On the level

Seems that in an image with a horizon or any other line like a river bank or the edge of anything -- unless the edge is dead level folks recommend leveling it.

But what if the river was going off at an angel or the RR tracks where going up hill?

In the case of a photo I posted today the brook was running away from me and the RR track on the other side were too. So I left the natural angle created by my position in relation to the RR tracks and brook. I thought it created an incline for the photographer in the scene to climb and was more faithful to the scene as I saw it.

Here is a link to the image:
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=110511&CGISESSID=d141bd14e0705026e23ee954f9b745de&u=25953

What do you think -- is a leveling needed here or should I leave things alone?

I have a photo of the NYC skyline with Twin Towers taken in 1989 or so -- one of my personal favorites. The edge of the NY harbor is not straight but I've gotten more than one comment about straightening out the NY City harbor! Where do yo draw the line?

Thx for your thoughts.

Frank, leveling is one area where I think perception doesn't only trump reality - it is reality. If the majority of viewers are disturbed in their appreciation of an image due to a perceived unlevel then it's to your benefit to work it out if you intend to share the image with others.Tools like grid lines in post or a bubble level in the field can be very useful but in the end absolute blind following of these guides is not productive because the goal is to have the viewer enjoy the image and if asked answer - "looks level to me". Our brains are hardwired to seek out level so if we perceive unlevel then it's a major obstacle in our enjoyment of a photo.

Whether it actually has a slight tilt is kind of beside the point, if if gives the impression of being wrong, straightening it gives the impression of being right. Even if it is an illusion that the picture is tilted, I would eliminate the illusion.

Ultimately, you are the judge. If it bothers you to "untilt" it, then don't. If it doesn't bother you, do it.

I think the tilt in your photo is too subtle. This is probably why people suggest levelling it. If you want to have a tilt, I think it needs to be obvious that it is intentional. If you have the room to crop on the original, I would suggest tilting it more (CW).

Frank, this is all perception and how people may see it or not see it based upon the look of the scene. I think this image is a bit difficult as the FG is foggy and may not provide the true level that the scene deserves, perceptions or not. This is all based upon on how level things were captured in the field of course and if you feel it truly is level as a result of that. I straightened an image out over the masses seeing it as being tilted, the clouds now run at an angle downward and to left instead of being level. As with any image, basically stated, it is your call and what you think works best and how well it may sell if that is the intent.

As one of the people that recommended eliminating the tilt, I can't really add much more than what's already been said. Given the comp and how it's such a small angle, my perception is that it's slanted, and that causes my eye to focus in on the line and follow it out of the scene. However, if it's perfectly level, my eye isn't lead out of the scene and instead stays focused on the other details of the picture. Doesn't mean that I don't recognize that it may have a gradient in reality, but for keeping attention focused on the photo, horizontal lines tend to work better in situations like this...

Try wrestling with a horizon line when you are working in the dark. I do this routinely. The only way I can reliably get a level is to.....use a level. In RR photography there is a lot of straight lines, but they generally are going at angles. The only real level "reference" we usually have is the horizon, but that something I often don't have because it's dark. Consider this photo I took last month:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3282/2967057980_9784e6ae80_o.jpg

I was able to line up the bridge using star light, and got my focus by quickly manually focussing on the bridge girders using the headlight of the coming train. That was the only light I had to work with. I then popped the shutter which unleashed nearly 3,000 watt seconds of flash power. The resulting photo was not level, but close. I had to shoot from a boat anchored in the river and could not use a tripod due to motions of the boat. Using the river as my level reference, I was then able to square it up in PS.


Kent in SD

Railroad tracks in flat or even hilly country don't have that much of a visible grade.
The tilt in the vertical post on the lower left is almost the same tilt angle as the tracks.

"Taken on the run..." says it all. You need to straighten the horizon, simple as that.

Thanks for all the comments and advice. I will straighten the image out. Its a cropped one and in the larger image there is more of the brook in front of the tracks. The brook is running off to the right and while the tracks are doing the same thing (in other words I was not parallel to them) they must be level because as John says RR tracks don't have a visible grade over such a short distance.

By the way John -- taken on the run is how Henri Cartier-Bresson took his photos albeit infinitely better than me. His famous book "The Decisive Moment" was entitled "Photographs Taken on the Run" when it was first published in France. The American Edition changed it to "The Decisive Moment." So don't blame my ineptitude on the taken on the run aspect of the technique I used inn this case -- I have only some poor judgement to blame.

Frank, as I looked at the photo before posting my comment, I was quite confident that the tracks were indeed running at an incline as depicted. The gait of the photographer on the tracks suggests that he/she was walking uphill.

Good points made above about "preceived level." I would repost the photo with the tracks level and see how viewers respond - we may find that we prefer the original presentation anyway!

Frank,

Aside from major exposure problems, horizontal lines are typically the first thing that folks will notice if their "appears" to be a tilt. This goes for verticals as well, but it's most prevalent in landscapes with a flat horizon; like a sunset over the ocean. Once you get beyond the obvious examples it enters the world of "perceived" tilt, as in a receeding shoreline or your image is a perfect example.

So when I look at your scene, I see this as a "perceived" tilt. From your viewpoint, it looks to me that the RH edge of the frame is closer to you and the LH side is further away. In other words, the rr tracks are NOT perpendicular to you. So, unless you have a view camera and can "swing" the film plane so it's parallel to the tracks you would be hard pressed to make the tracks level; except of course in post processing.

Long story short, I don't mind the apparent tilt here as the rest of the image seems straight and normal. Having said all that, I don't disagree that some times correcting a "perceived" tilt will work if it removes doubt for the viewer.

I think you should post a straightened version for comparison. I think Jim may be right and folks might prefer the original. You can post both here in this thread if you like.

Lon

I leveled the image out and reposted it.

Its here: http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=110642&CGISESSID=bf0bce84c94eb090633852e75377f321&u=6351

Wadaya think?

Thanks, Frank

This feels much better to me Frank. I don't keep turning my head sideways.

Frank,

The straightened tracks actually do look better. I was afraid that the trees would look off, but it all looks good.

Lon

Yes, reality be damned! It looks better with the tracks parallel to the edge of the frame.

Pete D. always on the level. I kid you not. Not!

I have to agree - level works better on this one.