DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Tutorials >> Fixing Tilted Horizons
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 101, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/24/2006 07:41:13 PM · #51
Originally posted by rex:
Originally posted by kearock:
FYI for those PS users who shoot in RAW. Adobe Camera Raw (CS2) has an excellent straighten tool. The icon is two lines at an angle to each other with a degrees symbol and an arrow between them. You just draw a line along something that's straight and it creates the crop marquee for you. I'd really like to know why they didn't put this in regular photoshop...would by mighty useful for JPEGs too.


I am lost. This tutorial explains how to do this in Photoshop.??


Camera Raw is sort of a photoshop extension, like a preopening dialog you go through when you open a RAW file before you get to the normal photoshop screen. Basically, what I'm saying is that if your file was RAW to begin with, you're wasting a lot of effort using the tutorial method because you could have done it in two seconds when you first opened the file.
 12/24/2006 07:43:21 PM · #52
gotcha. I have the Raw plug in but mostly use the Canon Raw software for RAW files.

Message edited by author 2006-12-24 19:43:33.
 02/07/2007 05:32:48 PM · #53
Thanks a lot. I never knew how to correct this problem so I would always just try and eye-guess with the crop. Thanks!
 02/07/2007 05:44:17 PM · #54
My PS method for this is to make a crop box smaller than I want so that I can rotate the box and align the top or bottom lines with the horizon, basically using the crop box itself as a level, then resizing the crop box to the desired image size after the desired angle has been set.

Message edited by author 2007-02-07 17:44:41.
 02/07/2007 05:52:04 PM · #55
Originally posted by karmabreeze:
My PS method for this is to make a crop box smaller than I want so that I can rotate the box and align the top or bottom lines with the horizon, basically using the crop box itself as a level, then resizing the crop box to the desired image size after the desired angle has been set.


In my normal flow, I use a spirit level on the camera to avoid the problem. Then I use the perspective tool to fix horizons. No need to crop the image that way. Isn't legal for some versions of DPC rules though, so this old way in the tutorial still has some merit.
 02/07/2007 06:40:37 PM · #56
Originally posted by Pedro:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
IN a lot of situations there's an implied horizon that's at war with an actual horizon...

Do you have any examples of this?


Here's a sort-of example - the horizon in this photo will forever be my Nemesis; the ground slopes one way, the clouds seem to slope the other way (the implied horizon), and I sloped at yet another angle (mid-descent on the plane).

There is no correct answer as far as I can tell, so i had to pick a happy medium and move on :)



P


If you are willing to sacrifice the truth a little bit, there is a way to find a reasonable solution to this dilemma (within limits, of course) by distorting the image. I had a similar problem with this image

here because the bench is not exactly facing the island, it and the curb are tilted in the shot which is framed so that the bench is right across the island. I actually got a lot of grief from the voters for this. But after the challenge, it took me a few seconds to use the transform tool and change it to this


Using the same approach, I took the liberty to "fix" Pedro's shot

02/07/2007 06:44:44 PM · #57
I had a photo in the On the Beach challenge that was tilted and after I got slaughtered in voting because of it I learned how to change the angle manually, I changed it by 1 degree and it looked ok, then I've done it with your tut and it gave 1.3. This is cool and if I have any tilted lines in future this is how I will be correcting them. Thanks heaps!
 02/07/2007 07:43:12 PM · #58
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by whiterook:
Why does the horizon have to be 100% level? While God doesn't care. Nature is not perfect and we should capture image to the real sense.


It doesn't always have to be. If your "horizon" is in sand dunes, for instance, it probably won't be. But in general, where there IS an actual or implied horizon, it needs to be leveled to look natural. If you don't want to level it, for whatever reason, then it should be significantly off level so it is obvious that this was your intention. Ocean horizons, especially, should always be level.

IN a lot of situations there's an implied horizon that's at war with an actual horizon, and some sort of compromise is necessary. Then you go with what looks right. Actually, you mostly always go with what looks right :-)

R.


If you are not perpendicular to the horizon, your horizon will not be level. In this example, below, I was murdered by the voters for an unlevel ocean horizon. But the horse is level, if I rotated the shot so that the horizon was level, the horse would be incorrectly pointing downhill. I do get tired of this, I'm fairly fanatical about leveling my horizons, but it does depend on one's point of view.


Message edited by author 2007-02-07 19:43:56.
 02/07/2007 08:26:34 PM · #59
Originally posted by lynnesite:
... I was murdered by the voters for an unlevel ocean horizon. But the horse is level, if I rotated the shot so that the horizon was level, the horse would be incorrectly pointing downhill.

Actually, if you leveled the geographic horizon then the horse would be correctly tilted downward.

