this must be in reference to a shot you took or saw where it is or got a low score due to the photo not having the status quo look. if so and the challenge is going on then show the photo after so we can have something to go by. or if its not in a challenge or its over lets see it and learn from it to see what is being discussed. Thanks
this must be in reference to a shot you took or saw where it is or got a low score due to the photo not having the status quo look. if so and the challenge is going on then show the photo after so we can have something to go by. or if its not in a challenge or its over lets see it and learn from it to see what is being discussed. Thanks
Here are a couple examples of past commented "horizon off" shots. Also, same kind of comment on the August Free Study, which I can't show you.
Both show the ground is not level, because the ground isn't level. Just a peave of mine I guess, many places are not like central Illinois.
That would be atmospherical distortion.. but your correct and it is nice in some cases. All photos are subject to personal taste some may like it some may not. If you want to win make sure you do what the majority likes and you will win.. Most of the time
The ground is not always level, that's true. But you can still get "image tilted" comments if other things in the image do not support the non-straight horizon. Trees, light poles and other verticles will tell the eye whether or not the image is 'straight' no matter what the horizon looks like.
That appears to be what some commenters believe :I
OK, maybe that's enough teasing. In many/most practical (e.g. photo) situations the curvature of the Earth introduces a negligable devation from a Euclidian plane.
Now if you try to shoot a ship in the Strait of San Juan de Fuca from the Space Needle you might have a problem ...
While were talking about the round Earth (and 'cause I really have no other place to post it) here's a recent picture of the Golden Gate Bridge taken from the International Space Station.
Anyone who thinks the prairie tree shot suffers from a tilted horizon is just plain out of their mind. The trees provide plenty of vertical reference to indicate that just ain't the case. The lightning shot's a little more problematical; personally, I like th horizon fine, it looks natural to me, but it's so close to level and so near the bottom of the frame that I can see how some would feel it was a better image if you leveled it up anyway.
This is something I have to deal with all the time in my shots. Extreme WA shots with sea and shore often do NOT look leveled if you level the sea's horizon, even though that's the literal "level" for the shot. I often have to skew them a little to balance the virtual horizon, and I can always count on a couple people applying a marker to it and saying it's not square. But I get more negative comments if I DO square the sea, and the virtual horizon looks weighted to one side. So we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, and so it goes :-)
Anyone who thinks the prairie tree shot suffers from a tilted horizon is just plain out of their mind. The trees provide plenty of vertical reference to indicate that just ain't the case. The lightning shot's a little more problematical; personally, I like th horizon fine, it looks natural to me, but it's so close to level and so near the bottom of the frame that I can see how some would feel it was a better image if you leveled it up anyway.
The truest level in a lightning shot will be the bottom of the clouds, flattened-out by a layer of air with a pressure differential, the overall depth of which is largely unaffected by local topography, more-or-less like "upside-down" water ...
