Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: What looks straight or what is straight?  (Read 9260 times)
JordanM
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« on: January 26, 2010, 07:37:32 PM »
ReplyReply

I think we've all had the feeling at one time or another that, even though we know a photograph is perfectly straight, it feels or looks crooked, like it needs to be rotated to make everything feel "right".  This is just the simple question, what do you personally do? Do you rotate it, or go by what is actually straight (bubble level/aircraft level)?

I'm sorry if this is in the wrong place.
Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 26, 2010, 09:09:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I think it's preferable to look straight than to actually be straight. The tricky images are when there are multiple conflicting indicators of what 'level' is supposed to be, so that no matter what you do some part of the image makes it look like it's not level.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5773


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2010, 09:25:49 PM »
ReplyReply

There are several optical phenomena that would make straight lines look crooked. I would personally rely on visual perception rather than a math formula or measuring instrument. For instance, when you try correcting barrel distortion in an architectural shot... after Photoshop, the lines would be measuring as perfectly vertical and straight, yet still looked bent to a naked eye... I believe it is known as Hering illusion.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 09:26:15 PM by Slobodan Blagojevic » Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
EduPerez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 692


WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 27, 2010, 02:20:17 AM »
ReplyReply

I care more about the feeling that the viewer gets than the technical correctness of the image; so, if one of my photographs looks crocked, I will "correct" it. Unfortunately, on some occasions this correction is hard to achieve, and rotating the image is not possible / enough; shearing it usually helps in those cases.
Logged

LoisWakeman
Guest
« Reply #4 on: January 27, 2010, 09:19:31 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm with the others - it has to look straight, even if a spirit level reveals otherwise. We appreciate images with our brains, not measuring instruments!
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6201



WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 27, 2010, 09:45:34 AM »
ReplyReply

The other thing you can do is take the Garry Winogrand approach: cock the thing far enough that no one can mistake the fact that it's supposed to be cocked. It works with street photography and with certain architectural shots. Anyone want to try it with landscape?
« Last Edit: January 27, 2010, 10:19:07 AM by RSL » Logged

ckimmerle
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 442



WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2010, 10:35:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Personally, I could care less if the horizon is level, or even looks level. If it doesn't bother the photographer, or was slanted on purpose, who am I, as a viewer, to argue?
« Last Edit: January 27, 2010, 10:52:05 AM by ckimmerle » Logged

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeing new landscapes, but in having new eyes." Marcel Proust

Chuck Kimmerle
WWW.CHUCKKIMMERLE.COM
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2643


« Reply #7 on: January 28, 2010, 05:40:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JeffKohn
I think it's preferable to look straight than to actually be straight. The tricky images are when there are multiple conflicting indicators of what 'level' is supposed to be, so that no matter what you do some part of the image makes it look like it's not level.

In Photoshop it is possible to distort parts of the image and "straighten" them. Unfortunately it can't be done as a smart object in CS3. I don't know about CS4 though?
Logged

kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3947



« Reply #8 on: January 28, 2010, 01:33:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ckimmerle
If it doesn't bother the photographer, or was slanted on purpose, who am I, as a viewer, to argue?
The bloke with the cash who's going to pay for it?

Jeremy
Logged
HickersonJasonC
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 158


« Reply #9 on: February 08, 2010, 06:42:42 PM »
ReplyReply

The Parthenon was actually constructed "crooked" in order to appear straight. Try googling "parthenon optical illusions," very interesting stuff.
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #10 on: February 09, 2010, 02:12:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: HickersonJasonC
The Parthenon was actually constructed "crooked" in order to appear straight. Try googling "parthenon optical illusions," very interesting stuff.
Hi,
The Parthenon is a 3D object. It has been taken into account the fact that there is also a vertical perspective from the average human height ( from the eye's line ), so the calculations involved are very different because they integrate the real human scale to the real object in a real 3d world. If you were apllying these rules in 2D, (even computer 3D = 2D real), the result would be a strong deformation unstraight.

This as been tried. I've been working when student in Fine Arts with Tjerd Alkema, a specialist of the anamorphosis process. Good calculations in the real world are actually not working in 2D world, because it is another reality.

Fred.
Logged
erictoddjohnson
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


« Reply #11 on: February 15, 2010, 11:44:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
The other thing you can do is take the Garry Winogrand approach: cock the thing far enough that no one can mistake the fact that it's supposed to be cocked. It works with street photography and with certain architectural shots. Anyone want to try it with landscape?

I don't, but Shomei Tomatsu has done it with a seascape:  "Untitled Hateruma-jima", Okinawa 1971

http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images/143415/106704.jpg

See more of his work at:

http://www.wretch.cc/blog/shihlun/1697661
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6201



WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 15, 2010, 02:09:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Looks as if Shomei sort of screwed up with You Tube.
Logged

rc53
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


WWW
« Reply #13 on: February 15, 2010, 02:12:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: HickersonJasonC
The Parthenon was actually constructed "crooked" in order to appear straight. Try googling "parthenon optical illusions," very interesting stuff.

or google 'entasis'.
Logged

Sláinte

Robert
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #14 on: February 16, 2010, 09:24:26 AM »
ReplyReply

See this master:

Georges Rousse
http://www.georgesrousse.com/english/reception.html

Really serious stuff.

Fred.
Logged
Jason DiMichele
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 160



WWW
« Reply #15 on: February 27, 2010, 03:00:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Stick with what feels right. There are a lot of situations when creating art, one's instincts should be the driving force. If there is too much contemplating/analyzing then I believe the art probably won't be as strong as it could have been.


Cheers,
Jay
www.jasondimichele.com
Logged

Jason DiMichele
Fine Art Photographer and Printer
www.jasondimichele.com
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad