Is it better to follow what is correct or to alter reality? (Page 2): Bridges, I took the liberty to look at your image on my software. I find the vertical to be off just a little. I...

Lens Cap Loc: The Cold North Coast

Bridges, I took the liberty to look at your image on my software. I find the vertical to be off just a little. I rotated the image counter clockwise by 1/2 degree. To me it looks better. The grave marker is angled in the original anyway. Check it out see what you think.

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

SteveR wrote:

Why do you think the tower looks like it's leaning?

To me, it just does. The tree to the left, the fact it appears straight but is in contact with the base of the tower and not as close higher up, makes the tower appear to be leaning away from the tree.

joehel2 Loc: Cherry Hill, NJ

Except for the Leaning Tower of Pisa, I will straighten a tower to correct a result that might have been caused by the camera being a hair off level.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

SteveR wrote:

Why do you think the tower looks like it's leaning?

Because looking at the image it appears that way.
Tilted to the right a bit.

BurghByrd Loc: Pittsburgh

Bridges wrote:

In the attached photo it looks like the tower is leaning a couple of degrees to the right (to me anyway). If I put a grid over the shot, the verticals are straight. I've come across this phenomenon on other occasions -- so is it better to leave the shot alone or correct to overcome what is most likely an optical illusion caused by trees or other elements in the shot?

The illusion is caused by the horizon (both the hill and the rocks in the foreground) tilting a bit toward the left. As with any other development decision, do what works best for you or for what your boss demands.

Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

Longshadow wrote:

Outward may correct for the vanishing point effect when looking upward???

I agree.
I "Corrected" the (tilt) perspective by about 15 degrees (top fwd) and that helped quite a bit with the verticals.
Sorry, but I don't have permission to post.
Smile,
JimmyT Sends

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Bridges wrote:

In the attached photo it looks like the tower is leaning a couple of degrees to the right (to me anyway). If I put a grid over the shot, the verticals are straight. I've come across this phenomenon on other occasions -- so is it better to leave the shot alone or correct to overcome what is most likely an optical illusion caused by trees or other elements in the shot?

Leave it. The longer I look at it the less it looks titled. It is an optical illusion. Not only the bent trees but the stone wall at the very bottom of the scene is uneven and adds to the effect. If I scroll my monitor's display of your pic to throw or "crop" the rocks out of the frame, the titled tower effect nearly goes away for me (anyway).

I have shot many landscape scenes where the terrain is sloped or titled and so the apparent or imagined horizon line is titled. Only in bodies of water can you know for sure if your horizon is level. Remember I live in California with all the millions of years of seismic activity much of the Mojave Desert is titled! And I am sure many other places in the world are like that. Again only the lakes, seas, and oceans must be plumb.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Bridges wrote:

To me, it just does. The tree to the left, the fact it appears straight but is in contact with the base of the tower and not as close higher up, makes the tower appear to be leaning away from the tree.

Appearances can be deceiving. I think the tower is the only thing that's straight in the whole photo.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

I often encounter the same situation, Mike, and when it doesn't look right to me, I unashamedly overcorrect to make it suit my eye.

(Maybe my problem is that I am off a little . . . .

)

Stephan G

Bridges wrote:

In the attached photo it looks like the tower is leaning a couple of degrees to the right (to me anyway). If I put a grid over the shot, the verticals are straight. I've come across this phenomenon on other occasions -- so is it better to leave the shot alone or correct to overcome what is most likely an optical illusion caused by trees or other elements in the shot?

The "tilt" can be the result of even settling of the building. Our brains are rather quirky when it comes to any alignment since it is dependent on what is viewed in the vicinity of the viewed object. An example popping into mind is the rail that seems to be vertical and yet the ball seems to climb upwards as it rolls on it. The brick line is slightly tilted. But our brains makes it seem to be vertically level to our sight.

One can get trapped in the attempt to level the wobbly table with shaving the table legs.

Best to leave the shot as is when it comes very close to the remembered view.

I was told that there are no buildings that equate their neighbors when it comes to the plumb line.

markinvictoria Loc: Victoria TX

frankco wrote:

I've read years ago that the Greeks would angle ta... (show quote)

btbg

Bridges wrote:

In the attached photo it looks like the tower is leaning a couple of degrees to the right (to me anyway). If I put a grid over the shot, the verticals are straight. I've come across this phenomenon on other occasions -- so is it better to leave the shot alone or correct to overcome what is most likely an optical illusion caused by trees or other elements in the shot?

What I usually do in that situation is go to geometry in camera raw (the equivalent in lightroom would do the same thing) hit auto and see how it chooses to align everything. Then I compare to see which I like better. I am much more concerned with the horizon line being straight than whether or not a building looks completely straight, but still, using the auto function gives a pretty good idea whether or not it is worth realigning something.

If the auto function makes a very big change then I might go down below auto in the geometry panel and make adjustments manually to taste. With that said, I checked on your image and the tower is straight, so I would most likely leave it straight.

PhotoMono123 Loc: Houston, Texas

The first question is this: "What is the purpose of the photo?"

If the answer is purely reportorial, then you leave it alone.

If the answer is to capture the scene and its mood for your own pleasure, then do what you wish.

Think of it this way.

An artist looks at the scene and decides what to put on a blank canvas. Do they want the tower to lean or stand straight? Do they want it where it is or perhaps closer or farther from the tree? Then they paint what they wish.

A photographer looks at a scene, takes the photo, and then starts the post-processing with a completed canvas. While the artist makes changes before the brush even touches the canvas, the photographer makes the changes to a completed canvas.

But either way, they choose what to keep and what to eliminate; what to move and what to leave as is; and whether the barn should be red or blue or brown. It is their art. It is their decision.

For myself, I am primarily a monochrome photographer. Once I remove the color from the image I have already changed the original and created an abstract image.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Mike D. wrote:

Altering reality is relative, Mike but I would leave it alone.

Since you have already checked and it's straight, there isn't really much to be done with spending more time than you might like and then, you would be altering reality.

I like the tower on the right side also, it kind of ties everything together.

My vote, for what it's worth, is leave it.

I adjust verticals to the grid in Lightroom Classic's cropping tool and let it go... Optical illusions happen. I'd rather be right than seem right. Hmm, sounds like NC's state motto...

JBuckley

Leave it, as is. Actually, the tower (leaning) to be an illusion,
because of the trees, adjacent to it. Let them wonder....