As Freeman remarks in the course notes, every photo has an
implied division. One of the most basic
divisions is along the horizontal plane – where to place the horizon. This exercise asks the student to take a
series of photos of a landscape with an uncluttered horizon in order to
consider how horizon affects framing.
The following photos were taken from Club Level (perhaps 10 meters above ground) at Turner Field on a late afternoon in August, shot at 18mm
on my Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5 - 5.6G. One interesting
side effect noted in this series is the slight curvature of the horizon. I would appreciate hearing from anyone with
insight on this phenomenon.
1. With the horizon high, objects in the foreground are
highlighted, including here the gate and parking lot, while the tops of the
clouds are cut off.
2. Moving up, the
gate is no longer visible and the clouds are now seen in their fullness.
3. The street in
front of the parking lot is no longer visible.
Clouds closer to the photographer are now visible, but don’t really add
much to the photo.
4. Only the edge of the
parking lot is now visible, and the sky clearly dominates.
5. Finally the barest sliver of the cityscape makes up the
bottom fifth of the image.
Of the five photos, the second seems to achieve the best
balance of the elements. The rather underwhelming
sky leaves photos 3-5 rather flat and uninteresting.
Implictations? There
is no fixed rule for where to place the horizon. It depends in great part on the elements and
their relationships as they appear in the view finder, and which elements the
photographer wishes to highlight. I have
included a couple of recent photos here as illustration, one with the horizon
line in the lower half of the image to capture more of the sky, the other with
the horizon line in the upper half to take in foreground (in this, the pond).
===========================
Postscript 1
Flying home last night from London to Dubai, I spent a good deal of time enjoying aerial views of the European countryside. This project came to mind and here are the results, positioning the horizon line from high above Hungary.
===========================
Postscript 2
I had been planning to purchase Lightroom to work on processing skills but until I heard from Lucy and Jonesy hadn't yet found a compelling reason. I've been working through Adobe's training guide and made my first attempt this afternoon at correcting for barrel distortion, which I post below, a revised version of Image 1.
I need to learn more here, but I feel happy to have identified an issue and started learning more about how to work with it.
So, thanks again, Lucy and Jonesy.
Hi Jeff
ReplyDeleteThat's a nice write up and a lovely selection of images. I think you've chosen a good set to highlight the different possible positions of the horizon. I also agree that picture two is the most pleasing of the five.
The curvature of the horizon is due to barrel distortion of the lens. There's more about it at the end of this page: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/wide-angle-lenses.htm
Hi Jeff,
ReplyDeleteNot sure what pp software you use but you can probably fix this effect using a lens correction adjustment.
This is more commonly seen with ultra wide angle lenses with the horizon very close to the top or bottom of frame
Lucy, thanks for the tip. I found some useful examples of barrel distortion at the links below. Now all I have to do, as Jonesy suggests, is find some software. Apparently this is doable in Lightroom, which I purchased just two days ago and haven't yet had time to try. For those interested, there's a dedicated piece of software called PTLens, only US$25 and you can trial the software on 10 images before having to purchase. Apparently it also works as a filter through Lightroom & PS.
ReplyDeleteThanks for helping me learn!
http://wiki.dandascalescu.com/howtos/how_to_correct_barrel_distortion_in_photos
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/correctinglensdistortion.htm
http://epaperpress.com/ptlens/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZZsG9hWfEE