You're viewing a single thread.
At the very least, you should rotate the photo so that the horizon is horizontal.
Then the subject is falling backwards. Plus, the tilt focuses the subject's view to the lower right. Lends action, what is he looking at? PLUS, levelling the horizon reduces the subject's importance.
(Jesus, I sound like an art critic. But hell, I think the pic is near perfect.)
it is not. a tilted horizon is never acceptable regardless of whatever else is going on in the photo. However the subject was standing with a flat horizon is authentic. The subject's actual stance is more interesting than the false stance that the tilting has inferred.
Here's a rotated version, cropped as little as I can manage.
Also while obviously nobody should treat compositional "rules" as actual hard-and-fast rules, I do quite like this one if it is cropped to put the person and the horizon on the thirds lines
why?
I've taken many photographs with non horizontal horizons. When the composition is more important than documentation, you can rotate the horizon any way you like
because it feels off balance.
the level of the horizon is a key part of composition. it effects comfort, balance, and groundedness. when the horizon is not level it will feel disorienting, dizzy, or chaotic. yes, you can break compositional rules for artistic effect, but you need to learn the rules and why they matter before you can do so effectively. the example you posted below doesn't really make your case. it's not that great of a photo, rotated or not. to intentionally rotate the horizon to give it an uncomfortable or disorienting feeling is fine if that's the goal hell, maybe it's more to feel otherworldly or any other number of things you can derive from it. the point is that you need a reason and intent behind the unlevel horizon. what feeling were you trying to invoke by not having the ground beneath the feet of the viewer?
yes, the example below is just a quick search and rotate on my phone. it's not "great".
what feeling were you trying to invoke by not having the ground beneath the feet of the viewer?
i wanted to transform lambda lemmings to art critics. I wanted to invoke an irresistible urge to comment
Nah, bro.
He's right about this one.
I think that you've shown that non-horizontal horizons can be used to artistic effect, but I don't think that just letting it happen without intention is necessarily a good idea. The horizon in your photo has clearly been very carefully aligned with the corners of the image. It seems much more intentional than OP's image.
If the photo's content is such viewer would be inclined to rotate the photo back to level in their mind, then there is no justifiable reason to have an off-level horizon. Camera tilts in and of themselves don't somehow make an unexceptional photo "artsy". In this example, there is no content in the photo that makes tilting it "add" anything to the composition. It's especially bad when the horizon is the sea. This photo is not enhanced in any way by tilting the horizon. It makes it neither artistic nor cool.
Instead, the content of the photo should complement the rotation, such as this
It makes it neither artistic nor cool.
being "artistic or cool" may be your goal, but they're not universal goals.
there is no justifiable reason to have an off-level horizon.
art doesn't need to justify.
Instead, the content of the photo should complement the rotation
that's an awful example. Not even mediocre 🤮
you see, de gustibus non est disputandum
