I think the crux of the issue is that the *viewer* doesn't know that the
terrain is tilted; all they can see is that the horizon in the *picture*
is tilted. And if there are no other clues, the visual assumption is that
it *should* have been level, but isn't. The "Dutch Tilt" works because it
is *so* far off from level that the viewer must conclude either that the
photographer intended it, or was drunk. :)
Andrew
On Fri, August 12, 2011 3:50 pm, Don Roberts wrote:
Agreed, if we can resolve the "curved" versus "level" semantic issue.
But I stand by my original claim that the horizon does not need to be
level if the terrain is not. Personal preferences I guess. That is
just
one of the many things that makes photography so compelling. Don
On 8/12/11 3:36 PM, MichaelHughes7A@xxxxxxx wrote:
In a message dated 12/08/2011 16:47:02 GMT Daylight Time,
elf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
There is no point in time or place when the horizon is not level,
sorry.
Given - both the Oxford English Dictionary and Webster's agree that
the visible horizon is the point (or series of Points - my words) where
the sea and the sky appear to meet. Many, but not all people, believe
that the world is round, thus their perception must be that the horizon
curves. Experience - whilst working in Europe for an American company
one encounterd the view that some Americans feared that if they crossed
the outer borders of their continent they would fall off. Michael