Level/Un-level Horizons

My comments are based around this photo:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdaj/844538776/
It's no award winner, but it makes a good example for this discussion. I'll
start by explaining the story behind getting this. I had just got my new
GX10 and wanted to experiment. In the wee hours of the morning I was having
trouble getting back to sleep so decided I'd head out to do some night
photography. There was no moon so I thought I'd give the star trails a try -
headed to the southern edge of town so I'd have less streetlights between me
and the southern sky. Found a quiet spot that seemed to be on a bit of a
hill with a good view toward the southern sky and importantly, no nearby
streetlights. In the dark I couldn't properly make out the horizon, so I
set the camera up, levelled the tripod and started it on a 20 minute bulb
exposure.
Once the shot came out, I saw the horrendously crooked horizon and figured I
didn't have the tripod perfectly level, or maybe i'd moved it after I'd
levelled it or some such thing (remember this was 5am in the morning, I'm
not likely to be thinking straight).
Anyway, today I went back to the spot in the daylight, and to my suprise,
the "horizon" there is actually angled as it is in the photograph - it is
actually a long, low, sloping hill.
Now, given that as a general rule, horizons should be level in photographs,
what do you do when the horizon isn't level? Do you tilt the camera so that
the horizon becomes level in the viewfinder, potentially disrupting vertical
lines? or do you keep the camera horizontal and live with the off-level
horizon? or do you change depending on what you are doing, and if so what
guidelines would lean you to one or the other?
Personally, I think in the case of the original photo I started with, that
it would work better if the camera was tilted to give a straight horizon
(not that it is a good photo anyway). There are no strong verticals, so the
horizon is necessary to orient the viewer. If there was a strong vertical
(eg the side of a building) then I think framing would be best with the
vertical kept vertical, and leave the horizon at an angle.

Doug Jewell wrote:
My comments are based around this photo:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdaj/844538776/
It's no award winner, but it makes a good example for this discussion.
I'll start by explaining the story behind getting this. I had just got
my new GX10 and wanted to experiment. In the wee hours of the morning I
was having trouble getting back to sleep so decided I'd head out to do
some night photography. There was no moon so I thought I'd give the star
trails a try - headed to the southern edge of town so I'd have less
streetlights between me and the southern sky. Found a quiet spot that
seemed to be on a bit of a hill with a good view toward the southern sky
and importantly, no nearby streetlights. In the dark I couldn't
properly make out the horizon, so I set the camera up, levelled the
tripod and started it on a 20 minute bulb exposure.
Once the shot came out, I saw the horrendously crooked horizon and
figured I didn't have the tripod perfectly level, or maybe i'd moved it
after I'd levelled it or some such thing (remember this was 5am in the
morning, I'm not likely to be thinking straight).

5am usually is in the morning. ;-)

Anyway, today I went back to the spot in the daylight, and to my
suprise, the "horizon" there is actually angled as it is in the
photograph - it is actually a long, low, sloping hill.
Now, given that as a general rule, horizons should be level in
photographs, what do you do when the horizon isn't level? Do you tilt
the camera so that the horizon becomes level in the viewfinder,
potentially disrupting vertical lines? or do you keep the camera
horizontal and live with the off-level horizon? or do you change
depending on what you are doing, and if so what guidelines would lean
you to one or the other?

Well, surely it is all about the final image. I now it sounds trite but surely
if the view does not make a nice image because the horizon is not level, or
any other reason, then you simply wouldn't take a picture of it?

Personally, I think in the case of the original photo I started with,
that it would work better if the camera was tilted to give a straight
horizon (not that it is a good photo anyway). There are no strong
verticals, so the horizon is necessary to orient the viewer. If there
was a strong vertical (eg the side of a building) then I think framing
would be best with the vertical kept vertical, and leave the horizon at
an angle.

If the image works when there are other elements giving the correct references
- tall buildings in the foreground against sloping foothills behind - then
fine.

"Doug Jewell" wrote in
:

My comments are based around this photo:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdaj/844538776/
It's no award winner, but it makes a good example for this discussion.
I'll start by explaining the story behind getting this. I had just
got my new GX10 and wanted to experiment. In the wee hours of the
morning I was having trouble getting back to sleep so decided I'd head
out to do some night photography. There was no moon so I thought I'd
give the star trails a try - headed to the southern edge of town so
I'd have less streetlights between me and the southern sky. Found a
quiet spot that seemed to be on a bit of a hill with a good view
toward the southern sky and importantly, no nearby streetlights. In
the dark I couldn't properly make out the horizon, so I set the camera
up, levelled the tripod and started it on a 20 minute bulb exposure.
Once the shot came out, I saw the horrendously crooked horizon and
figured I didn't have the tripod perfectly level, or maybe i'd moved
it after I'd levelled it or some such thing (remember this was 5am in
the morning, I'm not likely to be thinking straight).
Anyway, today I went back to the spot in the daylight, and to my
suprise, the "horizon" there is actually angled as it is in the
photograph - it is actually a long, low, sloping hill.
Now, given that as a general rule, horizons should be level in
photographs, what do you do when the horizon isn't level? Do you tilt
the camera so that the horizon becomes level in the viewfinder,
potentially disrupting vertical lines? or do you keep the camera
horizontal and live with the off-level horizon? or do you change
depending on what you are doing, and if so what guidelines would lean
you to one or the other? Personally, I think in the case of the
original photo I started with, that it would work better if the camera
was tilted to give a straight horizon (not that it is a good photo
anyway). There are no strong verticals, so the horizon is necessary to
orient the viewer. If there was a strong vertical (eg the side of a
building) then I think framing would be best with the vertical kept
vertical, and leave the horizon at an angle.


