Are straight horizons overrated?

[Alexr25]

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]

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]

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.]

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.]

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

 

[MSnowy]

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]

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]

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

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]

It depends...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gsgary]

Sorry quoted wrong post

 

[Derrel]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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.