However, a 'correct horizon' for a photograph is not necessarily a pure geographic horizon. What is important in photography is the tendency for the human brain to want to see things as being purely horizontal and/or vertical in the frame if they are close to that already, regardless if it agrees with geography or not.

Your horse image has two conflicting lines that humans want to make 'horizontal'. Since people know the ocean is the geographic horizon and that it should be level you got trashed for it. :)

Message edited by author 2007-02-07 20:30:34.
 02/07/2007 08:28:07 PM · #60
Two images, neither taken while perpendicular to the fence so the horizon looks tilted. It really falls into "perspective"
the top image did not get a "tilted" comment while the bottom one did. the second image hasthe horse standing upright, total column of support so it's obiviously (to me) level. Horses don't usually stand tilted, if they do might want to visit the vet! You cannot count on fence posts and trees 'cause they aren't always perfectly vertical.



Tree on a slope, but check the horzon in the cloud gradiant. Level.


just another example of the horizon not level because of perspective.


edit: spelling, grammar and just bad typing!

Message edited by author 2007-02-07 20:45:37.
 02/07/2007 08:41:15 PM · #61
Originally posted by Ristyz:
... just another example of the horizon not level because of perspective

I, and probably most viewers, would be hard pressed to believe this image is geographically level simply because of camera perspective. The background is clearly NOT geographically level. Not all viewers will find the background tilt distracting, but you can be sure some will.
 02/07/2007 08:47:52 PM · #62
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by Ristyz:
... just another example of the horizon not level because of perspective

I, and probably most viewers, would be hard pressed to believe this image is geographically level simply because of camera perspective. The background is clearly NOT geographically level. Not all viewers will find the background tilt distracting, but you can be sure some will.


You caught me! I put in the wrong pic! was supposed to be this one



DPC was not available for abut 10 minutes there and I didn't have the right image number!

02/07/2007 08:50:43 PM · #63
Originally posted by Ristyz:

You caught me! I put in the wrong pic! was supposed to be this one



DPC was not available for abut 10 minutes there and I didn't have the right image number!


In this one, there isn't really a horizon to speak of, only a line where the wall meets the ground. It's doesn't 'feel' crooked.
 02/07/2007 08:50:59 PM · #64
I wish I'd seen this tut earlier. Thanks.
 02/07/2007 08:56:48 PM · #65
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Ristyz:

You caught me! I put in the wrong pic! was supposed to be this one



DPC was not available for abut 10 minutes there and I didn't have the right image number!


In this one, there isn't really a horizon to speak of, only a line where the wall meets the ground. It's doesn't 'feel' crooked.


It didn't bother anyone... but perhaps they had a hard time getting past the cat! No, it doesn't feel tilted but the horizon isn't level, just threw it in in case it helped anyone 'see' at all.

edit; man I gott slow down! typos everywhere!

Message edited by author 2007-02-07 20:58:00.
 02/07/2007 09:04:30 PM · #66
Originally posted by Ristyz:
You caught me! I put in the wrong pic! was supposed to be this one


Though gruesome this is a good example of perspective where the building contact with the ground is correctly angled.



Btw, this image is probably NOT geographically leveled. When geographically corrected with a counterclockwise rotation that might be as much a couple degrees or so the ground will have an even greater angle across the frame than it already does. :)

I'm into level horizons at the moment because I have an image in a current challenge that people think is NOT level because of perspective but that it is, in fact, geographically leveled to the pixel and should be! :)

Message edited by author 2007-02-07 21:07:47.
 02/07/2007 09:07:11 PM · #67
People do tend to get a touch out it with horizons being level.
Perspective & point of view are NOT always at 90° to the subject.

I mean look how crooked this shot is:

(I don't think anyone noticed though)

Your Wave Runner shot Lynne, would not have looked right with the horizon level.
 02/07/2007 09:09:31 PM · #68
Originally posted by BradP:
People do tend to get a touch out it with horizons being level.
Perspective & point of view are NOT always at 90° to the subject.

I mean look how crooked this shot is:

(I don't think anyone noticed though)

Your Wave Runner shot Lynne, would not have looked right with the horizon level.


What horizon?
 02/07/2007 09:12:56 PM · #69

02/07/2007 09:14:29 PM · #70
haha
 02/08/2007 09:13:22 AM · #71


The question: Is the horizon 'correct' on this entry or not?

Though only two commenters suggested that it might not be 'level' there are at least two other photographers I talked to that also said it wasn't level.

I feel the image should be level with the geographic horizon since it is a cityscape. But how do you determine that since it is dark and you can't see it?

I 'leveled' by making the largest buildings properly oriented vertically. My thinking being that at that distance they would have to be vertical and that the river bank could not be trusted for leveling horizontally because of its angled perspective. I also felt that a lack of verticality would show up like a sore thumb on the right and left edges.

