To Level Or Not To Level: Does one degree make a difference

[Jay Gould]

Question: If an image is technically level AND at the same time it looks better with a different level, do you change it?

In a Landscape thread (http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...268#post612268) an image is posted by our esteemed Landscape Moderator Roman "I love my Beer and Port" Kurywczak.

When I first looked at the image something bothered me. So, I stared and contemplated. I liked the overall image although a bit undersaturated (honestly: washed out).

I was feeling that the image was a bit tilted.

Norm's RP rocked in that it brought out the colors; yet, it was still tilted.

I downloaded the image into LR and tweaked it -1.21 and it felt right.

In the Avian Forum the HA police are concerned with one degree of head angle in relation to the sensor.

Although technically level, do you tweak your landscapes to make them feel "right" to you?

For me it is no different to cloning or other PP scene changes.

When we add or remove something from an image, disclosure is the appropriate kthing to do. If you tweak the level so that it is technically not level :o, does that warrant disclosure too?

I experienced the same issue for me with Bob's image: http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...eek-Road-MINWR

Roman wrote in answer to this question:

Yes, I would probably change it.....but remember that everyone has a different take on that......very similar to colors or boldness. Walk into most galleries and the colors are usually like Norms repost.....whcih I happen to like! Some will walk in and say over saturated.....but who cares? the person buying and if they like it.....who cares?:D Some people don't mind when you severly tilt a horizon......I on the other hand often do......but I will still judge the image first...then get into the small stuff. This one may fall into the who cares realm.....but it is always good to point it out because they may have overlooked it and is always just a suggestion! Have a great day mate (learned that from you) and feel free to start the thread in general. You may want me to announce it here when you do!

What are your thoughts on, for me, Xmas Day, and for most of you, Xmas Eve Day. :)

Happy Holidays to all of you.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Remember Jay........only good port!

Here's another image from Tim Munsey to look at which I feel fits this thread nicely: http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...0-The-Struggle

No HAP (horizon angle? police) in the landscape forum:D!

Hope you are enjoying Christmas down under!

[Jay Gould]

Remember Jay........only good port!

Here's another image from Tim Munsey to look at which I feel fits this thread nicely: http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...0-The-Struggle

No HAP (horizon angle? police) in the landscape forum:D!

Hope you are enjoying Christmas down under!

Roman, my understanding is that you fought for the Cheers Icon; change the glasses to port and I will delete the reference to beer!

[Jay Gould]

Remember Jay........only good port!

Here's another image from Tim Munsey to look at which I feel fits this thread nicely: http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...0-The-Struggle

No HAP (horizon angle? police) in the landscape forum:D!

Hope you are enjoying Christmas down under!

I think that is a wonderful image; and yes, I looked at it for awhile.

There is a white building with a relative long roof in the RH third. I did put a notepad edge on the building line and it is almost square.

I have no problem with this image; I do not think the tweak would make a difference.

The story is climbing the hills.

[Dave Mills]

Hi Jay,
I will address some of your questions but I will stress this is only my opinion.
Do you tweak landscapes to make them feel right to you?.... Yes I do.
Since I'm the maker and this is an art form I feel one has every right to make changes now that the tools are available.
Since you are showing a final product(after tweaks and corrections) it can be a debatable issue whether you disclose what you did and I believe that was debated months ago with no definitive conclusion. Is that required from other art forms?
As an example if you show an image with multiple superimposed images, cropped and vignetted do you need to tell the viewer what you did? My feeling is your presenting your creation so let the viewer decide.
Since this is an educational site if that information and process was disclosed it would be beneficial to the whole. I don't feel it's necessary for gallery, display or commercial purposes.

[Desmond Chan]

Here's another image. Take a look at the photo at the top left hand corner of the front page by Carl. It's obviously tilted and being showcased on the front page:

http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/index.php/home

I always thought that for landscape photo, the horizon has to be level. For action photos and perhaps other, being tilted could actually improve it, add/enhance a sense of motion in the photograph. Examples could be those surfing photographs. I was pointed out once that most of them are tilted. Then I noticed something: although the horizon is not level, the surfer/model in the photo actually is or appear very much vertical to the frame. Here's an example:

http://www.surfermag.com/features/fr...balaram-stack/

The same techniques also being used in portrait/fashion shot:

http://www.joemcnally.com/blog/page/4/

Another example:

http://ireport.cnn.com/ir-topic-stor...pt=Sbin&hpt=C2

I suppose the same could be used on BIF photos. But Artie has responded that: "I like my horizons level". :)

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...t=desmond+chan


Anyhow, perhaps there's a time and place for tilted photos.

