Which is better? It is all subjective. Obviously, in this case the photographer felt the tilted horizon is superior to a crowded edge. Another photographer may have felt otherwise.

The bottom line in all this, is that there are no rules. But the guideline/rules we do have will consistently deliver a successful photograph more so than by not following rules and guidelines.

I had a photo professor who stated "When all else fails, follow the rules."

Gary


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 23, 2014)

So much of this is just pompous, preening bs.

I can't see that anyone here has any right to condemn others in some blanket way for their opinion. No one, and I mean no one, has that authority derived from the work I've seen here.

I wish that anyone who posted here was even close to being as good a photographer as they are a BS-artist, then we would really have some work to inspire each other with.


----------



## JTPhotography (Oct 23, 2014)

480sparky said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Is that yes or no?
> ...



I agree, if it is intentional and successful.


----------



## JTPhotography (Oct 23, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> So much of this is just pompous, preening bs.
> 
> I can't see that anyone here has any right to condemn others in some blanket way for their opinion. No one, and I mean no one, has that authority derived from the work I've seen here.
> 
> I wish that anyone who posted here was even close to being as good a photographer as they are a BS-artist, then we would really have some work to inspire each other with.



I'm not sure who or what you are complaining about, but it is a discussion, and pretty good one IMO. People have no right to offer an opinion, but you have a right to tell them they can't? Umm, no.

Critique is a good exercise, it makes us better. If this was my photo, I would have been extremely disappointed in myself if this was the best shot I got out of this situation. Now, if he only had 5 seconds to fire off one shot before was eaten up, that would be different. Here are some other things I don't like about it. Not enough contrast for a BW for my taste. I would have moved left and framed it in more of a vertical or square format, bringing the lions more to the foreground, eliminated that dark area in the upper left, and thus centering those sun rays a bit more.


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 23, 2014)

The tilted horizon in this case is reminiscent of the view you'd get from a low flying aircraft.

I wonder if this would have been as successful an image before airplanes were common. Is the sense of dynamism just because we've seen this shot in a dozen Michael Bay films, our is there something inherent in human psychology?

Not that it matters. I think it's a cool thing though.


----------



## TheStunch (Oct 23, 2014)

people, people, remember that the rules of photography are more like guidelines anyway.


----------



## manaheim (Oct 23, 2014)

Angled horizons are only a problem if you notice them. A picture that has a lot more going on than the horizon is going to be less of a big deal when slightly off than one that shows the horizon as a central focus point of the image.

Like anything... it depends. That said, IMO, having a tilted horizon for "sloppy" reasons- like you just didn't bother to care or check- is unacceptable.


----------



## 407370 (Oct 23, 2014)

My thing is desert landscapes. Most of the time all that is in the pic is a horizon. There is no point of interest in the foreground or clouds in the sky. The pic below was intended to show a lonely tree.



 


 

The top one is what the actual land looks like as to the right of the pic is an area of erosion so the land actually does rise to the left. I prefer the top one.


----------



## bribrius (Oct 23, 2014)

it would be funny as hell if it turned out the photo was originally level and the photographer tilted it in photo shop for the effect.


----------



## 407370 (Oct 23, 2014)

bribrius said:


> it would be funny as hell if it turned out the photo was originally level and the photographer tilted it in photo shop for the effect.


Oh that would be hilarious


----------



## JTPhotography (Oct 24, 2014)

bribrius said:


> it would be funny as hell if it turned out the photo was originally level and the photographer tilted it in photo shop for the effect.



I would like to know this as well, I emailed him, let's see if he responds.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Oct 24, 2014)

I don't think it's a bad thing to strive for when shooting landscapes, even when the subject of the photo (such as the one of the lion pride) isn't actually the landscape.


----------



## Forkie (Oct 24, 2014)

Straight horizons are definitely not over-rated, but there's a time and place for everything and also times where the straightness of the horizon is not important enough to outweigh the rest of the photo.


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 24, 2014)

JTPhotography said:


> I'm not sure who or what you are complaining about, but it is a discussion, and pretty good one IMO. People have no right to offer an opinion, but you have a right to tell them they can't? Umm, no.



I didn't say that.
People have a right to an opinion about their own beliefs but that right doesn't extend to tearing down others.
There is a marked difference between those who express an opinion as  'I think that horizons should be handled this way or that _blabedy, blah, blah_....................................' and those who say 'I think this way and everyone else who thinks the other way is unknowing, ignorant and/or stupid.'

The first is someone telling how he or she thinks without making any value judgement about others.
The second is an attempt to make their own opinion more important by tearing down others.

Clearer?


----------



## JTPhotography (Oct 24, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure who or what you are complaining about, but it is a discussion, and pretty good one IMO. People have no right to offer an opinion, but you have a right to tell them they can't? Umm, no.
> ...



My apologies, I misread the first time, I think we actually agree here. Serves me right for posting during an allergy attack induced bout with insomnia.