My actual rotation was .32 degrees counterclockwise. That is not much, but counterintuitive compared to the river bank.
 02/08/2007 10:11:44 AM · #72
Originally posted by stdavidson:


The question: Is the horizon 'correct' on this entry or not?

Though only two commenters suggested that it might not be 'level' there are at least two other photographers I talked to that also said it wasn't level.

I feel the image should be level with the geographic horizon since it is a cityscape. But how do you determine that since it is dark and you can't see it?

I 'leveled' by making the largest buildings properly oriented vertically. My thinking being that at that distance they would have to be vertical and that the river bank could not be trusted for leveling horizontally because of its angled perspective. I also felt that a lack of verticality would show up like a sore thumb on the right and left edges.

My actual rotation was .32 degrees counterclockwise. That is not much, but counterintuitive compared to the river bank.


To me, the point where the shore meets the water is not the horizon though that line can interfere with how the image feels. I think if the water line were at more of an angle then there would be no question.

Message edited by author 2007-02-08 10:12:07.
 02/08/2007 11:03:50 AM · #73
Originally posted by stdavidson:


The question: Is the horizon 'correct' on this entry or not?

Though only two commenters suggested that it might not be 'level' there are at least two other photographers I talked to that also said it wasn't level.

I feel the image should be level with the geographic horizon since it is a cityscape. But how do you determine that since it is dark and you can't see it?

I 'leveled' by making the largest buildings properly oriented vertically. My thinking being that at that distance they would have to be vertical and that the river bank could not be trusted for leveling horizontally because of its angled perspective. I also felt that a lack of verticality would show up like a sore thumb on the right and left edges.

My actual rotation was .32 degrees counterclockwise. That is not much, but counterintuitive compared to the river bank.


This is why I suggest the skew tool as an alternative to rotation. In the case of an image like this, job #1 is to get the verticals squared away, and you've done that. Now, this is an image with no "true" horizon. Strictly speaking there is no "horizon" at all since "horizon" is defined as "the line where earth and sky meet", but for purposes of our discussion you have a "visible" or "implied" horizon where land and water meet at the riverbank, and it is naturally skewed because you are not set at right angles to it.

Your decision is whether it is best to go with the "true" angles or adjust them artificially to something that works better for the eye. If the angle were more pronounced here, that would look perfectly natural: but you have an "in-betweener" where the "correct" rendering is not necessarily the best one, aesthetically. You can use the skew tool either to exaggerate or eliminate the angle. In this case, exaggerating it makes the buildings look weird, but eliminating it works fine. Select the entire canvas and pick the skew tool from "edit/transform" and drag the lower right corner down a smidge to get this:



R.
 02/08/2007 11:27:08 AM · #74
Reading back over this thread, I see that there is a certain misperception being repeated quite a bit: that it is possible to to have a true, water horizon be not level if you are looking at it from an angle. This is not accurate.

By definition, the surface of a body water is level. It can't be anything else. By definition, "horizon" is where sky and not-sky meet, be it land or water. Now, if we are speaking of true ocean horizons, with visibility unlimited, these HAVE to be level. To prove it to yourself, do a thought experiment. Imagine yourself on a tiny desert island in the middle of the ocean, surrounded by water. From where you stand on the island, atop a slight rise at the center, you can see the full horizon for 360 degrees around you. At no point does any land intersect the horizon. This is the "true" horizon, and it is always level. If you set your tripod up so it is leveled, no matter where you rotate your camera the horizon will be level.

This is also what you'd get on a boat, incidentally, but it's hard to level a tripod on a boat...

Anyway, is is a FACT that where the true horizon consists of water, it will be level by definition. But the visible horizon is something else again. So when you have a shot, for example, where a promontory on the left meets the sea in the center, you have potential conflicts. Take this shot, for example — notice that in the thumbnail it actually appears NOT to be leveled:



Here, the "true" horizon, the ocean part on the right, is leveled. There's a visible horizon, as it were, where bluffs meet beach on the left, and another where mountains meet sky, on the left, but both are subordinate to the true horizon of the sea, and this looks natural. As, indeed, it is. However, were I to crop this image so there was NO sea on the right, then the "visible horizon" would be the line where bluffs meet beach, and THAT would appear skewed, and some adjustment might be required to get a natural look.

Nevertheless, the point remains that by definition any distant true horizon that consists of water must be level. If there is land between water and sky, then the waterline is not a true horizon, and other factors come into play. But if you are standing on an ocean beach shooting an image some portion of which includes the line where ocean meets sky in the distance, if that line is not level then you have not leveled your camera properly. It's as simple as that.

R.

Message edited by author 2007-02-08 11:27:58.
 02/08/2007 12:21:38 PM · #75
Isn't the visible horizon usually curved ?

I've been living in the middle of land for too long. I miss the ocean.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/11/2025 05:09:55 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/11/2025 05:09:55 PM EDT.