Straighten or not?

ShinySideUp

ShinySideUp

Messages
4,419
Name
Martin
Edit My Images
Yes
I posted an image in it's own thread yesterday and asked for critique. One of the comments referred to straightening the image.

This is the thread link: Sunset

The image is in fact dead straight as that is the way the landscape is; higher on the left to lower on the right, but of course it doesn't look like it.

Do you think an image should be straightened to make it look 'correct', or left looking wonky because that is the way the landscape is? Just curious.
 
Leave as is would be my suggestion
 
  • Like
Reactions: RIR
The image possibly is straight but the telegraph poles are not vertical so I'd put it down to the wide angle lens used. Perhaps run it through some correction software?
 
It looks like a hill to me so does not need straightening. Very occasionally, I have straightened one of my images when it was not clear that it was straight but not in this case.

Dave
 
admirable said:
The image possibly is straight but the telegraph poles are not vertical so I'd put it down to the wide angle lens used. Perhaps run it through some correction software?
Click to expand...
By heck, you have some eyesight. I couldn't even find the telegraph poles at first. I have done as you suggest and tried using the lens correction for my particular glass but it hasn't helped much. I am going by that way tomorrow so I shall have a look as to the aspect of the telegraph poles. This has made me quite curious. Knowing Caradon Hill, it is quite possible that the poles actually look like this, what with all the mine workings (I doubt it though).
 
I'd leave as originally posted, the title leaves no doubt as to why the land is sloped IMHO
 
You know the place and the geography better than anyone else, so you can judge whether it's a true reflection or not.

But a question I ask myself sometimes in this kind of situation is whether an image might look off to a viewer, even if I know it's level. Sometimes it can be better to make the image *appear* level if you're sharing the photo with others, even though you know that the 'correction' has made it incorrect. Just a thought.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
expose it properly the next time round
Click to expand...

Explain if you would. I've done it like that to try to make it appear more dramatic but this is my first foray into landscapes using extreme wide-angle lenses and I'm keen to learn how to do it properly. Foreground was a non-starter as it was practically dark where I was standing and consisted of low rocks and scrawny bushes; nothing that would make an interesting view.
 
Last edited:
ShinySideUp said:
Explain if you would. I've done it like that to try to make it appear more dramatic but this is my first foray into landscapes using extreme wide-angle lenses and I'm keen to learn how to do it properly. Foreground was a non-starter as it was practically dark where I was standing and consisted of low rocks and scrawny bushes; nothing that would make an interesting view.
Click to expand...
A landscape photograph should be well-composed and well-exposed. By the very definition of landscape, one of the key elements that should be well-exposed is the land in the foreground. This is because the foreground is the closest element to the viewer and therefore the most important in terms of composition. The sky, while also important, is a secondary feature in a landscape photograph. It should complement the foreground, but not overpower it. A well-exposed foreground with a complementary sky will create a visually pleasing and balanced photograph.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
A landscape photograph should be well-composed and well-exposed. By the very definition of landscape, one of the key elements that should be well-exposed is the land in the foreground. This is because the foreground is the closest element to the viewer and therefore the most important in terms of composition. The sky, while also important, is a secondary feature in a landscape photograph. It should complement the foreground, but not overpower it. A well-exposed foreground with a complementary sky will create a visually pleasing and balanced photograph.
Click to expand...
I’m sure this is correct for most landscapes but for sunsets where the foreground has no interest what should you do? For me the only answer is to find a location which has some foreground interest, but this is not always possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
Straighten. Looks wrong as it is. Your image your choice, to please you or others.
 
I'd leave it just as is.

There'll always be someone wanting to show how "clever" they are by telling you what is "wrong" with your picture.
 
I think it's very subjective. There's a mountain here (Buachaille Etive Mor) that always seems to be leaning when photographed. It can be a combination of lens used, particularly wide angle and the lay of the land. I can't resist straightening The Buachaille when I photograph it but I am a bit OCD about straight lines etc.

I think your image has a bit of both, some lens thing going on plus a slight lean. As mentioned, the telegraph poles are leaning too, the same way the image seems to be leaning and there is a curve to the horizon as well. That may well be how it is but I'd try some lens corrections first, then if the poles aren't vertical after that, tweak it so they are, you won't be far off then.
 
Last edited:
admirable said:
The image possibly is straight but the telegraph poles are not vertical so I'd put it down to the wide angle lens used. Perhaps run it through some correction software?
Click to expand...

