Unaligned perfectly horizon in masters' or pros' works.

Is unaligned horizon (0.5 - 1 degrees) a crime? I got obsessed with horizon selecting my best works for my portfolio. But some maitres of world class photography have this issue ( look at the link ) and did not align it perfectly. Not too often, but it occurs/occured. I am speaking about staged photography only.

Another example of Rodney Smith (link)

And another of his works (link)

What do you think?

I think an unaligned horizon in a photo or for that matter in real life (I’m trying to think of the number of times my head and eyes are actually perfectly aligned with the horizon) is one of the furthest thing from a crime I can think of.

 

I won’t speak for others, and certainly not masters, but I pay attention to horizons when it seems warranted and don’t spend too much time noticing them or caring about them. The photos I’m most interested in often don’t include a horizon and, when they do, I’m just as happy if they’re intentionally off kilter in some way instead of being modeled after some idealistic notion of visual perfection.

I spent a lot of time at sea doing navigation, and keeping the horizon level was critical. So, I'm kind of stuck with that. I almost always shoot from a tripod, and using the bubble level is automatic. Having said that, I also know in landscape shots, the "horizon" is not always horizontal, so there is some flexibility there. However, if there are structures like buildings in the shot, it's more critical. Buildings that are not vertical are a distraction, so basically, you're still dealing with keeping the horizon flat, even when it's not actually in the shot.

 

As Kahn says, plumb verticals especially with buildings can be a problem, not only horizontals. Especially today with so many shooting with wide angle lenses. One of the reasons I like 28-35 over 24mm especially if there are buildings. I do like flat horizons in landscapes but that could just be me. I find slanted ones distracting.

While I prefer level horizons I recognize that isn't always the case in nature (after all the earth is curved), so I try to make my verticals accurate, if that is natural, and let the horizon fall where it may.

IMHO it depends on the type of photo but such small offsets really don't matter for most photos. Certainly not worth obsessing over unless you have an obsessive commercial client.;)

 

If a slight 'unalignment' matters, then it usually matters where 'straight lines' are very close to the edges of a photo. The only examples I can think of are straight lines/tiles on a wall, ceiling or building that meet an edge of a photo. In my experience, it's only in these kinds of photos that viewers might notice that straight horizontal/vertical lines are not quite aligned with the edge of a photo. Sometimes this can be important, usually not.

 

Perspective and lens distortions often make it difficult (at least for me) to align both verticals and horizontals to 90-degrees, even if I had the time (which I don't).

 

In the real world, things are not perfectly aligned at 90 degrees to each other. What is '90-degree aligned' in the foreground is often not in the background. So in my experience, it's often a question of 'what to line up?'. I tend to 'line up' people ( and tall buildings) so that they don't look as if they're leaning forwards or backwards. Depending on the setting, this sometimes means that other things in the background aren't exactly at 90 degrees.

 

Living in the Netherlands, I'd also like to mention the deliberate 'Dutch Angle'. In this short video, street photographer Eric Kim explains what it is, using examples by Garry Winogrand and film stills. An unaligned horizon can be a deliberate, positive 'feature' of a photo. Personally, I find photos that are exactly aligned to be be very static.

In any case where the horizon is prominent (as on the Great Plains or the ocean) it IS a crime, unless you did it on purpose.:rolleyes:

 

I would have said sin, rather than crime.

Is unaligned horizon (0.5 - 1 degrees) a crime? I got obsessed with horizon selecting my best works for my portfolio. But some maitres of world class photography have this issue ( look at the link ) and did not align it perfectly. Not too often, but it occurs/occured. I am speaking about staged photography only.

Another example of Rodney Smith (link)

And another of his works (link)

What do you think?

 

I am not sure if the first linked photo is staged. On the other hand, I think the slightly tilted horizon fits well with the eccentric 'frame within a frame' theme and contrasts wonderfully with the royal guard on the left, who is a symbol for rigidity and formality. While I don't know if the tilting was intentional, I wouldn't be surprised if it was.

 

I don't see any tilted horizon in the second photo. I see most of the trees and the woman's posture perfectly vertical.

 

Don't let the issue of horizon distract you from enjoying the masters' pictures. If it bothers you, just tilt your head a little. ;)

IMHO it depends on the type of photo but such small offsets really don't matter for most photos. Certainly not worth obsessing over unless you have an obsessive commercial client.;)

 

If a slight 'unalignment' matters, then it usually matters where 'straight lines' are very close to the edges of a photo. The only examples I can think of are straight lines/tiles on a wall, ceiling or building that meet an edge of a photo. In my experience, it's only in these kinds of photos that viewers might notice that straight horizontal/vertical lines are not quite aligned with the edge of a photo. Sometimes this can be important, usually not.

 

Perspective and lens distortions often make it difficult (at least for me) to align both verticals and horizontals to 90-degrees, even if I had the time (which I don't).

 

In the real world, things are not perfectly aligned at 90 degrees to each other. What is '90-degree aligned' in the foreground is often not in the background. So in my experience, it's often a question of 'what to line up?'. I tend to 'line up' people ( and tall buildings) so that they don't look as if they're leaning forwards or backwards. Depending on the setting, this sometimes means that other things in the background aren't exactly at 90 degrees.

 

Living in the Netherlands, I'd also like to mention the deliberate 'Dutch Angle'. In this short video, street photographer Eric Kim explains what it is, using examples by Garry Winogrand and film stills. An unaligned horizon can be a deliberate, positive 'feature' of a photo. Personally, I find photos that are exactly aligned to be be very static.

 

Dutch angle, I like it.

