this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2025
187 points (100.0% liked)

pics

20075 readers
2208 users here now

Rules:

1.. Please mark original photos with [OC] in the title if you're the photographer

2..Pictures containing a politician from any country or planet are prohibited, this is a community voted on rule.

3.. Image must be a photograph, no AI or digital art.

4.. No NSFW/Cosplay/Spam/Trolling images.

5.. Be civil. No racism or bigotry.

Photo of the Week Rule(s):

1.. On Fridays, the most upvoted original, marked [OC], photo posted between Friday and Thursday will be the next week's banner and featured photo.

2.. The weekly photos will be saved for an end of the year run off.

Weeks 2023

Instance-wide rules always apply. https://mastodon.world/about

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (2 children)

why?

I've taken many photographs with non horizontal horizons. When the composition is more important than documentation, you can rotate the horizon any way you like

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

because it feels off balance.

the level of the horizon is a key part of composition. it effects comfort, balance, and groundedness. when the horizon is not level it will feel disorienting, dizzy, or chaotic. yes, you can break compositional rules for artistic effect, but you need to learn the rules and why they matter before you can do so effectively. the example you posted below doesn't really make your case. it's not that great of a photo, rotated or not. to intentionally rotate the horizon to give it an uncomfortable or disorienting feeling is fine if that's the goal hell, maybe it's more to feel otherworldly or any other number of things you can derive from it. the point is that you need a reason and intent behind the unlevel horizon. what feeling were you trying to invoke by not having the ground beneath the feet of the viewer?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

yes, the example below is just a quick search and rotate on my phone. it's not "great".

what feeling were you trying to invoke by not having the ground beneath the feet of the viewer?

i wanted to transform lambda lemmings to art critics. I wanted to invoke an irresistible urge to comment

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Nah, bro.

He's right about this one.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago

I think that you've shown that non-horizontal horizons can be used to artistic effect, but I don't think that just letting it happen without intention is necessarily a good idea. The horizon in your photo has clearly been very carefully aligned with the corners of the image. It seems much more intentional than OP's image.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

If the photo's content is such viewer would be inclined to rotate the photo back to level in their mind, then there is no justifiable reason to have an off-level horizon. Camera tilts in and of themselves don't somehow make an unexceptional photo "artsy". In this example, there is no content in the photo that makes tilting it "add" anything to the composition. It's especially bad when the horizon is the sea. This photo is not enhanced in any way by tilting the horizon. It makes it neither artistic nor cool.

Instead, the content of the photo should complement the rotation, such as this

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

It makes it neither artistic nor cool.

being "artistic or cool" may be your goal, but they're not universal goals.

there is no justifiable reason to have an off-level horizon.

art doesn't need to justify.

Instead, the content of the photo should complement the rotation

that's an awful example. Not even mediocre 🤮

you see, de gustibus non est disputandum