----------



## paigew (Oct 24, 2014)

I try to get my horizons straight. I also try to get my framing right in camera and don't crop very often. Sometimes I will get a slightly crooked horizon and choose to leave it vs loosing part of the image. But yeah, it bugs me


----------



## sashbar (Oct 24, 2014)

My old photo where the horizon is tilted so much it is not even funny, and it is water.. still, I prefer it this way. The shadow of this woman "behind the bars" makes this photo to me.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 24, 2014)

480sparky said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > What if the lions were out of focus, that is a technical flaw, would it still be a great photo?
> ...


And was set up


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 24, 2014)

What does that even mean?


----------



## sleist (Oct 24, 2014)

sashbar said:


> My old photo where the horizon is tilted so much it is not even funny, and it is water.. still, I prefer it this way. The shadow of this woman "behind the bars" makes this photo to me.
> 
> View attachment 87608



This example has absolutely nothing to do with the original photo and what was being discussed with respect to it.
Nice shot by the way.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 24, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> What does that even mean?


Migrant mother was a set up the children were not her children
Dorothea Lange shot it in 1935 at Nipomo California for the FSA
I prefer John Vachon's Children of farmer in Ozarks Missouri 1940


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 24, 2014)

I misspoke. What does that have to do with anything? I'm pretty familiar with the photo and its story.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 24, 2014)

gsgary said:


> Migrant mother was a set up the children were not her children
> Dorothea Lange shot it in 1935 at Nipomo California for the FSA
> I prefer John Vachon's Children of farmer in Ozarks Missouri 1940



Relevance?


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 24, 2014)

Perhaps the point is that despite slightly missed focus, despite the forbidden interaction between photographer and subject, despite the fact that it was not shot with a Leica (disaster! sin! EVIL!) the horizon is level, so Migrant Mother is OK.


----------



## sashbar (Oct 24, 2014)

sleist said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > My old photo where the horizon is tilted so much it is not even funny, and it is water.. still, I prefer it this way. The shadow of this woman "behind the bars" makes this photo to me.
> ...




Tilted horizon line? 
 (But yes, there are no lions in my image, sorry)


----------



## bribrius (Oct 24, 2014)

paigew said:


> I try to get my horizons straight. I also try to get my framing right in camera and don't crop very often. Sometimes I will get a slightly crooked horizon and choose to leave it vs loosing part of the image. But yeah, it bugs me


I sometimes tilt mine just to annoy people.


----------



## Gary A. (Oct 24, 2014)




----------



## gsgary (Oct 24, 2014)

480sparky said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Migrant mother was a set up the children were not her children
> ...


She was shooting for the FSA documenting the  great depression


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 24, 2014)

So... Not relevant at all is what you're saying?


----------



## bogeyguy (Oct 24, 2014)

Over rated, of course, that's why we have necks.


----------



## bribrius (Oct 24, 2014)

bogeyguy said:


> Over rated, of course, that's why we have necks.


well, now that you mention it. Do we always look at things with our head perfectly level? I think not.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 24, 2014)

gsgary said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



I'm not seeing the connection.  I must be missing something.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Oct 24, 2014)

I don't think straight horizons are overrated; if anything tilt seems to be getting overused. I think it's a basic skill in using a camera to hold it straight and frame shots to make sure everything's straight that should be. Like a lot of effects, tilt's better used sparingly and for a specific reason.

Looking closer I did see a break in the horizon line so it might not actually be perfectly straight, but I think a long horizontal line across a photo is noticeable if it's not straight. Technical aspects if not done well can distract from the composition and artistic aspects.

The perspective overall is unusual, it did make for an interesting photo. What I disliked more was the grayness to it, I read it was shot in infrared but it didn't look like it to me. Although reading the description helped make sense of how it was shot.

I'm not sure that the title Migrant Mother was meant to mean that the woman photographed was pictured with her children, but more that she represented mothers at migrant workers' camps. There was recently a special on PBS about Dorothea Lange; she had been out taking pictures that day, passed that camp, and turned around and went back. She interacted with the people and I think that's how she got some of the photos she did.
.


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 24, 2014)

Those are her children, anyways. gsgary's just posturing.


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 24, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> It becomes a weirdly different photo if you straighten it out. A photo that feels far lesser.


You're joking, right?

I might not have noticed that it wasn't straight right away, but I can't really see any way that straightening it would detract from it.


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 25, 2014)

Certainly not. I think it's a completely different and much better photo with the horizon as it is


----------



## manaheim (Oct 25, 2014)

I can't even tell which of you is arguing with who.

The whole argument is kind of stupid. There isn't a book that details what is right and wrong in photography, and therefore there is no one conclusion that is valid.

Tilts are fine, or they're not... but only as far as what you decide to hang on YOUR wall. Anything else is not up to you.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Oct 25, 2014)

Whatever makes the image look right in the shooters eyes is all that matters, it's the same with crops. If the image looks great as a square or tall and thin, then crop it that way.  If the horizon line is off then leave it.  As I wrote earlier in this thread, it all depends on what is being shot. If it's a sport being played on a flat straight surface, then keep it straight.  If it's a long water horizon line, same thing.  But in every case there will always be exceptions.


----------



## BillM (Oct 25, 2014)

It looks straight to me, i think you are all a little off center 


Seriously, life is short, go take some pictures.


----------