Is that also true for landscape photos? If by titling the camera, it could bring out a better sense of motion in a photograph, then what does that do to a landscape shot that has everything stationary?

I've one read that a big tilt usually is done intentionally, a teeny tiny one probably is unintentional :)

Just some thoughts.

Merry Christmas to all !!

[Jay Gould]

Des, I think the issue of level in Carl's photo needs to be looked at from the angle he was shooting.

The person is upright and relatively straight up and down.

If I look at the image straight on it looks funny; move to the left of your screen and look at the image from the photographer's POV.

Looks a lot better!

Personally, i am totally in agreement with Dave.

What we present is our creation; **** the technicalities - full imaging ahead!



PS to one of the Mods: if doesn't seem to matter if you hit reply or reply with quote; I am getting the quote both ways.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Roman, my understanding is that you fought for the Cheers Icon; change the glasses to port and I will delete the reference to beer!

You are correct!......but the second comment is sacrilidgious to a beer snob:D.....so the glasses stay my friend!

[Roman Kurywczak]

Great points above too by Des annd Dave. I think the image just needs to look right.......even in Avian and the HAP!!! If it looks right.......don't care about the other things! Remember.......these are guidelines that will in general.....make the image stronger but there are exceptions to the rule. Here is the flip side to that comment.....I feel too many people try to justify these things and try to take shortcuts....so I leave you with this thought: How can you break the rules..... unless you master them???

[Bill Jobes]

This has been an excellent discussion thus far.

While there are no 'rules' that can't be broken in the pursuit of 'art,' when the conventions are tossed, it should be with clear intent and purpose.

My hunch is that in Roman's OP, the slightly elevated left angle was an oversight. There doesn't seem to be any compelling artistic merit for not leveling the horizon. Roman, apologies if you've addressed this in the threads; I may have overlooked your comment.

Perhaps another way is to think about the angle of the photograph, not necessarily using the horizon as the main point of interest.

In the photo of the hill climbers, if the true (distant) horizon were to be leveled, the climbers would be seen on an even steeper angle. In this case the objective should be to present a true 'level' perspective from the photographer's immediate vantage point, so as to accurately depict the task of the climbers.

As to the issue of 'disclosure,' unless it's a conversation between a news photographer and the photo editor, it's not necessary. In true photojournalism in a professional editorial context, undisclosed image alteration can have serious consequences.

That said, in the spirit of BPN's educational forums, sharing shooting and PP details is a good thing ! :)

[Ed Cordes]

This is a discussion I have with my wife a lot. If an image shows a shore line that curves it may look tilted when it it not. i often want to "level" it. She says to leave it alone as that's the way it was. I generally look at the surrounding trees and any other vertical element to ensure I do not change that perspective.

Good discussion thread.

[Michael Bertelsen]

Ed ,

I think that is a good way to look at it.
You have to see your image from the eyes of someone who was not there.
I too go by trees, shorelines are tricky.

Michael

[Desmond Chan]

I too go by trees, shorelines are tricky.

I'd say unless you're looking at it high, high up in the sky or from the space, horizon is always level to the eyes. I don't see how tricky it can be to use it as a guide.Trees and human beings can be leaning here and there at different time and place. The lens you use could affect their appearance a bit, too. So trees, human figures or even buildings I don't think they're the best reference points to use all the time IMO if you simply want to straighten up your photograph. Certainly there's room for creativity to play here. To me, most of the time it seems to works for action shots (although there're action photogs who disagree as you can see not all the surfer shots are tilted) or a model in a dynamic pose. Other times....I've been wondering why some photogs tilted their cameras and so I have asked some of them to explain why he/she tilted the camera when taking the shots (as when it was just a shot of some a couple of pre-teen kids standing straight in front of the camera for the photograph), usually I don't get any response. One simply said: "Just wanted it to look different". And one of the guys even said: "only those who have less talent asked such question." Of course, he wouldn't say: "I messed up" on a public forum. :)

It would be interesting to see somebody post a landscape shot flipped upside down in the landscape forum and see what the comments would be :p

[Alan Lillich]

Question: If an image is technically level AND at the same time it looks better with a different level, do you change it?

For me the answer is easy: YES!

I shoot and process for my pleasure, I'm not a journalist, I never enter contests. I do whatever I want to make me like an image more.

[Sid Garige]

Question: If an image is technically level AND at the same time it looks better with a different level, do you change it?

