The Other Subway Adventure

manaheim · May 10, 2016

Here is my original subway tunnel shot. Just sharing to keep in time with my other post.

c/c welcome if desired.

jcdeboever · May 10, 2016

That a cool shot but the tilt kinda bummed me out.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Rick50 · May 11, 2016

Love it and I don't mind the tilt.

manaheim · May 11, 2016

Thanks guys!

Sometimes I do the dutch tilt thing... most times I don't. This one... this one wanted it.

Braineack · May 11, 2016

looks like a fun rollercoaster.

sleist · May 11, 2016

The tilt works for me because of the white lights.
They offset the tilt.

manaheim · May 11, 2016

Thanks, Sleist!

Tim Tucker · May 12, 2016

When using tilts the subject must reference or be locked into the frame. the frame is your reference grid by which you judge the image. Look at all the landscapes with slightly tilted horizons. They look wrong against the frame or grid that you've superimposed on the image, your eye tries to correct for this and you'll almost see people tilting their heads when looking at them.

This is why it's important to reference or connect the image with the frame, because the frame or grid is showing you the correct viewing angle your image has to sit inside the frame and be a part of it. If the frame's disconnected from the image then viewers tend to try and see the image without the frame and square it up by tilting their heads. This is the acid test:

Braineack said:
looks like a fun rollercoaster.

And it passed.

I think this is beautifully done. Kudos.

manaheim · May 12, 2016

Thanks, Tim! I wasn't sure where you were going to land with all that.

And actually, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "locked in the frame"? I'd be curious to understand it though if you wouldn't mind explaining?

Tim Tucker · May 12, 2016

EDIT: Many lines of overcomplicating removed in favour of a simpler description:

"It's a balanced composition because of way the parts fit within the frame, so the tilt doesn't matter - it's actually the reason for the balance in the first place."

sleist · May 12, 2016

Couldn't you just say that "It's a balanced composition because of way the parts fit within the frame, so the tilt doesn't matter - it's actually the reason for the balance in the first place."

It works for me, but I'm american and hate words and stuff.

Tim Tucker · May 13, 2016

sleist said:
Couldn't you just say that "It's a balanced composition because of way the parts fit within the frame, so the tilt doesn't matter - it's actually the reason for the balance in the first place."

It works for me, but I'm american and hate words and stuff.

You could just simplify things to a simple rule or saying.

Then you could always say that the thing about rules is knowing when to break them.

Because it's a visual thing I tried to show it in pictures rather than words. It was all based on an understanding that composition and orientation are really about how the image relates to the frame, just how important it is in defining the correct or viewing orientation of the picture, why just tilting an image does not work and why it just looks squint.

If I was to convey the idea in a few words I would've chosen something like:

"The trick is that you have to convince the viewer that the orientation presented is the correct viewing orientation. Which is not easy as we live with gravity every day and have a very strong sense of the correct orientation."

As it also works with distorted images and, odd angles and viewpoints that do not contain a reference to up an down (two other ways of doing it). But if you think that your words are better, and will help more, so be it.

(Oops, forgot to add the wink, it is only an internet forum an all the info can be found in dozens of textbooks).