dansmith Loc: Southwest Alberta Canada

So what do you folks do when nothing is vertical or level. I chose the mid distant fence posts and let the rest follow. Does the whole scene look too wonky or is it acceptable given the subject?

.

(Download)

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Dan, in this case, I'd use the very right fence and make sure that was vertical. That would anchor the scene for what it is.
--Bob

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

Im inclined to feel Bob is right here and would like this a lot better in color I think

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Hi, Dan,
I like it as is.
Whether consciously or subconsciously you framed that skewed world within two strong referents: the perfectly vertical post to which the "framing wood gate" is chained, and the perfect horizontal lower margin of the upper board of that gate. All else slumps into their own casually assumed postures of endurance (subject to the will of the Cosmos).

I hope you don't mind that I've marked those two referents in red with no alteration of your original image.

Best regards,
Dave

(Download)

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

I like the original. Seems quite natural and interesting.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

I understand your dilemma. I'm often faced with this, particularly with the dam birds, because nothing under the dam is built for verticals or horizontals, it is all built to move water and hold up the stuff on top- function, not appearance.

In my photography I am less concerned about what was actually level than I am about the appearance of being level. So, with contradictory input like you have here, I'd probably do something similar to what you did. I'd line up with that bit of right-edge post and try to make the fence posts in the distance look like they were vertical too. And let the rest fall where it may.

One thing that sometimes makes me defy what I know to be real is sky. If the clouds seem to "need" to be straight, I sometimes give in to their need if it doesn't kill something else in the image.

This is such an interesting topic, that could go much further than just a discussion of this image - which, by the way, I like very much. I like the toning and processing, and the composition. I am a sucker for frames inside of frames.

dansmith Loc: Southwest Alberta Canada

Thanks to all who replied. I adjusted the far right post slightly and put up the colour version for comparison. Camera was my old P&S Canon so the production is lacking hence the conversion.

Minniev's reply arrived while I was getting this one up. In the original I watched only the fence posts which still look acceptably vertical in this one. The glimpse of horizon between the fence and gate helps reason the slope.
.

(Download)

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

I'm in the I-like-it-as-it-was camp. I like it better in sepia than color, and it being cattywampus (if it is) does not bother me because of the subject matter. I often look for a central vertical for reference, especially when there is no actual horizon line. The one thing that bothers me, only a little (!) is what I perceive as a lack of a center of interest. For me there is nowhere for the eye to rest. Everything is sharp. The gate is the frame but it's also a subject. I could wish I had made it, and if I had made it I would still have the same slight doubt about it. I think it's quite good, but I also sense something missing.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I'm just the opposite. As I said in other posts, I'm not an artist - my undergraduate degree is in mathematics, but now I'm convinced that my heart is the heart of an engineer {like my Dad was}. My strong inclination is to follow nature - to make level that which was level in nature. I guess having differences like that is what makes a place like this interesting.