Jay,

If you look at the anatomy of an image, there will be at least one subject, foreground and background. Subject is the vital part of your image and you give prime attention the subject and alter the image based on subject. For example in Joe McNally's image, musician is the subject and he need to keep her alignment right. Horizon alignment would throw the subject alignment out and put the subject in unnatural posture. So he went with the subject and background is secondary.


I guess Carl's image on naturescapes goes along the same line too.

In Roman's image both background and the subject are working together and image like this I would certainly go for horizon correction. But, Roman's images is not giving me a tilted feel. I am not sure what the terrain is and how the peaks are aligned. Also he is covering a lot of area and there is no strong horizon line.

Hope this helps.

-Sid

[Roger Clark]

Jay,

If you look at the anatomy of an image, there will be at least one subject, foreground and background. Subject is the vital part of your image and you give prime attention the subject and alter the image based on subject. For example in Joe McNally's image, musician is the subject and he need to keep her alignment right. Horizon alignment would throw the subject alignment out and put the subject in unnatural posture. So he went with the subject and background is secondary.
-Sid

Sid,
I disagree that the musician is in a natural posture. The person is so off balance, that if correct, would be falling over just after the picture was taken. People's legs are not straight up an down if they are leaning over backwards. Scientifically, the person is clearly out of balance, and in my opinion, the image should be rotated so the horizon is level.

Similarly, with Roman's image (I left a comment in the image thread).

Roger

[Sid Garige]

Sid,
I disagree that the musician is in a natural posture. The person is so off balance, that if correct, would be falling over just after the picture was taken. People's legs are not straight up an down if they are leaning over backwards. .
Roger

Roger do you see the front bent knee?

-Sid

[Roger Clark]

Roger do you see the front bent knee?

-Sid

Yes. Where do you think the center of gravity is?
Roger

[Sid Garige]

Yes. Where do you think the center of gravity is?
Roger

Roger,
I dont think they made her stand in that position and took the image. From little experience I have in commercial photography they let them act out freely and make multiple images and pick the best one. I have seen many jazz player in the position before.

Center of gravity is not a question here.

-Sid

[Desmond Chan]

For example in Joe McNally's image, musician is the subject and he need to keep her alignment right. Horizon alignment would throw the subject alignment out and put the subject in unnatural posture. So he went with the subject and background is secondary.

And his is not a landscape shot. His is a photograph of a musician, who a lot of time does not stand up straight when playing the instrument.

I guess Carl's image on naturescapes goes along the same line too.

I disagree. Joe's musician dominates the photograph but Carl's is not. Carl's musician is facing away from the camera, facing the scenary. I don't see that as a portrait of a musician. Besides, the tilting in Carl's shot is more than Joe's. Even if you level that photograph, the musician's pose will not look out of whack at all. Back to Jay's question on if you would tilt your camera if the result looks better, I'd like to see how Carl's photo will look worse when leveled. Go try it (I did).

[Sid Garige]

And his is not a landscape shot. His is a photograph of a musician, who a lot of time does not stand up straight when playing the instrument.

I disagree. Joe's musician dominates the photograph but Carl's is not. Besides, the tilting in Carl's shot is more than Joe's. Even if you level that photograph, the musician's pose will not look out of whack because musician does not just stand still all the time when playing. Back to Jay's question on if you would tilt your camera if the result looks better, I'd like to see how Carl's photo will look worse when leveled. Go try it (I did).

Thanks Desmond.

[Charles Glatzer]

As technical as I am most times, I think it is more important to go with the overall aesthetic feel of an image and the emotions it stirs within us. Let us not forget photography can be much more than simply a duplication of what we see through our eyes. We often take what is said by someone held in esteem as gospel, the right way or worse yet the only way to do something. Problem is emulation often breeds conformity, not artists. Take risks, dare to be different. I urge you to look at the images on www.photo.net. The landscape and other images will provide much inspiration, both for your photography and soul.

Warmest Regards,

Chas

[Roger Clark]

Roger,
I dont think they made her stand in that position and took the image. From little experience I have in commercial photography they let them act out freely and make multiple images and pick the best one. I have seen many jazz player in the position before.

Center of gravity is not a question here.

-Sid

Sid,
The center of gravity is in the upper torso, which is well behind the heel. It matters not that the knee is bent. In a natural position that is stable, the hips would be more over, if not in front of the feet (certainly in front of the heel). Look at your blue line. Most of the body is to the left of the blue line. The person is falling over and looks unbalanced. If the horizon is leveled, the balance looks correct. Now if the photographer intended to make the musician look like they were leaning backwards like this, that is fine, but when I view the image, it screams out of balance to me, even if that was their intent.