If I were to look at the image without your post, I would not have thought
it was a crooked horizon, it does look like a hill to me.

Mick Brown

Doug Jewell wrote:
My comments are based around this photo:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdaj/844538776/
It's no award winner, but it makes a good example for this
discussion. I'll start by explaining the story behind getting this.
I had just got my new GX10 and wanted to experiment. In the wee hours
of the morning I was having trouble getting back to sleep so decided
I'd head out to do some night photography. There was no moon so I
thought I'd give the star trails a try - headed to the southern edge
of town so I'd have less streetlights between me and the southern
sky. Found a quiet spot that seemed to be on a bit of a hill with a
good view toward the southern sky and importantly, no nearby
streetlights. In the dark I couldn't properly make out the horizon,
so I set the camera up, levelled the tripod and started it on a 20
minute bulb exposure. Once the shot came out, I saw the horrendously
crooked horizon and
figured I didn't have the tripod perfectly level, or maybe i'd moved
it after I'd levelled it or some such thing (remember this was 5am in
the morning, I'm not likely to be thinking straight).
Anyway, today I went back to the spot in the daylight, and to my
suprise, the "horizon" there is actually angled as it is in the
photograph - it is actually a long, low, sloping hill.
Now, given that as a general rule, horizons should be level in
photographs, what do you do when the horizon isn't level? Do you tilt
the camera so that the horizon becomes level in the viewfinder,
potentially disrupting vertical lines? or do you keep the camera
horizontal and live with the off-level horizon? or do you change
depending on what you are doing, and if so what guidelines would lean
you to one or the other? Personally, I think in the case of the original
photo I started with,
that it would work better if the camera was tilted to give a straight
horizon (not that it is a good photo anyway). There are no strong
verticals, so the horizon is necessary to orient the viewer. If there
was a strong vertical (eg the side of a building) then I think
framing would be best with the vertical kept vertical, and leave the
horizon at an angle.

Actually, there are strong verticals in your pic - the trees. Even on the
steepest of slopes, they grow vertically. Tilt the frame to get the
"horizon" level and you'd have a bunch of trees leaning over.

On another note, people who obsess about level horizons are, more often than
not, those who can't see the wood for the trees. Technical details like
level horizons, blown highlights or crushed shadows (which I see far fewer
comments about, but are just as significant - technically) are just that -
technical. If you're taking forensic photographs, such considerations are
relevant, but if your aim is to capture compelling images, follow your
instinct and emotions. You'll get better pictures.

Doug Jewell wrote:
snipped

Cut to the chase - if the horizon itself is level, it should be level in
the photograph. If it's not ... then not.

BTW, if you put paragraph breaks in there it'd be easier to read.

"Pudentame" wrote in message
...
Doug Jewell wrote:
snipped

Cut to the chase - if the horizon itself is level, it should be level in
the photograph. If it's not ... then not.

BTW, if you put paragraph breaks in there it'd be easier to read.

Mmmm, appears to be five, not enough for you?

Pete D wrote:
"Pudentame" wrote in message
...
Doug Jewell wrote:
snipped

Cut to the chase - if the horizon itself is level, it should be level in
the photograph. If it's not ... then not.

BTW, if you put paragraph breaks in there it'd be easier to read.

Mmmm, appears to be five, not enough for you?

At certain window widths, the paragraphing is hidden. There is something
off in the line wrapping, or perhaps the lack of it.

As to the original point, I'd much prefer that picture be cropped to
straighten the horizon; in this case virtually nothing is lost that I
can see in the image posted.

--
john mcwilliams

Poxy wrote:
if your aim is to capture compelling images, follow your
instinct and emotions. You'll get better pictures.

Sometimes I'll intuitively, unknowingly, frame a crooked horizon & it
works. More often, I just wasn't paying attention & have to fix it in
photoshop. But yeah, look at the bright side, it proves I wasn't
obsessing over technicalities, just absorbed in the beauty of the image
and that is a good thing. Just a minor hit on quality & size when
cropping to fix it.

--
Paul Furman Photography
http://edgehill.net
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com

"Paul Furman" wrote

Sometimes I'll ... unknowingly, frame a crooked horizon

I found my pictures tilting more and more with time.
The fix was putting gridded screens in all the cameras
- problem gone.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote in news:g%Yri.12939$rR.9004
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

"Paul Furman" wrote

Sometimes I'll ... unknowingly, frame a crooked horizon

I found my pictures tilting more and more with time.
The fix was putting gridded screens in all the cameras
- problem gone.


I had the same problem, I fixed it by stopping drinking while shooting.

Mick Brown