 

I tend to agree with SCL. A non vertical vertical is more distracting than a tilted horizon because it is not always obvious where the horizon should be (unless you're looking at the ocean on a clear day).

I am not sure if the first linked photo is staged. On the other hand, I think the slightly tilted horizon fits well with the eccentric 'frame within a frame' theme and contrasts wonderfully with the royal guard on the left, who is a symbol for rigidity and formality. While I don't know if the tilting was intentional, I wouldn't be surprised if it was.

 

I don't see any tilted horizon in the second photo. I see most of the trees and the woman's posture perfectly vertical.

 

Don't let the issue of horizon distract you from enjoying the masters' pictures. If it bothers you, just tilt your head a little. ;)

 

I agree with you about the second image and the verticality of the woman's upper body. As to the first, although I understand your point about the guard's appearance, my comparatively less sophistication never would have allowed me to see that as an explanation for a slight tilt. What I found though was a building in the background that looks to be at a 90 degree angle with the street.

I am not sure if the first linked photo is staged.

Rodney Smith did staged photography only and I am sure that frame in frame was composed and yes, staged. There is a little, tiny chance that he took that photo as a street or PJ photo. But still I am sure that it is not a kind of street.

Dutch angle, I like it.

I used this tilting back in the days (2000-2008), videomakers used to use it extensively too, but I think now it looks kinda-sorta obsolete. Not to my taste now.

Perspective and lens distortions often make it difficult

Yes.

Recently I have started to pay attention to this. In pros' works, or how they call themseves. The photo with archtecture structures is unalighned. So is the misfocused couple beneath. All the 3, frankly speaking, are tilted counterclockwise. :mad:

an explanation for a slight tilt

Neglegence.

 

What I found though was a building in the background that looks to be at a 90 degree angle with the street.

Certainly no. I is not even close to 90 degrees to the street.

Neglegence

 

Out of many tens of Rodney Smith's perfectly aligned staged images all over the internet, this is one of the rare ones that is tilted. For a photographer who took special care to make many aligned (and in some cases perfectly symmetric) photos, negligence doesn't seem to explain what he did here.

Out of many tens of Rodney Smith's perfectly aligned staged images all over the internet, this is one of the rare ones that is tilted. For a photographer who took special care to make many aligned (and in some cases perfectly symmetric) photos, negligence doesn't seem to explain what he did here.

I think things are easier and more banal than they seem to be.

Here in ketching up again blog the photo is about 1-1.5 degrees counterclockwise. But we don't know for sure.

“The shortest distance between two points is often unbearable.”

—Charles Bukowski, poet

I really like the tilt in Winogrand’s Park Avenue, New York 1959.

 

To me, it makes the crazy world of chimps being chauffeured around New York by humans more apocalyptic.

 

=> How Garry Winogrand Transformed Street Photography

Hell yes. In Winogrand's case, it works.

Almost all of Garry Winogrand's photos that I have seen have a noticeable tilt to them. It strikes me as contrived and detracts from his images. IMO. Or perhaps he just didn't care when he took the photos, which, to me, explains how he had about 300,000 unedited images upon his death. Looks like Winogrand foreshadowed the digital age with its spray and pray "technique.".

Neglegence.

 

 

Certainly no. I is not even close to 90 degrees to the street.

 

My vision must need checking, then. I just took another look and the building's visible vertical appears to lack tilt.

My vision must need checking, then. I just took another look and the building's visible vertical appears to lack tilt.

Don't blame your eyes - check it with triangular scale engineers ruler, having printed the image in big size.

Believe me - architects and civil engineers can build and do know about levels. o_O

Don't blame your eyes - check it with triangular scale engineers ruler, having printed the image in big size.

Believe me - architects and civil engineers can build and do know about levels. o_O

 

Good point, Ruslan. I guess that, at my age, I can't always rely on my vision.

Almost all of Garry Winogrand's photos that I have seen have a noticeable tilt to them. ......".

 

When I look through Winogrand's photographs in Mike Morrell's and Ludmilla's links, and in a Google search, I see that he had a strong preference for the left side of a photograph to be raised above the right side, or in other words for the camera to be tilted to the left. Could this be due to his holding his camera one-handed with his right hand and not consciously compensating for gravity trying to tilt his camera to the left? Just a speculation, I have not read a biography or seen photographs of Winogrand in action. In any case, I find his technique (or mistake) effective, and greatly enjoy looking at his photographs.

I always find that in my own work I do several checks when it comes to horizons.

1) Is it relevant?

2) Can I see a horizon that would match to a grid? If not then-

3) Is there some horizon to be perceived? For this I will turn away from an image and then quickly turn back. I find that sometimes in a case of images where it is difficult to decide this will resolve the issue for me.

 

From what Phil quotes Winogrand saying about tilting, I take to mean that he followed his intuition and did not consciously think about camera alignment when taking photos. Not surprising for street photography.

 

I presume that Winogrand, or his gallery, still hung framed prints with the top and bottom edges carefully aligned horizontally?

Tilting hanging prints would be a way to compensate for tilted horizons in photos. Here is a titled example of a photo that I took one-handed while kayaking. However, I consider hanging a tilted mounted photo to be just a gimmick to compensate for sloppy technique.(Taking photos one-handed with my right hand while kayaking and holding my paddle with my left hand often leads to tilted horizons).

 

I like Tomatsu's minimalist photo. If the horizon were straightened, I think that it would not be as effective (too minimalist?).

 

When I try to access Sugimoto's photo, I get a notice that the site is blocked.

 

Personally, coming from a large format background where the first thing I did after setting up a tripod was to level the horizontal axis of the camera, I like my horizons to be horizontal, especially for ocean scenes.

Edited July 3, 2019 by Glenn McCreery