[blackest]

Hi all
The EXiF says

Composition Adjust : Off
Roll Angle : -2
Pitch Angle : 0
Composition Adjust X : 97
Composition Adjust Y : 1
Composition Adjust Rotation : 0.5

What correction do i need to apply ?

[sibyrnes]

I have never made a correction based on what the EXIF says. What do your eyes tell you?

[normhead]

I have never made a correction based on what the EXIF says. What do your eyes tell you?

+1^ Often due to the angle of different elements to the lens, lens distortion etc. dead level looks wrong.

[stevebrot]

Hi all
The EXiF says

Composition Adjust : Off
Roll Angle : -2
Pitch Angle : 0
Composition Adjust X : 97
Composition Adjust Y : 1
Composition Adjust Rotation : 0.5

What correction do i need to apply ?

I have never made a correction based on what the EXIF says. What do your eyes tell you?

Indeed! The EXIF shows what settings the camera saved for a particular photograph and that is all. The above tells little other than composition adjust and auto horizon correction were both switched OFF and that the camera was not X-Y level (2 degrees anti-clockwise from true).

You may wish to do apply a little positive rotation in post processing, but that is probably all.


Steve

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 04-08-2019 at 12:03 PM.

[blackest]

Indeed! The EXIF shows what settings the camera saved for a particular photograph and that is all. The above tells little other than composition adjust and auto horizon correction were both switched OFF and that the camera was not X-Y level (2 degrees anti-clockwise from true).

You may wish to do apply a little positive rotation in post processing, but that is probably all.


Steve

It's a lake with trees and the the land to the right is higher as you walk down the hill towards the lake. Surprisingly it seems closer to level applying - 2 degrees rather than + 2 degrees. It's not an easy fix I'll ask Pentax FR if they think +2 or -2 according to the exif

[sibyrnes]

I think you are missing the point. You should adjust based on how you want your image to look. Advice given by anyone based solely on the EXIF is worthless.

[blackest]

I think you are missing the point. You should adjust based on how you want your image to look. Advice given by anyone based solely on the EXIF is worthless.

To be honest I thought it was fine but someone questioned if it was level and it's hard to say the exif says it isn't. Although Issac Newton was from my home town I don't think i'm up to arguing with gravity, life is too short.

Incidentally https://www.facebook.com/ricohimagingfrance/ say hi to them there, they are a little shy and don't seem to understand the social part of social media. I did invite them to join the forum.

[Larrymc]

It's a lake with trees and the the land to the right is higher as you walk down the hill towards the lake. Surprisingly it seems closer to level applying - 2 degrees rather than + 2 degrees. It's not an easy fix I'll ask Pentax FR if they think +2 or -2 according to the exif

Forget the EXIF and simply align the water line with horizontal its as simple as that. Water doesn't slope its always horizontal even though the land above the water line may provide an optical illusion of the horizon being sloped.....always go with the water line.

[normhead]

To be honest I thought it was fine but someone questioned if it was level and it's hard to say the exif says it isn't. Although Issac Newton was from my home town I don't think i'm up to arguing with gravity, life is too short.

Incidentally Pentax FR - Home | Facebook say hi to them there, they are a little shy and don't seem to understand the social part of social media. I did invite them to join the forum.

There is no photographic guideline suggesting the horizon has to be level, and there are people who obsess about how level an image is for no reason other than somehow it's gotten into their mind that it's a thing. There are hundreds if not thousands of great photographs taken deliberately out of level. Level is not an artistic criteria. Heck, it's not even a technical criteria. It's all about what works.

Here's an image taken deliberately out of level because I wanted the diagonal to start in the corner and lead the eye into the frame. There are much more important considerations than "is the photo level" the value of which in my mind has never been established.



That's an extreme example, but many landscapes are to a lesser extent governed by other factors than "is the image level to an artificial horizon." It does seem to be a thing that many inexperienced photographers seem to latch onto. When people say "compose in the viewfinder", they are talking about a lot more than an artificial horizon. Life would be so easy if we could just check the level and snap off a frame.

[stevebrot]

To be honest I thought it was fine but someone questioned if it was level and it's hard to say the exif says it isn't. Although Issac Newton was from my home town I don't think i'm up to arguing with gravity, life is too short.

If the EXIF says there was rotational or pitch tilt, the camera was not level when the photo was taken. The correction to apply is to hold the camera straight! You can use the viewfinder edges as a guide along with the etched lines on the focus screen match up to known vertical or horizontal features in the frame. In Live View, there is are two level indicators that can be quite helpful, particularly when using a tripod. There is also an option of having a level indicator in the optical viewfinder. I hesitate to suggest that option because it replaces meter information.

Your camera also has an auto-horizon correction feature, but what you see in the viewfinder may be different from the actual photo. This is equivalent to correction in post-processing and I suggest leaving it turned off.

BTW: As noted above, obsessing over perfectly level composition may be counterproductive. Compose to your own best judgement.


Steve

P.S. The water surface may be level, but waterlines are deceptive and seldom parallel to the horizon.

[normhead]

Forget the EXIF and simply align the water line with horizontal its as simple as that. Water doesn't slope its always horizontal even though the land above the water line may provide an optical illusion of the horizon being sloped.....always go with the water line.

As long as the furthest shore is parallel to the film plane of the camera that's true. But when you have two planes receding towards the vanishing point, as in the following photo, using the water line is problematic. Which water line? The point or the far shore waterline? You have to find something that looks good, but you have a lot of leeway, and you should end up going for the most artistic look. Without seeing the image in question it's hard to make suggestions, and even the suggestions it will be artistic preference in the end. On the following photo both waterlines are receding right to left but at different angles, so where do you draw your reference from?



Using the waterline to level the horizon only works if you have a horizon that extends across the whole frame.

[Photobill]

Its all up to the eye not what the data shows.

Good Day
Photobill

[blackest]

As long as the furthest shore is parallel to the film plane of the camera that's true. But when you have two planes receding towards the vanishing point, as in the following photo, using the water line is problematic. Which water line? The point or the far shore waterline? You have to find something that looks good, but you have a lot of leeway, and you should end up going for the most artistic look. Without seeing the image in question it's hard to make suggestions, and even the suggestions it will be artistic preference in the end. On the following photo both waterlines are receding right to left but at different angles, so where do you draw your reference from?



Using the waterline to level the horizon only works if you have a horizon that extends across the whole frame.

Ok here is the photo in question with no rotation

https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2019/4/8/403834-img0334_4.jpg

It isn't clear where the horizon is, trees are not necessarily vertical, there is a fence maybe the posts are vertical...
To be fair my intention was to see if the exif data for the rotation was useful or not. I'm fully aware I can make artistic choices or not choose at all. For architecture this probably is a bigger issue as we have expectations of how buildings should look. If you have the measurement, you shouldn't need to guess.

I guess i could say I weigh 12 stone, I have some scales in the bathroom that disagree

[normhead]

That's definitely a rotate the image so that it looks good the way you want it. There is no reference I can see in the image that would enable you to conclusively know what level is, and even if there was, you have a tree line and a fence line that have to look right. I suspect what is true level should not even be a consideration. To me, someone claiming it's out of level would be expressing an artistic interpretation, not a technical one, whether they realize it or not. For me, tilting the right side up and left side down a bit would be the correct interpretation, but that's just my interpretation.

My preferred adjustment would be between 0.5 and 1 degree counter clockwise.

[stevebrot]

I suspect what is true level should not even be a consideration.

So true, so true!!!


There was little to reference in the photo below and I likely exaggerated the steepness a bit.




Steve