AZNikon Loc: Mesa, AZ

This was taken in a Skagway alley. Loved the pink building and scattered artifacts. And through it all, the Stars & Stripes still preside. Not sure what he was photographing but whatever it was must have been gone by the time I moved up. Comments welcome.

mallen1330 Loc: Chicago western suburbs

I would love to see the full-sized version in download... My pet peeve is crooked and non-vertical verticals in photos with buildings.

Voss

It is a most interesting scene, and the photographer is nicely framed by the dark door. Two suggestions: Straighten the vertical lines. Everything is tilted to the right. Second, crop off the guy on the left. The photographer directs us to look right, but the kneeling guy points us to the left. We get conflicting signals. Actually, the "real" photo starts around the middle of the brown dumpster and goes to the right (in my opinion). The part to the left doesn't really contribute that much to the overall photo. All in all, I do like the photo.

AZNikon Loc: Mesa, AZ

You're right, thanks, Bob

AZNikon Loc: Mesa, AZ

Once more with feeling-straighten and crop. Much better, thanks, Bob

(Download)

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Uncropped and unstraightened is better Street. It literally looks and feels like a real slice of life. Gussied up to fit all the Rules of Thumb, it looks like a very sharp picture of a very fuzzy concept (with apologies to Ansel Adams). Locations in SE Alaska are not defined by horizontal and vertical line!

The context in the area at the left really is a counter balance to what is on the right. Balance in composition, either of physical objects or of the mental effect of the symbols, is important. The problem with straightening is much harder to understand though. But look through Winogrand's work to see many examples. It's a matter of adjusting symbol priorities, or rather the priority of the effect a symbol has in terms of the emotional impact it inspires in the mind of a viewer. Level horizons, or vertical lines that are perpendicular to the horizon, are indicative of an ordered world. A straight laced, low entropy place where humanity is associated with rules. (Like the Rules of Thumb for photography, all of which should be ignored!) By tilting the scale, it puts nature at a higher priority than The Rules. Nature vs human induced artificiality.

Maybe every Street Photographer could learn from spending time purposely composing shots that do not align with the horizon?

mallen1330 Loc: Chicago western suburbs

Actually, in nature (the actual natural world), horizons ARE level, and vertical buildings ARE vertical. It is only the photograph that distorts that reality. When I'm watching a sunset over the water, no matter how far I tilt my head, the horizon still appears level. The distortions in photos that you refer to, CAN have artistic merit, adding a dramatic and dynamic energy to some shots. IMHO, they did not add such to the photo in question.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Ever been to SE Alaska? The landscape is an ocean beach on one side and a mountain slope on other. The horizon is not level, it's rounded. Trees are not vertical, they are at odd angles that are something close to vertical, but only rarely are actually even straight. The mountain slopes slope.

That is nature, "the actual natural world". It would be just as natural for a photograph to be aligned with the slope of the mountains, as not. Rest assured that buildings are artificial, not natural.

Photographs do distort reality! They can, for example, make nature look two dimensional, and appear to be "level".