Dale. said:
I think it's very subjective. There's a mountain here (Buachaille Etive Mor) that always seems to be leaning when photographed. It can be a combination of lens used, particularly wide angle and the lay of the land. I can't resist straightening The Buachaille when I photograph it but I am a bit OCD about straight lines etc.

I think your image has a bit of both, some lens thing going on plus a slight lean. As mentioned, the telegraph poles are leaning too, the same way the image seems to be leaning and there is a curve to the horizon as well. That may well be how it is but I'd try some lens corrections first, then if the poles aren't vertical after that, tweak it so they are, you won't be far off then.
Click to expand...

I have been back in the daylight to have a look with my own eyes. You'll be amazed to hear that the angle of the poles has been portrayed correctly, that is exactly what the actual poles look like. Here is a highly zoomed in part of an image I took while it was still a bit light. You can see that the poles in this picture are all over the place. I put it down to the fact that Caradon Hill is full of mine shafts and subsidence and this is what happens if something stays in the same place long enough. I haven't done anything to the image so it's rather dark and grainy, it's about 5% of the original.

Sunset3.jpg
 
Last edited:
ShinySideUp said:
this is my first foray into landscapes using extreme wide-angle lenses
Click to expand...

As has been said, I think thats your actual issue here - the lens distortion is exaggerating the naturally un-level horizon Imo.

Separately I feel it harsh that you specifically asked for critique regarding to level horizon and you seem to be receiving feedback on the exposure...:confused:
 
willbaroo said:
As has been said, I think thats your actual issue here - the lens distortion is exaggerating the naturally un-level horizon Imo.

Separately I feel it harsh that you specifically asked for critique regarding to level horizon and you seem to be receiving feedback on the exposure...:confused:
Click to expand...

It's the way of forums (fora?), things always move on a bit until they fizzle out -- or Godwin's Law kicks in.

Anyway, I think this one's been done to death now anyway, I've learnt a lot about landscapes, distortion and exposure, now I need to get more experience.
 
Just my 2p worth...

Leave it as it was taken. Why add dark foreground to a photo of a SUNSET? I often dial in 1 or even 2 stops of underexposure to a sunset/rise.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
A landscape photograph should be well-composed and well-exposed. By the very definition of landscape, one of the key elements that should be well-exposed is the land in the foreground. This is because the foreground is the closest element to the viewer and therefore the most important in terms of composition. The sky, while also important, is a secondary feature in a landscape photograph. It should complement the foreground, but not overpower it. A well-exposed foreground with a complementary sky will create a visually pleasing and balanced photograph.
Click to expand...
That sounds like you’ve cut and paste it from some camera club pamphlet. NB I’m sure you haven’t but it comes across as a bland rule that is just crying out to be broken!!!
 
Yeah, it's not straight... I brightened it some so I could actually see what is going on.
The foreground slopes, but the horizon line does not; the horizon is always "flat" if you can actually see it. If you level the horizon it's better IMO, even the clouds feel more natural to me.

Untitled-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
Yeah, it's not straight... I brightened it some so I could actually see what is going on.
The foreground slopes, but the horizon line does not; the horizon is always "flat" if you can actually see it. If you level the horizon it's better IMO, even the clouds feel more natural to me.
Click to expand...
You are right. It wasn't straight, although the ground does slope, I had a very close look and just under where the sun is you can sea the coastline and you can't get more level than sea level.

So, I have cropped in a little more to get rid of some of the falling telegraph poles -- which, it turns out, are not wonky, despite what I said earlier, but are a function of using a 14mm lens.

I have levelled the picture so it matches sea level and de-noised the sky a bit. I have left it a little dark so as to emphasize the blueness of the sky

I'll not pursue any more adjustments as I don't think there is anything more to be done to the picture 'as shot'. A better version is only possible with a better photograph.

However, I have gained a lot of information from all you folk on this thread and on the original 'Critique' thread so should be able to do something a little better next time.

Sunset4 by Martin H, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
I like this last composition best. By placing the horizon/sunset so close to the edge it de-emphasizes them and makes the image more about the clouds. I find that more interesting; and thought previously that those two aspects were competing too much.
 
I have a similar issue with some of my coastal sunsets, due to the shape of the bay and the hills it often "looks wrong" even though it's actually level. I tend to go with whats right even if it looks off to a quick look. At the end of the day it what YOU like.
 
It must be what is right for you. I have taken photographs were I know the camera is level (on tripod with the bubble in the middle) but the photos look "out of true" Level is another one of those questionable things in any case. I personally absolutely hate all the motorsport photo's that use an exaggerated angle (certainly not level) but obviously some people like them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top