Roger

[Sid Garige]

Sid,
The center of gravity is in the upper torso, which is well behind the heel. It matters not that the knee is bent. In a natural position that is stable, the hips would be more over, if not in front of the feet (certainly in front of the heel). Look at your blue line. Most of the body is to the left of the blue line. The person is falling over and looks unbalanced. If the horizon is leveled, the balance looks correct. Now if the photographer intended to make the musician look like they were leaning backwards like this, that is fine, but when I view the image, it screams out of balance to me, even if that was their intent.

Roger

Then we need to tell Joe McNally to get his goddamn picture right.:p

[Roger Clark]

Then we need to tell Joe McNally to get his goddamn picture right.:p

Well, I would just say if the photographer want's his image tilted, that is his business. He should be aware, though, that some people will see the tilted horizon and not like it. Others probably won't notice.

Roger

[Roman Kurywczak]

As technical as I am most times, I think it is more important to go with the overall aesthetic feel of an image and the emotions it stirs within us. Let us not forget photography can be much more than simply a duplication of what we see through our eyes. We often take what is said by someone held in esteem as gospel, the right way or worse yet the only way to do something. Problem is emulation often breeds conformity, not artists. Take risks, dare to be different. I urge you to look at the images on www.photo.net. The landscape and other images will provide much inspiration, both for your photography and soul.

Warmest Regards,

Chas

While I agree with this principle in theory, I often find people can't do the work stright forward and cover the flaws by saying it is artistic. This may be due my years in art school.....we had to do some research and went to the museum of modern art in NYC. There is a huge tryptic of 3 black canvas's hanging in the entrance.....that is considered priceless. Let's just say my opinion isn't that. I personally feel that you need to master the
basics to know how to go out and break them! I just worry that people will read your comments and skip the mastery part!

[Charles Glatzer]

Roman,

I here you.

I agree there is a difference in doing things with purpose vs ignorance. And, I would surely opt for intent over the other. Heck, as you know I am a stickler for preaching the learning of photo fundamentals. But, in reality the outcome may be one and the same. Both technique and aesthetics comprise the entity, there is no separation when viewing the image as a whole. I believe when teaching it is the Visual sense we should strive to stimulate and encourage. I ALSO BELIEVE HAVING A FULL BOX OF CRAYONS ALLOWS THE ARTIST TO DRAW A BETTER IMAGE. But, there are some who can create a drawing worthy of the highest regard with simply a charcoal pencil in hand. I wish I was one of those individuals :-)

If an image does not work it matters not if it was done on purpose or mistake, flawed is flawed.

Best Amigo, and HAPPY HOLIDAYS

Chas

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hey Chas,
Like I said....we agree!!!
Same to you and your family! Happy and Healthy New Year!

[Hilary Hann]

Thanks everyone, this is a most interesting thread. Chas and Roman … totally agree with your last few posts.

[Jay Gould]

I think it is interesting how anything can be taken to an extreme.

If an image is technically level AND at the same time it looks better with a different level, do you change it?

While the discussion has been interesting and educational, for me a lot of the posts do not address the OP.

Referring to the two examples I provided, these were issues of tweaks.

In the pursuit of art all is appropriate.

If you want to intentionally tilt your camera to obtain a particular result - go for it.

That is not what I was questioning.

In both images I used, the poster specifically told us that the camera was level - bubble in a HS.

In both images my sense of image balance was "bothered".

I am not questioning that the bubbles looked balanced. However, going to the super technical extreme, unless the bubble lines are close enough so that the bubble ends are right against the lines -

I just stopped typing, dug out my bubble (living in a caravan means you "dig out the bubble" :o), and there is for this discussion a significant amount of room within the "level" bubble lines -

level is not necessarily level!

The fact that the bubble is within the lines - I am not Roger, I haven't gone out and shot a series of images slight tweaking the camera and moving the bubble from one side to the other within the lines - can still lead to a variance of "x" degrees or a percentage of a degree.

That is what this thread is about.

I have no doubt that looking at the bubble, looking through the view finder, and looking at the LCD in the field, the image appeared level. However, on the computer screen where you can put a true level straight line on the horizon in Robert"s image, or on the distant bluff (Roger has indicated that in his scientific opinion the bluffs are level) in Roman's image, and in neither case does the image line meet the straight line,

do you tweak the image?

That is what this thread is about.

Am I nit picking? NO!

I am seeking the opinions of the people in the photography world I completely respect.

Now, if you look on the computer screen, tweak the image to the true level straight line, and then say to yourself, "I like it as originally shot", great! You are saying that now that you realize in spite of the camera appearing level in the field using the bubble the image is in fact "off", and that is how you want it to be presented, I have no problem with that. That is art!

