I am interested in your opinion of a small matter of horizon.

This month in "Digital SLR Photography" in the critique section, there is an photo of a misty scene taken near water. It is an excellent shot and the photographer was able to be there at the right time to take it. One of the criticisms is the sloping horizon- and it is visible, but IMHO, the opposite bank is further away to the left and therefore will look as though it is not horizontal. I am not sure where the mag is at the moment, but I did have a close look at it at the time.

I have faced the same situation myself this weekend and I took a few pictures with the opposite side of the lake at its natural angle and I took some deliberately tilting the camera to get the opposite side horizontal. There is no doubt that the pictures with the horizontal bank look better, but this is not a true reflection of the scene. The lack of other vertical or horizontal lines does make it appear weird when the opposite bank is not level.

This is the sloping (correct) "horizon"

This is the altered horizon. The left side is actually lower than the right but more level overall on the right of the picture.I think that it looks better until you look closer (at the original) and pick up on the fact that many elements- the birds and houses for two- are not quite level. Yes, even the birds do appear to be leaning towards the left.

Funny, I looked at the tilted image, with the level horizon and my first reaction was that it looked artificial. I can't say why, but it just didn't look right.

Looking at the image more, I think it is the clouds and the wildlife that make it look odd.

I'm going to stick my neck out and say they both look bloody awful... :etc:

Only kidding. They both look fine. I think the problem is that because I, (and this is probably true for some others) am comparing the pictures by looking at one then the other straight away, and they look different enough to make your brain think that something is wrong, but if you look at either one and try not to think about the other shot, they both look ok, to me at least.

I don't think either of those images look straight.
One leans too much one way, the other leans too much the other way.
Sorry trigen_killer, not much use, I know.

Mark

I know that neither are much good artisticly, I was going to bin them until I decided to make this point. I was there, so I know that the far side of the lake was not equally distant from me along its length. I know that the opposite side should not be level, but I think that it looks wrong.

Using a ruler on the screen, the left side of the first picture is 4mm higher than the right and I think that the slope looks obvious. Something about it doesn't look right, even though it is.

Now that I have measured the second photograph again, the level on the left seems to be 5mm lower than the right and yet, when I sit back from the screen and look at it, it appears more level. When I look at it full size, the slope down from right to left looks huge.

Perhaps there is something that alters the perspective somehow, but I am not going to start sounding like I am making excuses- I'm just interested in opinions on this sort of issue.

It depends on what else is in the picture. If the only point of reference is the edge of a lake, then it will look odd if it's not level, even if perspective is making it slope. However when there are lots of other visual clues (e.g. the island in the foreground, buildings, clouds etc) then if they are all level it will look OK. The human brain is capable of taking in all the information to make a decision. If you concentrate on the far bank then, yes, you can see it's not level, but viewing the picture as a whole compensates for that IMO.

Yeah, I wouldn't be too concerned by the first picture. For me, the focus is mainly the mountains in the background - that's what interests me most. Looking at it, it's only really a tiny amount. If the rest of the image is doing something, I wouldn't let it worry me too much.

Consider this famous photo by Annie Leibovitz - Clicky.
Notice the horizon. It didn't jump out at me until about the 3rd or 4th time I looked. The strength of the foreground and main content draw the eye.
I try to get my horizons level, of course, but it's not a deal breaker if the rest of the image works, IMHO.

+1

Mark

The last sentence is the correctly attitude. At times, an off kilter horizon adds to the picture. In the one you cited, it’s not necessary to have a dead straight horizon. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that if it was there, the angles the models are making would not be as striking, and the horizon would appear artificial. It also makes you think that the picture was taken at the moment, not meticulously posed and calculated.

It’s the odd eccentricities like this which make a picture work. I’ll be considering any horizontal or vertical corrections far more carefully now. I’m sure some of my images don’t actually need it.

Depending on which image you see first, the other one becomes rather obviously tilted. But if you look at each image long enough, as stated above, you forget about the horizon.

I think the thing that stands out for me is the houses. On the original photo, they're horizontally laid out. On the adjusted photo, they're sloping, which makes it look funny.