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.


Zoomed in section showing light pole on right:


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

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.


Zoomed in section showing light pole on right:


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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.