Beautiful Landscapes Ruined by Crooked Horizons! WHY?!

I am not trying to convince you about the image.

We're not trying to convince each other of anything regarding your image, Supriyo. It's a discussion on how to communicate through image creation which you have a talent for going by your other No Words entries over the years which I've "Like'ed" several times, something I don't take lightly nor do I decide to do just to reciprocate. I have 50 years experience of communicating by the image making process which explains my interest in the subject.

 

I was hoping you would pick up on my use of the word "severe" in describing the angle of the slant instead of what you perceive as an argument on my part. What made you decide on that particular angle? Maybe you just felt at one point too much or too little was not giving you the feeling you wanted to convey.

 

My beef in starting this thread was based on seeing a photographer or photographers create a beautiful serene and somewhat static composition in seascapes that often have dominant sea meets sky horizon lines and because of this simple and almost minimalist geometric arrangement of elements decides leaving the slight tilt of the horizon wouldn't distract and take away from its beauty and serene nature.

 

Seascapes to make you seasick, my best description. Just stare at the horizon which I had to do during a work/vacation with my dad on a shrimp boat as a teen while it was tipping up and down. It worked.

 

I have to wonder what goes on in the minds of those that take up and invest quite a bit of time and effort pursuing a hobby/craft as image creation by the photographic process and decide it's a good idea to not fix such a minor flaw as a slightly slanted horizon in the final piece as opposed to the severity of Supriyo's image which clearly shows intent in trying to communicate a feeling.

 

I hope you can see the distinction I'm making with regard to visual communication. Thanks for indulging me with your thoughtful responses, Supriyo.

Edited June 13, 2018 by Tim_Lookingbill

i didn't mean in the thread i meant via PM

I have that feature turned off because through the years it's been used by others who contact me this way to nit pick and gossip about other member's behind their back on personal issues that shouldn't be part of the discussion on photography.

 

And I'ld rather have a forum of differing opinions chime in on subjects like this in hope the folks who do these kinds of things with their photographs will read and be more mindful.

Maybe it has equally to do with what you shouldn't look for in order to override being distracted by the slant. As Winogrand said when talking about the tilts in many of his photographs: they're only tilted if one insists that the horizontal edge of the frame is the reference point of the picture and to which the horizon should run parallel to.

I'm so glad I don't follow "famous" photographer writings with that non-informational quote from Winogrand. Makes no sense at all and the guy is in the field of communication. I won't even bother to check the spelling on this guy's name.

@ Tim.

 

Why you did Tim. You maybe didn't use the word "rule" but certainly the implication is clear.

 

"I'm having a moment where I just have to vent just coming out of the No Words forum. I keep seeing just gorgeous landscapes mainly beach and sky scenes, some with sunsets. And the freakin' horizon where sea meets sky is on an angle.

HAAAAAA! I just want to scream! It would be no problem to fix this even if it crops some elements out. What is it with people who take these nice looking photos and don't fix this?

 

Am I the only one that's bothered by this? I don't even get the opportunity to go to some of these exotic places so there's no excuse to get at least one of the shots of what amounts to a still, no movement scene and get the horizon lined up or at least fix it in post.

 

There! I'm done. I feel better now.

 

Post anything for or against and I welcome any other venting about other photo faux pas and just lazy photographing."

 

Seems pretty plain to me that to you, slanted horizons are verboten.

And you make rash judgements without reading other entries made to clarify by others and myself. Some folks just look for arguments because they're too stifled to be reasoned with.

 

Ever heard of aesthetic blindness. Kinda' like those that can't read a room or get a sense of the unsaid.

Edited June 13, 2018 by Tim_Lookingbill

We're not trying to convince each other of anything regarding your image, Supriyo. It's a discussion on how to communicate through image creation which you have a talent for going by your other No Words entries over the years which I've "Like'ed" several times, something I don't take lightly nor do I decide to do just to reciprocate. I have 50 years experience of communicating by the image making process which explains my interest in the subject.

 

I was hoping you would pick up on my use of the word "severe" in describing the angle of the slant instead of what you perceive as an argument on my part. What made you decide on that particular angle? Maybe you just felt at one point too much or too little was not giving you the feeling you wanted to convey.

 

My beef in starting this thread was based on seeing a photographer or photographers create a beautiful serene and somewhat static composition in seascapes that often have dominant sea meets sky horizon lines and because of this simple and almost minimalist geometric arrangement of elements decides leaving the slight tilt of the horizon wouldn't distract and take away from its beauty and serene nature.

 

Seascapes to make you seasick, my best description. Just stare at the horizon which I had to do during a work/vacation with my dad on a shrimp boat as a teen while it was tipping up and down. It worked.

