I have just had a shot rejected with these words:
"The angle of the camera does not seem to be straight compared
to the horizon. In the future, make sure you always hold the
camera absolutely level. This particularly applies to pictures
of aircraft on the ground. For shots of aircraft in flight where
the ground is visible (take-offs and landings in particular),
the general rule is that the camera should be level with the
horizon and the aircraft be at an angle. There may be
exceptions to this rule if the composition of the picture is
unique and having a level horizon would detract from the
aesthetic value of the picture (such cases will be rare)."
Now I don´t complain, and I am fully aware of the need of sorting out shots among the large amount uploaded.
But I feel the rejection messages sometimes are a bit too general.
This is the photo concerned. My first sight of a KLM B737 repainted, taken as the aircraft are coming in to gate 21 at Flesland airport, Bergen, Norway in the morning April 3rd. I was placed at the top of a nearby carpark, 3rd level, looking down at the aircraft parking at the nearest gate, with a fence in front, with the end of the apron against the trees behind, and with the runway, the sea and the horizon as background.
Now, how is the photo to be judged in level?
I concentrated on holding the camera in level with runway and horizon behind.
As a matter of fact, a small church tower is vertical in the far background. As the aircraft is seen in a small angle coming from the left side after a left turn, it is easily judged out of level. But measured both to the wheels and to the top of fuselage, I assumed the photo to be level enough. Specially set against background. The photo has not been cropped from original slide, nor has it been rotated.
Another interesting thing, is that the runway at Flesland itself, hardly can be a measure of a runway in level...... But the horizon and the sea is.
What do you think? Anyway it was a nice place for beautiful morning views
Kind regards Ole Johan Beck
[Edited 2003-04-28 22:21:06]