User avatar
scbriml
Topic Author
Posts: 15694
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Level again?

Sat Mar 24, 2018 6:43 pm

I just had this shot rejected for overexposed and level (needing CCW rotation).

While I accept the shot is a little bright (I'll tone it down a bit), I'm not seeing the need for CCW. The only real indicator is the light pole to the right of the shot and it looks dead vertical to me.
Image

Zoomed in section showing light pole on right:
Image

Any contrary opinions? Thanks.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
vcruvinel
Support
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:28 am

Re: Level again?

Sat Mar 24, 2018 10:06 pm

scbriml wrote:
I just had this shot rejected for overexposed and level (needing CCW rotation).

While I accept the shot is a little bright (I'll tone it down a bit), I'm not seeing the need for CCW. The only real indicator is the light pole to the right of the shot and it looks dead vertical to me.
Image

Zoomed in section showing light pole on right:
Image

Any contrary opinions? Thanks.


Hi!

This kind of photos is a kind of treacherous when we consider the level aspect. If you see the grass in the left (consider the horizon) and the pole you use, it appears need a very little CCW (like 0,2 maybe or less). But about the overexposed I don't agree. Also the photo looks goods and do not deserve a rejection IMO.

Better wait a comment from a screener.

Best Regards,

Vinicius Cruvinel
Last edited by vcruvinel on Sat Mar 24, 2018 10:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
vcruvinel
Support
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:28 am

Re: Level again?

Sat Mar 24, 2018 10:07 pm

vcruvinel wrote:
scbriml wrote:
I just had this shot rejected for overexposed and level (needing CCW rotation).

While I accept the shot is a little bright (I'll tone it down a bit), I'm not seeing the need for CCW. The only real indicator is the light pole to the right of the shot and it looks dead vertical to me.
Image

Zoomed in section showing light pole on right:
Image

Any contrary opinions? Thanks.


Hi!

This kind of photo is a kind treacherous when we consider the level aspect. If you see the grass in the left (consider the horizon) and the pole you use, it appears need a very little CCW (like 0,2 maybe or less). But about the overexposed I don't agree. Also the photo looks goods and do not deserve a rejection IMO.

Better wait a comment from a screener.

Best Regards,

Vinicius Cruvinel
 
User avatar
jelpee
Screener
Posts: 482
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:34 am

Re: Level again?

Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:01 pm

Hi Steve,

I screened this image. Let me give you my rationale. While the pole on the right side is technically vertical, we typically use vertical elements in the center of the frame. Absent of that, we use a distant horizontal. In this case, I used the edge of the grass which looks like it is leaning to the right. I applied some level correction and to me it looked better. By itself, I probably would have accepted the image. The image is overexposed however. I checked the histogram, and it is biased towards the right side. The combination of both issues resulted in me declining it. Hope this helps in understanding how I saw the image during screening.

Regards

Jehan
Airliners.net Crew - Photo Screener
 
User avatar
scbriml
Topic Author
Posts: 15694
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Level again?

Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:49 pm

jelpee wrote:
Hi Steve,

I screened this image. Let me give you my rationale. While the pole on the right side is technically vertical, we typically use vertical elements in the center of the frame. Absent of that, we use a distant horizontal. In this case, I used the edge of the grass which looks like it is leaning to the right. I applied some level correction and to me it looked better. By itself, I probably would have accepted the image. The image is overexposed however. I checked the histogram, and it is biased towards the right side. The combination of both issues resulted in me declining it. Hope this helps in understanding how I saw the image during screening.

Regards

Jehan


Jehan, thanks for taking the time to respond and explain your position. It is much appreciated.

I'm not quite sure how something can be "technicallly" vertical. Either it is, or it isn't. However, I accept your opinion and I will apply a small amount of CCW and tone the brightness down a little before uploading again.

Thanks again for the response.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
jelpee
Screener
Posts: 482
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:34 am

Re: Level again?

Mon Mar 26, 2018 12:31 am

Hi Steve,

Good question...let me add to my response: The issue with using verticals at the ends of the frame is that lens distortion at wide angles can misrepresent a true vertical., hence the reason for using verticals closer to the center. It would be acceptable for a vertical at the ends to be leaning towards the center if a vertical at the center is vertical. In this case, if the vertical on the right side is aligned as it is in your image, it is doing so at the expense of a slight right tilt. Therefore the image looks like it needs some CCW rotation. That's what I meant by the pole on the right side being "technically vertical" yet the overall image looks like it is not.

Jehan
Airliners.net Crew - Photo Screener
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 6684
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Level again?

Mon Mar 26, 2018 7:06 am

jelpee wrote:
Good question...let me add to my response: The issue with using verticals at the ends of the frame is that lens distortion at wide angles can misrepresent a true vertical., hence the reason for using verticals closer to the center. It would be acceptable for a vertical at the ends to be leaning towards the center if a vertical at the center is vertical. In this case, if the vertical on the right side is aligned as it is in your image, it is doing so at the expense of a slight right tilt. Therefore the image looks like it needs some CCW rotation. That's what I meant by the pole on the right side being "technically vertical" yet the overall image looks like it is not.

While the above is true, it is also my understanding that if a zoom lens is used, verticals near the frame edges can be trusted for determining level.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Topic Author
Posts: 15694
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Level again?

Mon Mar 26, 2018 12:02 pm

jelpee wrote:
The issue with using verticals at the ends of the frame is that lens distortion at wide angles can misrepresent a true vertical., hence the reason for using verticals closer to the center.


Yes, of course.

airkas1 wrote:
While the above is true, it is also my understanding that if a zoom lens is used, verticals near the frame edges can be trusted for determining level.


This shot was taken at 70mm using a 28-70 lens. I normally correct any clear distortion as an early step in my processing.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
Miguel1982
Head Screener
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 3:53 pm

Re: Level again?

Mon Mar 26, 2018 12:52 pm

And then you also have to consider how large an object should be to be usable as a reference. Smaller vertical objects can show almost no angle even if the image is clearly leaning to one side or another.

And for light poles, whether they are really vertical :)

In this case, as Jehan did, I would just go for the edge of the grass as a reference.

Cheers,
Miguel
 
JakTrax
Posts: 4862
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Level again?

Tue Mar 27, 2018 5:50 pm

Since no-one truly knows what level is in the image (due to several factors), shouldn't benefit of doubt have been given? To me the original image 'feels' level; as it also would with fractional CCW rotation. This in my opinion is a bit picky, given the ambiguity.

As for lens distortion, it depends on the lens. 70mm isn't wide but I'd expect a little barrel distortion, although perhaps not enough to significantly affect verticals close to the frame edges. That said, some lenses exhibit pincushion at 70mm. Let's also remember that lightpoles are often about as useful for determining level as the Leaning Tower of Pisa!

Like I say, with this one it should be about 'feeling' right, rather than trying to succinctly say what IS and ISN'T level.
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 6684
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Level again?

Tue Mar 27, 2018 5:59 pm

JakTrax wrote:
Since no-one truly knows what level is in the image (due to several factors), shouldn't benefit of doubt have been given? To me the original image 'feels' level; as it also would with fractional CCW rotation. This in my opinion is a bit picky, given the ambiguity.
[...]
Like I say, with this one it should be about 'feeling' right

That’s how I would’ve treated it.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Topic Author
Posts: 15694
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Level again?

Wed Mar 28, 2018 1:59 pm

Interesting discussion, thanks guys.

I have applied some CCW and toned the brightness down and it's now back in the queue. Let's see what happens... :crossfingers:
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Topic Author
Posts: 15694
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Level again?

Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:27 am

Now accepted, thanks!

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos