sloping horizons

dean messenger

dean messenger

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,669
Name
Dean
Edit My Images
No
bloody well annoys the hell outa me.. surely if you cant get it right in camera you can at least get it right in pp. its not exactly rocket science and most PP software has grids and rulers to help level things.

more and more i see people put images up for sale ( especially seascapes ) where you could have a downhill water skiing event the horizon is so wonky.

sorry for the moan its a pet peeve of mine that something so simple to fix appears so often due to sloppiness and laziness and then people get all shirty and uppity when you point it out to them.
 
dean messenger said:
bloody well annoys the hell outa me.. surely if you cant get it right in camera you can at least get it right in pp. its not exactly rocket science and most PP software has grids and rulers to help level things.

more and more i see people put images up for sale ( especially seascapes ) where you could have a downhill water skiing event the horizon is so wonky.

sorry for the moan its a pet peeve of mine that something so simple to fix appears so often due to sloppiness and laziness and then people get all shirty and uppity when you point it out to them.
Click to expand...

...feel better for that? :D
 
or Motorsport ... and Weddings :eek:
 
I'm a car enthusiast and hate wonkiness in car shots as much as I do in seascapes! SO glad that most of my currently used cameras have built in levels since I hate PPing (which most of my shots used to need to get level horizons.)
 
Yip. I don't like to see verticals that aren't, well, vertical either!
 
dean messenger said:
bloody well annoys the hell outa me.. surely if you cant get it right in camera you can at least get it right in pp.
Click to expand...


Not a fan of Alexander Rodchenko then :)


Links removed at request of OP

:)

I agree with everything you said in your OP, but I;d make sure I hadn't also published wonky shots before I said it.


dean messenger said:
and then people get all shirty and uppity when you point it out to them.
Click to expand...


Which I'm sure you won't do now that I've pointed it out to you :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
youve given 3 examples two of which if you bothered to look dont actually have sloping horizons... the first the spinnaker tower and background buildins are actually correct in there vertical plane and i even stated regarding that image that i had difficulty with the leveling as by straightening the waterline the buildings would be leaning. the second.. you clearly fail to understand perspective look at the tree lines all straight on the vertical and it is angle of the lake that leads to it looking like that ( seriously no wonder i have you on ignore because you are clearly not worth bothering with if you have to sit and go through someones flickr account just to prove what make a totally pointless comment )
oh and if you actually bothered i said that People Put up for sale... now forgive me if im wrong but i didnt think you could sell from Flickr?
 
Some people seem very "anal" about 100% flat horizons - I'm OK about small deviations from "level" but some people don't seem to be able to even vaguely hold a camera straight!
 
Personally, I don't see the problem with 'wonky horizons' - you do know that the Earth is spherical, don't you?
 
Jim Dunne said:
Personally, I don't see the problem with 'wonky horizons' - you do know that the Earth is spherical, don't you?
Click to expand...

If you shoot it from space... yes :)
 
Don't have to be that high, you can see the curvature of the Earth from many tall buildings (and I don't mean mahooosively tall ;) )
 
Wonky horizons are just poor technique, lack of attention to detail. Sloppy (or slopey:D). The end!!!!
 
Jim Dunne said:
Don't have to be that high, you can see the curvature of the Earth from many tall buildings (and I don't mean mahooosively tall ;) )
Click to expand...


Nah... around 40,000ft before it can be detected apparently... higher to be visibly noticeable.
 
dean messenger said:
a curve is entirely different from a slope /wonky horizon.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. it may be informative to check how blurred the curved slope appears to be, and this might give a clue about what substances have been ingested and in what quantity by the image operator.
 
Last edited:
dean messenger said:
youve given 3 examples two of which if you bothered to look dont actually have sloping horizons... the first the spinnaker tower and background buildins are actually correct in there vertical plane and i even stated regarding that image that i had difficulty with the leveling as by straightening the waterline the buildings would be leaning. the second.. you clearly fail to understand perspective look at the tree lines all straight on the vertical and it is angle of the lake that leads to it looking like that ( seriously no wonder i have you on ignore because you are clearly not worth bothering with if you have to sit and go through someones flickr account just to prove what make a totally pointless comment )
oh and if you actually bothered i said that People Put up for sale... now forgive me if im wrong but i didnt think you could sell from Flickr?
Click to expand...

:lol: They are wonky, simple! Some of it may be barrel distortion of the lenses you use, but they are still wonky and all contain water that you could hold a downhill skiing race on. I reckon they are all correctable though, if that helps.
 
