Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Possible 'badlevel'?  
User currently offlineDC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 15
Posted (8 years 7 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1791 times:

Hi everyone,

I'm wanting a little advice as to whether or not this shot of mine will fall foul of the level rule?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/ltuA330lpl.jpg

Basically, it has been levelled with the broad line of the horizon, to the left of the nose, most of which is cropped out. It has been pointed out to me that the shot could receive a 'badlevel' rejection because the line of the grass in the foreground is not level and this is the only reference in the shot. It would seem clear to me though, that to have this line levelled from such an angle would make the shot look obviously false, as the only way it could be level is if I was stood at 90 degrees to the aircraft, which I clearly wasn't.

I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts, particularly those of the screeners, if any read this.

Regards,

Tim.


Obviously missing something....
9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineNewark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 30
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1781 times:

It just looks off looking at it, as though it is tilted CCW. The horizon line on the left also isn't very reliable, since it appears to be a mountain range, and those aren't very level themselves.

Harry



Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3043 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1731 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi again Tim,

I feel like this is very familiar territory. It is that 'it may not look level but it is..' scenario, that I recall so fondly  biggrin .

I completely understand the argument that you put forward as to why that 'grass horizon' is unreliable. I think that is a watertight position to adopt. Also I would full accept that you have accurately levelled this shot using a reference now cropped out of the photo.

But, as we have discussed before, in the absence of that reference being visible, you are in the unfortunate position that the grass line gives the eye the impression that the shot is sloping to the left. This then introduces the 'aesthetics' argument, and I think it could be said that the photo would 'look' more level if that grass line was made level, even though this may well be false topographically speaking. Though I can't speak for the screeners, I think this is generally how they prefer the shots to be here when there is no visible, reliable, reference.

It's a tough one, which I hope is resolved satisfactorily for you, as it is a very nice, clear photo - I do like the rain drops in shot.

Good luck with it.

Paul


User currently offlineKukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1123 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1660 times:

Heck this is a tough one.

One thing that can be said, though, is that the grass line in the foreground should not be taken as a reference point and I am sure any screener would recognise this straight away. The grass line runs at an angle to the camera's line of sight. Since it is also below the camera's line of sight, perspective dictates that it should take on an apparent slope in the picture even though the ground is level. The line of grass and the boundary wall in the distance are also clearly at an angle to the camera's line of sight and therefore equally useless as reference-points.

The rule adopted in these cases according to several threads is that the photo has to look right. To me it looks like it needs a slight CW rotation (i.e. accentuating the apparent slope of the foreground grass line). Try it and see which version looks right to you on screen, ignoring reference-points that have been cropped out.

Charles



Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3043 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1617 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Charles,

I think you have summed up Tim's dilemma well.

Firstly, just to clarify, the grass line that I was referring to is not the one in the foreground, but the line of the grass by the fence, directly under the nose.

It seems we are all of the view that there is no reliable horizontal reference in the shot as it is now. But all who have commented 'feel' that the shot could benefit from a CW rotation. For me this is caused by that grass line under the nose. To my eye, it is that line sloping that creates the sense that the photo itself is not level. The (in my view correct) explanation as to why that 'horizon' would not be horizontal might be irrelevant from the viewpoint of a potential NOA_angle rejection.

I think Tim's dilemma is that the features that may create the sense in the viewer that the photo needs rotation are unreliable references - so what does he do? Make a photo unlevel in order to make it appear level to the viewer, or stick with what he knows to be the case (and can justify with geometry) and risk a rejection.

I agree with you that screeners have previously indicated that the site's preference is for the photo to appear level - sometimes (and I have personal experience of this) that is hard to accept when you know the result will be not be a true reflection of the reality - a fascinating issue when considered alongside the recent debates on the other thread about cloning.

All the best.

Paul


User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3292 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1606 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I also think the shot may need a TINY bit of CW rotation. But I think the grass underneath the nose has nothing to do with it. The runway is neither parallel nor perpendicular to the photographer, so the grass would never be perfectly horizontal. I think the only reason the picture needs some rotation is that, although the A330 naturally has a nose-down attitude on the ground, this is a little to exaggerated here and because the shot is taken from slightly behind the aircraft, it looks like the nose is much farther down than it actually is. Maybe one or two degrees CW is all you'll need.

