Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

....just how out of whack our perceptions in the field can be sometimes-
-and I consider myself a pretty "level-headed" guy...

http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/49432936/original

Anybody else relate to this?

I'm usually have a pretty good eye, but it failed me this time...

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> ...just how out of whack our perceptions in the field can be
> sometimes- -and I consider myself a pretty "level-headed" guy...
>
> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/49432936/original
>
> Anybody else relate to this?
>
> I'm usually have a pretty good eye, but it failed me this time...

On the other hand...

-I've been just as amazed when walking by 1-hour photo lab counters in
stores as I see people oohing and aawing at photos they've shot that are SO
out of whack that they wouldn't make it past my trash can.

Maybe I should be encouraged that my posted shot is my exception and not my
rule??

-Mark

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" wrote:
>
> Mark² wrote:
> > ...just how out of whack our perceptions in the field can be
> > sometimes- -and I consider myself a pretty "level-headed" guy...
> >
> > http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/49432936/original
> >
> > Anybody else relate to this?
> >
> > I'm usually have a pretty good eye, but it failed me this time...
>
> On the other hand...
>
> -I've been just as amazed when walking by 1-hour photo lab counters in
> stores as I see people oohing and aawing at photos they've shot that are SO
> out of whack that they wouldn't make it past my trash can.
>
> Maybe I should be encouraged that my posted shot is my exception and not my
> rule??
>
> -Mark

) sometimes all it takes is a crashing wave. they're not interested
in whether it's a good photo technically, just that the wave is there.

--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!" )
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> ...just how out of whack our perceptions in the field can be sometimes-
> -and I consider myself a pretty "level-headed" guy...
>
> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/49432936/original
>
> Anybody else relate to this?
>
> I'm usually have a pretty good eye, but it failed me this time...
>
>


In all honesty, you could've cheated by twisting this image around to
"look" straight and I wouldn't have known it. No horizonal clue.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jer wrote:
> Mark² wrote:
>> ...just how out of whack our perceptions in the field can be
>> sometimes- -and I consider myself a pretty "level-headed" guy...
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/49432936/original
>>
>> Anybody else relate to this?
>>
>> I'm usually have a pretty good eye, but it failed me this time...
>>
>>
>
>
> In all honesty, you could've cheated by twisting this image around to
> "look" straight and I wouldn't have known it.

Perhaps, but *I* would have known it, and the bir'd legs are a tip-off.
Plus I'd have to waste pixels/crop out part of the scene.
I can still do that, and certainly will if I decide to do anything with this
image...

>No horizonal clue.

True, which is likely why it was easy to goof.
I just find it interesting...
(I must be bored today, aye?)

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark?" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
: Jer wrote:
: > Mark? wrote:
: >> ...just how out of whack our perceptions in the field can be
: >> sometimes- -and I consider myself a pretty "level-headed" guy...
: >>
: >> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/49432936/original
: >>
: >> Anybody else relate to this?
: >>
: >> I'm usually have a pretty good eye, but it failed me this time...
: >>
: >>
: >
: >
: > In all honesty, you could've cheated by twisting this image around to
: > "look" straight and I wouldn't have known it.

: Perhaps, but *I* would have known it, and the bir'd legs are a tip-off.
: Plus I'd have to waste pixels/crop out part of the scene.
: I can still do that, and certainly will if I decide to do anything with
: this image...

: >No horizonal clue.

: True, which is likely why it was easy to goof.
: I just find it interesting...
: (I must be bored today, aye?)

Actually using my fingers to do a virtual crop to the angle as displayed,
the cliff face that makes a nice bottom frame in the original, becomes an
angled "hill side" when oriented to the bird legs. Either way works for
me. I guess that since I am used to viewing landscape images taken with
wide (or super-wide) angle lenses such things as an object (such as the
bird) near an edge that is somewhat out of plumb isn't much of a
distraction. Since the bird is not (IMHO) the center of attention, the
original orientation, using the cliff edge as a visual frame works fine.
On the other hand if the gull was intended to be the main center of
attention, rotating the image to correct the plumb at that location would
make sense. It all depends on what the center of attention is intended to
be. I have even used this in some situations to actually tilt the camera
to a 45 deg angle or so to emphasize a particular object. Of course it
then helps to display the image at something near that angle to keep
viewers from becoming confused or disoriented. Of course sometimes it is
fun to do something just to fool the viewer (think of the old "batman
walking up the wall" trick).

Some of my most interresting photos have been taken at odd/unexpected
angles or from unstandard points of view.

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <wjkXe.23981$sx2.7452@fed1read02>,
Mark² <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>...just how out of whack our perceptions in the field can be sometimes-
>-and I consider myself a pretty "level-headed" guy...
>
>http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/49432936/original
>
>Anybody else relate to this?

Yeah, take this one for example:

http://narcissus.dyndns.org/Chris/ElyCannon.jpg

How did I not notice *that*?

