Level or not?

Majeed Badizadegan · Apr 29, 2013

I'm curious, saw this image on Explore today and was wondering if you consider it "level" or not. Had an exchange with the artist on the topic, he said he used the electronic level in his 5d Mark III.

A high Loch Ness. | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

I see the water sloping down about 2 degrees, which really bugs me, but what do you all think? I believe a still body of water in a landscape should be the primary reference for a level horizon-- otherwise it appears as if the water is "sloping downwards". The water is going to "spill out onto my desk" kind of thing.

Here's where I think it should be, but comments welcome. I'd like to know if my thinking is correct or not.

texkam · Apr 29, 2013

I'd like to know if my thinking is correct

Yes, it is.

Derrel · Apr 30, 2013

My thinking is that the point of land on the right hand side is three or four miles closer to the camera than the distant end of the lake, and therefore that the shoreline there,on the right hand side of the frame, is *actually lower* in the real world than the distant horizon, which is farther away, and just slightly higher. Reality can be so,so ugly.

I don't have a serious issue with the photo's horizon line. A much bigger concern to me was the heavy-handed fake grad filter effect he applied to the image, which shows up pretty clearly in the foreground tree...the tree goes from normal exposure to detail-free black over about a one--foot span.

I believe a "still body of water" in a landscape can have a horizon that appears to slope, since in the real world, many bodies of water have irregular shorelines, and in point of fact in many real-world situations, the horizon "line" is actually not really a line at all, but a contour line that varies a small amount from the horizontal. Google "views of Puget Sound", and start looking at photos of large bodies of water where there are major headlands and points of land that project out into a LARGE body of water with a distant view, and you will see that the horizon "line" is sometimes not a line, but rather merely indicates the actual way the world is, where land meets water,and there are minor irregularities that a protractor and software cannot manage to level out.

views of Puget Sound - Google Search

Boney · Apr 30, 2013

To not have that effect the camera would have to be exactly at water level. Good catch.

snowbear · Apr 30, 2013

runnah · Apr 30, 2013

I think the fact that it may be level according to the camera makes no difference if it doesn't "look" level to the eye.

Ilovemycam · Apr 30, 2013

I almost put it in my guest portfolio, but passed on it. Nice shot anyway.

Sure level it up more if you like.

As a street photog we are not as anal with our work. Here is a classic from HCB with cutoff legs and crooked as hell.

http://i1192.photobucket.com/albums/aa322/erickimphotography/HCB/cartier-bresson-rue-mouffetard.jpg

Majeed Badizadegan · Apr 30, 2013

runnah said:
I think the fact that it may be level according to the camera makes no difference if it doesn't "look" level to the eye.

Same here

kathyt · Apr 30, 2013

It seems just a smidge off, but not by much.

Majeed Badizadegan · Apr 30, 2013

kathythorson said:
It seems just a smidge off, but not by much.

Acceptable or not?

kathyt · Apr 30, 2013

Rotanimod said:
kathythorson said:

It seems just a smidge off, but not by much.

Click to expand...

Acceptable or not?

I would say it is acceptable. I had to really look at it to see a very slight tilt. I use the same grid to keep things level with my Mark III, but I always double check in LR.

amolitor · Apr 30, 2013

I think Derrel's analysis is correct.

Part of what is happening is that the water horizon line looks too crisp, to the extent that I think he may have overcooked it with some sort of processing.

When it looks more or less "equally crisp" all the way along, we get no sense of increased distance, and it feels wrong. There's miles and miles of air between us and that farthest end of the visible water, and while the water horizon is slightly softened way out there, it's not softened ENOUGH. The entire water area feels fake and wrong to me, although it probably isn't.

I'm not sure what he did in post, if anything, to accomplish this effect, but I quite dislike it.

Majeed Badizadegan · Apr 30, 2013

Derrel said:
My thinking is that the point of land on the right hand side is three or four miles closer to the camera than the distant end of the lake, and therefore that the shoreline there,on the right hand side of the frame, is *actually lower* in the real world than the distant horizon, which is farther away, and just slightly higher. Reality can be so,so ugly.

I don't have a serious issue with the photo's horizon line. A much bigger concern to me was the heavy-handed fake grad filter effect he applied to the image, which shows up pretty clearly in the foreground tree...the tree goes from normal exposure to detail-free black over about a one--foot span.

I believe a "still body of water" in a landscape can have a horizon that appears to slope, since in the real world, many bodies of water have irregular shorelines, and in point of fact in many real-world situations, the horizon "line" is actually not really a line at all, but a contour line that varies a small amount from the horizontal. Google "views of Puget Sound", and start looking at photos of large bodies of water where there are major headlands and points of land that project out into a LARGE body of water with a distant view, and you will see that the horizon "line" is sometimes not a line, but rather merely indicates the actual way the world is, where land meets water,and there are minor irregularities that a protractor and software cannot manage to level out.

views of Puget Sound - Google Search

Yeah totally. Horizons would be a nightmare there.

I guess it's a matter of choosing what "is right" and what "looks right". I think what looks right is the best way to go. I've made similar decisions many times.

Derrel · Apr 30, 2013

The guy who took the photo says he uses the Canon 5D-III's onboard level all the time... so, let's look at another photo he took, and you can easily SEE the effect I spoke about in post #3.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gordie_broon/8658179032/in/photostream/

In this photo linked to above, we can see the effect that the actual contours of the land surrounding a lake can have on a landscape photo's "horizon line".

So…where is the horizon "line" to be found? Shoreline geography can influence where the water/land junction actually is located in a photo. l

Where land meets water along the shoreline of miles-long, mountainous headlands will to vary from geometric perfection, and it will instead, reflect the real world's imperfection.

vintagesnaps · Apr 30, 2013

It looks crooked to me, the horizon line is about 1/16" lower from the top on the right side than the center/left, which for a photo about the size of a 5x7" is noticeable.

It's the type of photo that I can't help but start wondering right away what they did to it - and not in a good way because I find I'm noticing the processing more than the image.

And why people set their Flickr pages so others have access to them is beyond me; he's lucky that you're just editing it to show it as an example but it leaves it open for anyone to help themselves.