In that situation for teaching purposes - which is what BPN is all about - I would hope someone would say they shot with what they believed to be a level camera by way of the bubble, they checked the image on the computer and it is slightly off level, and they like it and are presenting it as shot. That is art!

For me, I would have leveled the horizon in McNally's image. I have no doubt he intentionally choose not to level the horizon. That is art!

[Sid Garige]

Looks like "Horizon correction Police" and "Center of gravity Police" have no jurisdiction over Joe McNally's images. :p:p:p

[Jim Michael]

I would never expect to see a horizon defined by the ocean as other than level. In some cases, e.g. the angle of view wrt the shoreline, I might expect a shoreline or other commonly "level" feature to look askew. I think it may be most apparent that something looks out of kilter when the line is only slightly unlevel, at which point the view may wonder why the photographer didn't shoot it level. Musicians do all sorts of odd contortions, so I wouldn't let that be a deciding factor where the horizon is concerned. Mountains, perhaps.

[Desmond Chan]

I often find people can't do the work stright forward and cover the flaws by saying it is artistic.

I agree with Roman !

I know, I know, it's art, whatever that means. No question needed. One's person garbage is another person's art, right? :):D:p

[Bill Jobes]

The McNally musician photo is generating a lot of interest, interpretations and comments, many of which are based on sometimes erroneous assumptions.

To see what really happened on the shoot, follow the link above in this thread to the image on his blog. Go deeper in the blog, below the image, to see a video of him in action, taking the photo in question.

He seems totally focused on the musician's posture and position.

And he was hand-holding the camera, while sitting in the surf.

With that, combined with the waves and sand in his shorts, it doesn't appear he was concerned at all about the horizon, per se. :)

[Roger Clark]

The fact that the bubble is within the lines - I am not Roger, I haven't gone out and shot a series of images slight tweaking the camera and moving the bubble from one side to the other within the lines - can still lead to a variance of "x" degrees or a percentage of a degree.

Jay, I don't even own a bubble level for any camera.:) Some of my tripods have one, but that doesn't help level the camera.

I have no doubt that looking at the bubble, looking through the view finder, and looking at the LCD in the field, the image appeared level. However, on the computer screen where you can put a true level straight line on the horizon in Robert"s image, or on the distant bluff (Roger has indicated that in his scientific opinion the bluffs are level) in Roman's image, and in neither case does the image line meet the straight line,

do you tweak the image?

I would. I correct many horizons in my images as I have an eye problem that complicates my vision and I often get the horizon a degree or two off. I would also fix the horizon on the McNally image--it doesn't look natural to me, regardless of any intended art. To me a slightly off horizon is not good. But rotate it 20 or 30 degrees, then it is more obvious that was the intent. Sort of like blurs: a tiny blur hurts the eyes but a large plur can be pleasing.

Photos of 4x4 vehicles are usually tilted to make the grade look steeper. The image of the hikers (linked in this thread) going up the hill I think would be stronger with a level horizon as the hill would be steeper and look all that much more difficult.

Roger

[Charles Glatzer]

Jay

To answer your question.

In the images mentioned I would opt to have straightend the horizon. I have an E screen in my camera and bubble level on my leveling base for this purpose. My preference is to maintain a level camera in most images, unless tilting the camera serves a greater creative and/or compositional purpose.

Chas

[Russell Martin]

I took these two years ago, and was just a beginner at that point (ok, compared to most on here I still am), but these were taken within seconds of one another and the same fence post. They were taken with a S5IS, and I dont really remember all the particulars, save that it was taken in northeastern New Mexico in October of 2008. Only PP is in LR and those are color corrections.

To me, the image on the right has more...."drama" and thus more interesting. Other than that, I cant say.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Looks like "Horizon correction Police" and "Center of gravity Police" have no jurisdiction over Joe McNally's images. :p:p:p

Oh yeah!!!.....we will now add HCP to the abbreviations!!!:(:(:(

[Jay Gould]

Roman, sometimes there is no "horizon" and you use a building or other supposedly straight line.

LP, level police, works for me.

Happy New Year

[Michael Lloyd]

Personally I try to level my horizon IF it is supposed to be level. Most of the time there is something in the image that will give me a reference point.

For instance:

Mountain reflection in a pool? Vertically align the tips of a peak and it's reflection

Sometimes cloud bases are a good leveling reference

Horizons... sometimes but not always

Buildings... sometimes but not always

People... not allowed in my landscape images :p