;-)

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Chris Brown" <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in message
news:8cd203-j91.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org...
> In article <wjkXe.23981$sx2.7452@fed1read02>,
> Mark² <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>...just how out of whack our perceptions in the field can be sometimes-
>>-and I consider myself a pretty "level-headed" guy...
>>
>>http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/49432936/original
>>
>>Anybody else relate to this?
>
> Yeah, take this one for example:
>
> http://narcissus.dyndns.org/Chris/ElyCannon.jpg
>
> How did I not notice *that*?
>
> ;-)

If you were on a tour of Europe, did you just come from Pisa? <G>

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" wrote:
>
> ...just how out of whack our perceptions in the field can be sometimes-
> -and I consider myself a pretty "level-headed" guy...
>
> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/49432936/original
>
> Anybody else relate to this?
>
> I'm usually have a pretty good eye, but it failed me this time...

Hang on a minute there, it's not the camera or the photog that's
cock-eyed, the whole image is skewed. I have seen this happen with a
flatbed scanner, but not often. If I'm pressed, I would say that the
image has been rotated by post-processing in PS, may be as a hoax ...
{:-)

Colin D.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> Mark² wrote:
>
>>...just how out of whack our perceptions in the field can be
>>sometimes- -and I consider myself a pretty "level-headed" guy...
>>
>>http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/49432936/original
>>
>>Anybody else relate to this?

Heck, who can't?

>>I'm usually have a pretty good eye, but it failed me this time...
>
> On the other hand...
>
> -I've been just as amazed when walking by 1-hour photo lab counters in
> stores as I see people oohing and aawing at photos they've shot that
are SO
> out of whack that they wouldn't make it past my trash can.

I have a terrible eye for level (and, well, several other things)
but I've never trashed a digital image for roll making it "out of
whack". Rotate; problem solved. These days, I'll fix anything
more than half a degree out of true, which means 90% if the
images I've printed, I've corrected for rotation.


> Maybe I should be encouraged that my posted shot is my exception
> and not my rule??

Yeah, I suppose I'd be better off had I the skill of holding the
camera level in the first place. Maybe I could learn if I
worked at it. Not going to happen, so I'll get by with the
skill of grokking Gimp.


I was thinking of commenting on how the pitch of Mark²'s shot
made the proper roll unclear, and the bird's posture is only
sign of a problem. Then I saw that Randy Berbaum already nailed
the issue, with a better explanation than I was going to write.
So I won't bother.


--
--Bryan

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Chris Brown" <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>>Anybody else relate to this?
>
> Yeah, take this one for example:
>
> http://narcissus.dyndns.org/Chris/ElyCannon.jpg
>
> How did I not notice *that*?

Other than the insanely excessive sharpening, I don't see anything wrong<g>.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:30:46 GMT, Chris Brown
<cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> had a flock of green cheek
conures squawk out:

>In article <wjkXe.23981$sx2.7452@fed1read02>,
>Mark² <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>...just how out of whack our perceptions in the field can be sometimes-
>>-and I consider myself a pretty "level-headed" guy...
>>
>>http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/49432936/original
>>
>>Anybody else relate to this?
>
>Yeah, take this one for example:
>
>http://narcissus.dyndns.org/Chris/ElyCannon.jpg
>
>How did I not notice *that*?
>
>;-)

It was too close to happy hour at the local watering hole? :-)

Stephen
--

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Well the vantage point is always going to be skewed some. If you were
taking pictures up and down the coast-line then that picture would be a
natural progression as you went from further points to closer
ones...you can always rotate/crop it as you want...I worry very little
about the angle of pictures, just worry about the content, you can
usually fake enough angle so nobody would know, but you can't fake
content near as easily.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
newsgmajn$pc$1@nnrp.gol.com...
> "Chris Brown" <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>>>Anybody else relate to this?
>>
>> Yeah, take this one for example:
>>
>> http://narcissus.dyndns.org/Chris/ElyCannon.jpg
>>
>> How did I not notice *that*?
>
> Other than the insanely excessive sharpening, I don't see anything
> wrong<g>.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
Leftist! <G>

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 04:39:28 -0700, "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net>
wrote:

>"Chris Brown" <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in message
>news:8cd203-j91.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org...
>> In article <wjkXe.23981$sx2.7452@fed1read02>,
>> Mark² <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>>...just how out of whack our perceptions in the field can be sometimes-
>>>-and I consider myself a pretty "level-headed" guy...
>>>
>>>http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/49432936/original
>>>
>>>Anybody else relate to this?
>>
>> Yeah, take this one for example:
>>
>> http://narcissus.dyndns.org/Chris/ElyCannon.jpg
>>
>> How did I not notice *that*?
>>
>> ;-)
>
>If you were on a tour of Europe, did you just come from Pisa? <G>

I'd stay with "strong wind that say".