TIS



www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offlineDC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1583 times:

Thanks for the responses guys.

This is proving to be a tougher one than I had thought initially. The LTU shot about might well need some slight CW rotation, but there are still a couple of concerns that I have about this.

1) The A330 does slope towards the front. Without wanting to be accused of a shameless plug (this angle is actually quite rare), here is another similar shots of mine of an A330 from a different location.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tim Goodwin



I seem to remember I levelled (perhaps incorrectly) this one with the top of the concrete taxiway.

2) If I am to give the LTU shot some CW rotation, then I really am in 'badlevel' territory, as the grass line alongside the runway under the nose will only slightly be slanting and could attrat the eye of a screener thinking it's incorrect.

So I'm still unsure of what to do.

Regards,

Tim.



Obviously missing something....
User currently offlineKukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1123 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1566 times:

Paul, point taken about which grass line you were referring to. I was reacting to Tim's initial post which mentioned the foreground line.

My feeling that the photo needs a slight CW rotation does not come from the grass line under the nose, but from a sense that the nose-down attitude of the A330 is over-accentuated, bearing in mind the position of the plane relative to the camera's line of sight. The comparison with the other photo Tim posted is interesting, but partially misleading in that the camera appears to be at a lower level relative to the Air Greenland plane than to the LTU machine, so the latter should have less apparent forward slope. However, I differ from Anitix87 in that "one or two degrees" would be way too much rotation IMO. More like half a degree or less.

Incidentally the photo is not entirely without references. If you look closely at the boundary wall under the aircraft nose, you will see that it is vertically segmented. The verticals are too short and indistinct to be a definitive guide but they should be enough to indicate to a screener that rotating the photo to get the wall and grass line horizontal would be wrong. Although I'm sure an experienced screener would realise this even without the verticals in the wall.

So Tim I don't think that this should be such a concern to you. Just see how the shot looks best to you and go with it. If you do reupload you can always add a note to the screeners about the misleading would-be reference-points.

Good luck ...

Charles



Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3292 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1554 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Kukkudrill (Reply 7):
My feeling that the photo needs a slight CW rotation does not come from the grass line under the nose, but from a sense that the nose-down attitude of the A330 is over-accentuated, bearing in mind the position of the plane relative to the camera's line of sight.

Thanks for repeating exactly what I said.

Although, maybe a degree of rotation would be a little too much.

One final question, what are the white speckles behind the engine? Is it rain, or pollen, or what? It looks abnormal. It is a natural thing you should tell the screener so when you upload. Otherwise, I'd say take a second look at it.

TIS



www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offlineJorge1812 From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 3148 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1486 times:

Hi.
Just to bring this topic back to attention is better than starting a new one.
Got his pic rejected for NOA_level
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ons/big/D-ABAX_738_AB_090905_6.jpg
But judging from the lightpoles in the backround I would say it's level. What do you think?

Georg.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
550EX On 10D, Possible? posted Thu Feb 22 2007 16:59:05 by WorldspotterPL
Possible Camera Damage While Traveling? posted Sun Dec 31 2006 00:01:42 by Fxfan
Possible Flaw With Canon EF70-200 F4 L posted Tue Dec 5 2006 16:46:52 by JakTrax
How Is It Possible? posted Wed Nov 29 2006 12:58:22 by Robban75
Is Copying Of Files In The Field Possible posted Sun Nov 12 2006 20:03:58 by THVGJP
Registration But No Routing...tracking Possible? posted Sun Sep 24 2006 22:31:57 by AKE0404AR
Possible Photo Theft By Volga-Dnepr posted Sat Aug 26 2006 20:18:24 by Futterman
Motive And/or Other Possible Rejections posted Tue Jun 13 2006 05:50:33 by Scottieprecord
Possible Bad Center? posted Wed May 17 2006 16:48:30 by Airplanepics
Need Help Regarding Possible Photo Theft posted Fri Apr 28 2006 09:59:52 by DLKAPA