 

I have to wonder what goes on in the minds of those that take up and invest quite a bit of time and effort pursuing a hobby/craft as image creation by the photographic process and decide it's a good idea to not fix such a minor flaw as a slightly slanted horizon in the final piece as opposed to the severity of your image which clearly shows intent in trying to communicate a feeling.

 

I hope you can see the distinction I'm making with regard to visual communication. Thanks for indulging me with your thoughtful responses, Supriyo.

 

Thanks Tim, for clarifying some of the points. One reason for the severe slant was to create an almost abstract pattern of bands comprising the blue sky and green grass divided by the strip of water, with the vertical figure in the middle. That was also part of the motivation. And yes you are right, I felt that a slight tilt would not have worked in this scenario.

 

I understand your original point in the thread was not about intentional tilting of horizons, but careless tilting which could affect the aesthetics of an otherwise sound shot.

Thanks for clarifying your point as well, Supriyo.

 

Hopefully the length of this thread will be read by others so they can become more mindful that photography is a worthy hobby and endeavor to take what appears to them be minor flaws in photos is taken seriously by others who care and place value in what they create through the process of image making.

Rash? Stifled? Aesthetic blindness? Wow, that's harsh, I might need a Kleenex to dry my tears. But maybe its a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

But maybe its a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

No, it's a discussion on visual communication through the photographic process which I've indicated for the upteenth time.

 

Or maybe it's about you not bothering to read this thread?

 

It's already got over 1000 views. What were you looking for? An argument?

And in this discussion, you are basically dissing every comment that doesn't agree with your views on visual communication and photographic processes. I've read most of the thread, and I think maybe you are only interested in your own point view. Looking at your responses to several posters, you do not seem interested in dialogue, only in forcing agreement. Look at your own posts and ask yourself who is looking for an argument. Maybe you value your expertise more than others here do.

Some of the most self agrandizing dramatization I’ve ever seen here.

And it is a simple matter to PM someone, have a private conversation about an issue, then switch it off again.

Certainly better than some unseemly overly dramatic two-faced display that just goes on and on....

Methinks this is all about getting a “1000 views” more than anything else.

Fun for a little while.

It’s become a simple posturing ego feed.

I won’t “like” pictures then go elsewhere and tear that person apart about what I told them I liked.

 

I’ve looked at her portfolio, and somehow I don’t think she needs all of this horizon “advice”.

 

Additionally, concerning other pictures posted and “critiqued”, I do not see a picture of a post as any less photo worthy than a sink drain.

 

Now.

I’m through beating this Dead Horse......

Edited June 13, 2018 by Moving On

All the water will run to that end of the "tub".:eek:

 

Well, Sandy, I suppose that you can run faster in one direction if the ocean is tilted.

Photographic communication isn’t as literal as many other forms of communication. The push to know more than what Supriyo originally said about his photo, as if there’s an exact or precise reason for, meaning, and communicative intent of a slanted horizon in a photo is out of whack. Photography is also more than communication, for example, expression. Expression . . . and art . . . can be much harder to pin down than communication.

 

Winogrand is an important photographer to know. Dismissing him thus shows a strange unwillingness to learn. If you can’t grasp the fairly simple concept of an image and its relationship to the frame or edge of the paper or canvas and the image’s ability sometimes to transcend that constraint, I suggest another 50 years of comprehensive study of image communication, though it should actually take only an hour or two to absorb this one.

Edited June 13, 2018 by Norma Desmond

If it works with a wonky horizon, if it works with a straight horizon...

 

If it works what else really matters.

And I'ld rather have a forum of differing opinions chime in on subjects like this in hope the folks who do these kinds of things with their photographs will read and be more mindful.

 

what does being mindful have to do with a straight horizon line ?

Hopefully the length of this thread will be read by others so they can become more mindful that photography is a worthy hobby and endeavor to take what appears to them be minor flaws in photos is taken seriously by others who care and place value in what they create through the process of image making.

LOL. I suspect you will have convinced more people to skew their horizons than straighten them. Ironically, that may mean your rule-demanding, image-communication "expertise" will likely have been undermined . . . by you. Either way, whatever moves people to consciously break your rules or anyone else's is very likely bound to be a good thing.

My beef in starting this thread was based on seeing a photographer or photographers create a beautiful serene and somewhat static composition in seascapes that often have dominant sea meets sky horizon lines and because of this simple and almost minimalist geometric arrangement of elements decides leaving the slight tilt of the horizon wouldn't distract and take away from its beauty and serene nature.