10 out of 10 for absolute bare faced cheek Dean. Your Battersea Power Station is so not level I'm surprised it hasn't slid down into the Thames by now. :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
and as i stated " more and more i see people put images up for sale" .. i dont have that up for sale anywhere.. what people do with there personal pics is up to them.
think people need to leanr to read thread properly first before jumping on the bandwagon. and its p*** poor behavaour to pull up someones images without there permission first. moderators may need to look at that kind of behavavior and deal with it as i didnt give permission
 
Last edited:
dean messenger said:
and as i stated " more and more i see people put images up for sale" .. i dont have that up for sale anywhere.. what people do with there personal pics is up to them.
Click to expand...

But surely if "bloody well annoys the hell outa me.. surely if you cant get it right in camera you can at least get it right in pp. its not exactly rocket science and most PP software has grids and rulers to help level things." then don't you feel the same about getting your own photos right? Serious question, why does it not annoy you in your own images?
 
the image has been corrected.. on the version that is for sale. quite simple.. my flickr pf isnt and i have plenty of personal images in there of all variieties.
doesnt change the fact its extrememly rude to perosnally name and pick out someone elses images and post links to them without permission and i ask that mods remove that post with unauthorised links in
 
Last edited:
If its so simple to fix, as you say in your first post, why on earth would you upload images to flickr that aren't? Surely you'd fix them before you exported them to upload?.
Sure my flickr is full of crap, but I don't start a huge rant on here about it then get arsey when it gets called out.
 
dean messenger said:
the image has been corrected.. on the version that is for sale. quite simple.. my flickr pf isnt and i have plenty of personal images in there of all variieties.
doesnt change the fact its extrememly rude to perosnally name and pick out someone elses images and post links to them without permission and i ask that mods remove that post with unauthorised links in
Click to expand...

Then I will tell you what, I'll remove the links for you, even though there is nothing wrong in having them, given they are simply links back your public Flickr account. You do need to know something though... last month I put through an invoice for the sale of a photograph found by an Italian advertising company on my flickr account, a snap I took, never expecting to earn anything from. I am not going to say exactly how much I earned from that photo but lets just say I could have bought myself a retail s/h Nikon D4 with it, if I wanted. So, if despite your earlier claim that you had trouble sorting out the distortion the first one has, or the 2nd, if there are properly corrected versions somewhere on your hard drive or for sale somewhere, having those versions also on flickr too might just be good for you.
 
dean messenger said:
and its p*** poor behavaour to pull up someones images without there permission first. moderators may need to look at that kind of behavavior and deal with it as i didnt give permission
Click to expand...

I didn't post them up dean, I linked to them. They're in the public domain, and not private, and therefore I can link to whatever I like so long as the image content is in keeping with the forum rules. The moderators can look at it all they want. I have not infringed any forum rules whatsoever.

You're just getting "shirty and uppity" because I've pointed out the issues you're ranting about in your own work.

[edit]

BTW... I sorted out the distortion in the first one in 30 seconds. I'd post it up for you to see but you have edit my images off. ...and that first shot is crooked... they're ALL crooked.
 
Last edited:
the corrected version is on there.. its just some people cant help themselves Staff Edit: Insult removed
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Must be popcorn time! :)
I like a good debate...
 
dean messenger said:
bloody well annoys the hell outa me.. surely if you cant get it right in camera you can at least get it right in pp. its not exactly rocket science and most PP software has grids and rulers to help level things.

more and more i see people put images up for sale ( especially seascapes ) where you could have a downhill water skiing event the horizon is so wonky.

sorry for the moan its a pet peeve of mine that something so simple to fix appears so often due to sloppiness and laziness and then people get all shirty and uppity when you point it out to them.
Click to expand...

Good on you but personally, I think folk like you are well up the OCD scale!

Nowt wrong with a wee slope on a photo! (And that has sweet F A to do with race stuff too).
 
Ian-Highlander said:
Heh, the D7100 (other cameras are available) even has level meters in the view screen that work like little mini digital spirit levels, it's actually quite hard to get it wrong with that switched on.
Click to expand...

It's also quite easy to get it right with an old camera with no technology. All you need to do is look!

Pookeyhead said:
Nah... around 40,000ft before it can be detected apparently... higher to be visibly noticeable.
Click to expand...

Really? I'm sure I can see it at sea level.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
I don't like to fuel flame wars as a rule, so have been reading this one as an interested party, but I do feel the need to add my thoughts.

They don't come much more ocd than me. Not just on horizons, but in general. For a living my job relies on accuracy. I check other people's work, and pick up on every detail. People think I am a pedantic [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER], but let one thing slip through, and not only will there be 2 next time, but that one will be saved as and reused to make another.

But doing this, for me, sets a standard. I then have to ensure My work meets that standard, else why should they?

Same goes for horizons. I pick up every sloping one, meant to help, not criticise, but in doing so, I feel it would be farcical for me to then post images that are not straight. (I did used to have an ironic avatar that was way out, taken of me by a stranger long before I knew about things like that)

So in summary, I feel having standards is great, BUT, you must live by them or it is meaningless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top