[R3N]

...I can never take straight horizons? I always end up editing it later. I try to line it up within the brackets in the camera's viewfinder but always a hit and miss.

Any tips?

[Banded Drake]

i ma by far no expert but i need to ask are yo uusing a tripod or handheld? I say this because when i hold the camera i tend to have the same problem , but with the tripod i can use the level and this tends to help.

[EnglishBob]

It tends to come with practice, and some scenes are always very hard to get a straight horizon in, and others, will need to be crooked in order to look straight!

Banded is right though, a tripod will help, as long as you straighten the tripod first!

[shuttertalk]

Mine are usually hit and miss too when I do handheld shots. I try to get around this by using the grid feature in the viewfinder, and also taking a few shots just in case one doesn't work out.

[R3N]

Most of the time I get it crooked is when I do handheld shots. I get that sometimes too but I put that down to my crappy tripod

[Don Schaeffer]

I think we make altogether too much of having absolutely straight horizons. In most cases they can be a little tilted.
--Don

[EnglishBob]

I think we make altogether too much of having absolutely straight horizons. In most cases they can be a little tilted.
--Don

Well, from a competitive point of view you'll automatically lose at least 1 point for a crooked horizon in a PSA competition. From an aesthetic point of view, crooked horizons just don't look good to me in most cases.

[Don Schaeffer]

I think we make altogether too much of having absolutely straight horizons. In most cases they can be a little tilted.
--Don

Well, from a competitive point of view you'll automatically lose at least 1 point for a crooked horizon in a PSA competition. From an aesthetic point of view, crooked horizons just don't look good to me in most cases.

The absolutely level horizon isn't a natural state. Photography is presenting interesting and unique points of view. Why are we tied down to worrying about the horizon line. That's absurd. If the stuffed shirts who judge competitions don't like it, then the law is a ass (as they say in England).

Argue with me.

--Don

[EnglishBob]

The absolutely level horizon isn't a natural state.

Beg to differ, find me a sloping ocean.

[Don Schaeffer]

I meant when you use your eyes. Of cpourse physically, the horizon in some sense is level. But people tilt their heads most of the time and are usually in motion. Tilted horizons express the instability--the lack of stasis in our vision.

--Don

[matthew]

The human mind is a great image processor. Try this with me: look at the horizon, or a strong line (corner of two walls, floor, whatever you have) and then tilt your head side to side. The image doesn't rotate even though the sensor does.

... most of what we think we are seeing is actually visual memory. Camera and eye 'see' very differently. Our perception of a level horizon is at least partly because we 'know' it's level.

[Don Schaeffer]

The camera is a naive eye. That naive perspective tells us something about the world. Don't tell me I'm not permitted to use that to open new vistas. When people view such a photo they recognize it for what it is and respond to the altered perspective. Design and composition still make the photo.

[matthew]

The camera is a naive eye. That naive perspective tells us something about the world. Don't tell me I'm not permitted to use that to open new vistas.

I'll never tell you what to do or how not to do it -- and that certainly wasn't my intention. I was disagreeing with the idea of 'a lack of stasis in our vision'. Our vision is extremely static, because we see with our brain and not with our eyes. As a reflection of our experience, level horizons are the natural state.

The camera sees with its lens -- "lacking worldly experience and understanding" -- which creates very different results. This is what makes the new vistas possible. Your own post here contradicts the message I replied to.

All of this is beside the point. The question shouldn't be about the rule itself, but rather its application and suitability. The only test of a photograph -- and they must all be tested individually -- is "Does It Work?" The original question was about accidental (and presumably minor) tilt, and was not a question of artistic vision or merit. In that case, it can safely be considered a flaw (it distracts from what the photographer wants the viewer to see) and should be corrected.

When it's intentional, especially when it's severe, a strong angle can be what makes a photo worth having. Consider the snapshot "digital colour" that I posted elsewhere: straightening the image destroyed the picture. The angle wasn't the result of artistic vision, but it still works -- at least it makes a mediocre image interesting instead of a throw-away. I also have a poster-sized ad hung up at work that has the horizon wildly tilted, as it's taken while two America's Cup yachts tack past each other. If the horizon was level, the impression would be that the observer is standing on land, and the photo would lose its impact. With the horizon tilted -- even though that's not how the bowman would see it -- it conveys the immediacy and proximity of the boats.

Not "does it break the rules? breaking the rules is bad" but "does the photo work?"

[Kombisaurus]

I think we make altogether too much of having absolutely straight horizons. In most cases they can be a little tilted.
--Don

I agree with the first part of your comment Don about making too much of it.. I think generally people make a bigger deal out of it than necessary.... And digital images makes things so much worse than prints; a slightly crooked horizon is not obvious when you are holding a print in your hands because you never hold it exactly horizontal, but when viewing on a screen your eyes naturally try to line it up with the screen or window borders which exaggerates any crookedness.

But I don't think I agree with the 2nd part of your comment that they can be a "little" tilted. I have no problem with a horizon being tilted or straight, but either way I think it works best for me when I can see that the photographer has done what they have done *deliberately*. If the photographer is trying to make a horizon straight, then it *should* be straight IMHO. If they are trying to make it angled, then it shouldn't be confused with straight... it should look deliberate. This usually means it needs a fairly significant tilt.

I'm not saying these are universal truths or anything, just explaining what I find aesthetically pleasing. Having said that, perhaps a photographer might deliberately put a horizon just slightly off-level to unbalance a shot and give it a sense of tension... and perhaps it might work well?

Either way... There's no doubt the horizon orientation is a device which can dramatically alter the feeling of an image.. and while there is no universal right or wrong, a good photographer will be aware of how the horizon can affect their image and try to make the best use of it. Which I think is just another way of saying what Matthew was saying..

And going back to R3N's original request about how to get it straight, I usually just try to line it up with the focus points in the viewfinder (and regularly get it crooked).
I often try to align vertical walls or poles or doorframes, etc with the edge of the frame if there are any close to the left or right borders - this often helps level the horizon. Something else worth trying might be to re-compose the image with the horizon very close to the top or bottom of the edge of what's visible in the viewfinder to get a sense of what angle is actually level, then recompose with the horizon where you want it.

[Don Schaeffer]

I agree also. Having a level horizon adds a secure sense of stability to the photo. It's like a melody that nicely wraps up a chord instead of leaving you hanging. But usually what we are really concerned about is not the horizon but horizontal and vertical lines. We like to see lines parallel and perpendicular to the frame. Only sometimes does this refer to horizon lines.

I may be playing devil's advocate a little here to get an argument started. I know how difficult it is to make a horizon line perfectly level and I sympathize withthe question. Sorry guys.

--Don

[jericho]

What? You start an argument Don?....

[matthew]

I may be playing devil's advocate a little here to get an argument started. I know how difficult it is to make a horizon line perfectly level and I sympathize withthe question. Sorry guys.

well, ending your first post with "argue with me" was an invitation I was happy to accept. It's nice to not discuss the gear, but instead to debate the use of it. (You could have drawn it out a little.)

I've decided to buy a grid focusing screen. I use the same tricks as Kombisaurus suggested, but a grid screen will help even more. Incidentally, I find that I already have much fewer alignment issues with my dSLR than using the LCD on my compact camera.

... and people blindly applying rules, rather than evaluating photographs on their merits, has been a peeve of mine since about 15 minutes after I joined photoSIG. Can you tell?

[Don Schaeffer]

I have sympathy with that too. Some of those critics don't know how to see. They are just literal snapshotters.

--Don