| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/04/2005 05:25:49 PM · #26 |
| I'd like to add that sometimes what appears to be a tilted horizon, really isn't a tilted horizon but distortion introduced by ultra-wide angle lenses. There's a different method of fixing that in Photoshop CS2 by using the Filter->Distort->Lens something or other |
|
|
|
12/04/2005 06:49:48 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by psychephylax:
I'd like to add that sometimes what appears to be a tilted horizon, really isn't a tilted horizon but distortion introduced by ultra-wide angle lenses. There's a different method of fixing that in Photoshop CS2 by using the Filter->Distort->Lens something or other |
A shoreline or mountain ridge which recedes obliquely into the background will often appear tilted even though the camera was level; there may not be any true vertical or horizontal reference lines in the frame. Photos of lakes are prone to this problem. |
|
|
|
12/04/2005 08:28:32 PM · #28 |
Sometimes a picture looks more natural when it is slightly tilted than when it is actually exactly level.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2005 07:50:44 PM · #29 |
For what it's worth, I don't use this technique any more. Now I use the transform-skew adjustment to fix horizon lines.
And as coolhar says, what looks right, is right, even if it doesn't measure perfectly. |
|
|
|
01/15/2006 07:09:53 AM · #30 |
Great tip. I've used it and it works like a charm. Takes all the guess work.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
06/20/2006 10:29:49 AM · #31 |
| I have just read your tutorial, it was exelent, I am new to this game and I understood very well, I had another Idea how to do it but now I can show my husband how clever I am and that is thanks to you. keep up the good work and teach us more |
|
|
|
12/24/2006 05:18:35 AM · #32 |
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.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2006 10:25:40 AM · #33 |
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.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2006 10:37:27 AM · #34 |
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? |
|
|
|
12/24/2006 10:44:17 AM · #35 |
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? |
In this image, the water has not been leveled, although it's the true horizon, because doing so produced a perceived horizon that looked unnatural, due to the wedge of land on the right.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2006 10:52:01 AM · #36 |
|
|
|
12/24/2006 10:55:39 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by quiet_observation:
Garry Winogrand example. |
Yup, that falls in the category of "intentionally skewed". Imagine it with half that much tilt and it would just look sloppy. Squared up would look OK, but nowhere near as spontaneous.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2006 11:39:04 AM · #38 |
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 |
|
|
|
12/24/2006 12:05:17 PM · #39 |
Excellent example actually, Pedro.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2006 12:38:20 PM · #40 |
I agree shot should be natural.
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. |
|
|
|
|
12/24/2006 12:57:10 PM · #41 |
Pre upgrading to CS this was the method I always used for correcting tilts, but when I upgraded I lost track of the damn tool - is this just me going senile or did they change the name and move it!
Anyway - thanks for re-uniting me with the measure tool - so much easier and more accurate than trying to rotate with the crop tool. |
|
|
|
12/24/2006 01:01:55 PM · #42 |
Tool Palette, eyedropper, click options flyout area.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2006 01:37:46 PM · #43 |
I admit to using the above-mentioned grid and line-up method. I turn on the grid, then use the crop tool to rotate the canvas to the desired angle. This is a very quick and easy solution for me. However, lately I've been trying very hard to shoot a perfectly angled image in the first place. I more or less succeeded with my "Sky" entry, which required no rotation.
Edit for spelling and other blunders.
Message edited by author 2006-12-24 13:38:42. |
|
|
|
12/24/2006 01:43:33 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by cmangis:
Oh, also, is there a way to avoid losing details when you rotate? I have a shot I love that's way crooked; when I rotate, the faces go all blobby. :) |
When you rotate an image, a little is cropped off the corners, and this resizes the file a bit. The image and the monitor are both made up of dots, so when you rotate, the resize may not exactly fit the monitor. Is it still there when you zoom in or out a bit, or when you print after rotating? I have noticed the same thing using "Nero Photosnap" to rotate.
I noticed last summer that after the first few days of a 5 week sailing cruise that I could not shoot a level horizon, no matter how I tried, even with grid lines on in the viewfinder.
Message edited by author 2006-12-24 13:47:41.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2006 02:05:04 PM · #45 |
| Isn't it true that rotating an image degrades it? Whatever program is doing the rotation, mustn't it do interpolations for pixels being moved? |
|
|
|
12/24/2006 02:08:55 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
Originally posted by cmangis:
Oh, also, is there a way to avoid losing details when you rotate? I have a shot I love that's way crooked; when I rotate, the faces go all blobby. :) |
When you rotate an image, a little is cropped off the corners, and this resizes the file a bit. |
You can avoid this by adding some blank canvas around the image before you rotate -- you can then crop more precisely while looking at the entire rotated image. |
|
|
|
12/24/2006 02:12:46 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by jemison:
Isn't it true that rotating an image degrades it? Whatever program is doing the rotation, mustn't it do interpolations for pixels being moved? |
Yes, that's right. That's why certain images degrade more, depending on content -- large areas of smooth color (clouds at sunset) show little change, while detailed images with straight (especially diagonal) lines -- fences, leaves, etc. -- will suffer more.
Rotate the largest possible image -- not after you've resized it for your entry -- so that the program has the largest number of "real" pixels from which to calculate the new image.
Any "transformation" which moves pixels relative to each other --e.g. perspective, scale --is subject to this same risk.
Message edited by author 2006-12-24 14:13:51. |
|
|
|
12/24/2006 07:33:26 PM · #48 |
| 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. |
|
|
|
12/24/2006 07:35:52 PM · #49 |
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.??
|
|
|
|
12/24/2006 07:37:30 PM · #50 |
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. |
Hmm I just was thinking of posting this in this thread ;-)
you can also choose the aspect ratio (1 to 1, 1 to 2 etc) |
|
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: 06/20/2025 03:52:59 PM EDT.