I'd guess most of the cases you're so terribly concerned with and annoyed by haven't decided this at all. They probably haven't noticed it, because it's relatively unimportant to what THEY are doing. A viewer is entitled to critique. But a viewer also does well to have a bit of empathy about what's important to those he's criticizing. It's a matter of priorities. Again, your priority is to allow a slightly skewed horizon to "ruin" a photo. Others have different priorities . . . thankfully.

what does being mindful have to do with a straight horizon line ?

I believe that's self explanatory and I've already answered that several times in this thread.

I believe that's self explanatory and I've already answered that several times in this thread.

 

ive read the whole thread and i am not really buying what you are selling.

it doesn't really have much to do with mindfullness but it has to do with

someone uploading what THEY like, and you don't, so you are complaining about it.

What's next, a defense of dust spots as artistic expression?

What's next, a defense of dust spots as artistic expression?

It’s a matter of most of us not letting a one-degree tilt of a horizon or a few dust spots drive us to distraction. It’s not letting such things cause us to rant publicly without being able to simply contact the photographer personally to mention it as something they might want to consider. It’s not allowing these things to ruin a photo we otherwise like. I think we’re asking for a sense of proportionality and priority.

 

What’s also become unfortunately obvious is that the obsession with level horizons even in situations where it most likely would be more visually organic or consistent to have it level has gotten in the way of a viewer being able to recognize the effectiveness of a more obvious and pronounced slant in an image that’s much the better for it.

 

Most dust marks are simple mistakes. I notice them and just look past them, especially on the Internet. I’d maybe have a different reaction to dust spots on photos in a museum but still wouldn’t let it ruin a photo I otherwise really appreciated. And, if a photographer managed to use dust spots artistically, as many have used grain, noise, and other “flaws,” I wouldn’t automatically dismiss their creative use because of some “rule” that dust spots are always forbidden. You also “shouldn’t” chop off people’s heads, yet Winogrand’s iconic photo of the guy below a beach boardwalk does just that.

 

(Google Image Result for http://www.artnet.com/WebServices/images/ll963310llgZMfDrCWvaHBOAD/garry-winogrand-coney-island,-new-york.jpg)

 

Part of art’s job is to make people spouting rules and demanding adherence look foolish. :)

Edited June 14, 2018 by Norma Desmond

What's next, a defense of dust spots as artistic expression?

 

maybe ?

a dusty and horizon tilted, splotchy, poorly exposed, poorly printed, photograph of something interesting beats a dustless perfect horizon of something uninteresting all day long.

 

the world isn't going to end because of dust or a tilted horizon line or poorly exposed &c image

the world isn't going to end because of dust or a tilted horizon line or poorly exposed &c image

You first, my friend ;)

Well, Sandy, I suppose that you can run faster in one direction if the ocean is tilted.[ATTACH=full]1249896[/ATTACH]

The photo works because the guy is straight.

There are many irregular horizons, but this conversation started with horizons formed by the ocean, or man-made objects intended to be level or vertical.

 

I have found landscapes in mountainous areas somewhat problematic. While nothing is geometrically exact, trees taken in aggregate look rather odd if all tilt in the same directions. I'm thinking of pine and aspen forests, which have straight, closely-spaced trunks. If the theme is convergence, to convey a sense of vastness, the vanishing may be a thematic element, and placed appropriately. Likewise tilt to impart sense of action.

 

In video, there is the virtual wall rule - subjects are viewed from one side of that "wall," which is never crossed. Except of course, when crossing it becomes a dramatic element.

 

Any rule can be broken if there is a reason for doing so. It's the accidents that scream "AMATEUR," or at least "CARELESS."

 

The previous example (Crooked - Uncrooked) reminds me of another photographic fetish - split neutral grads - with the effect inverted.

It's the accidents that scream "AMATEUR,"

The accidents don't SCREAM at me. They do, often, w-h-i-s-p-e-r "amateur" or "inexperience." If I feel the accident nibbling at my ear, I might* contact the photographer and mention that it looks like a mistake. Then it's up to the photographer to care about it or not. I just go on with my day.

 

*I've done it quite a bit on PN. I either go to portfolios to comment on photos or, when I've participated in No Words, I've occasionally contacted a photographer either to acknowledge a photo that seemed special to me or to bring up something that's not working for me. Usually turns out well. Nice to make connections here like that.

 

Rant threads may be cathartic but are usually unproductive.

i have one leg significantly shorter than the other and so, for me, slightly tilted images are perfectly natural. of course, in the early days, because of peer pressure, i would correct this in post but now it doesn’t bother me. i am free from all that.