Are straight horizons overrated?

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:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

... 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.""

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?

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?

Click to expand...

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

"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?

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?

Click to expand...

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

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. :cokespit:

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.