Levelling using poles vs buildings as verticals.

Originally Posted by Felipe Garcia

Sorry. Had to do that.

I don't know what you're talking about flexibility. I have yet to have a photo rejected due to bad leveling caused by an object of questionable leveling. All the times it's been due to a slip of the ruler tool or simply carelessness on my part.

That said, I always mark if I used my 12-24 which does tend to show distortion and have never had a rejection due to a leaning pole.

Felipe,
First, I'm sorry, but I do not see what you mean with the picture you brought above.
In my humble opinion it's very unnecessary, and I expect you delete it from here.
Or maybe you should leave it and everyone can see who the person writes into the issue and who is not? ...
It's very insulting that have some people who choose to go down below the belt instead of dealing with the main issue! but as you wish...

And now about the issue that you don't understand with flexibility.
Everything I wrote, also previous discussions regarding flexibility, and too bad you can not understand, because when there are several options for leveling, and it is clear that we have some elements for leveling, you can be flexible.
And that for one reason only, the reason I wrote this over and over, and the reason is: Everyone sees something different in his eyes, and there are many examples for that.
Are for you personally it's pleasant when you are sure that you don't have any mistake, but someone else thinks that you make a mistake?
For me personally it's not pleasant, and I don't like when I see questions from different people who are certain not to have made a mistake, and I see in my personal eyes that they were surely not made ​​a mistake, but someone else thinks they were wrong.
I've always written, so even now I'll write it again clearly:
Maybe do you remember that I said more than once, maybe I'm an idiot that I was acting like Don Quixote?
So, although you are going to below of my belt, I don't happy if you don't make a mistake, but someone else thinks you did a mistake.
Yes, just like that!
Yes, It's even for you !
I'm not saying that the crew is wrong, I just think they could be flexible in some cases, when there is some leveling options, and that's all!

Originally Posted by StMawganE14

Absolutely agree Felipe!

Erez - I make mistakes. I have had numerous levelling rejections which, when I take a second look, are quite obviously wrong and my error. I don't expect flexibility for my carelessness.

Brian,
Me too, just like you, don't expect to flexibility for my carelessness.
Unfortunately, you too failed with reading comprehension, like Felipe above...
So, if you wish. please read again the discussion, maybe you be able to understand it better.

And now without quote, becouse I don't needs to quote :
Thank you Paul, It's very good to have here someone who understands the issue, and he's writes about the issue in a very respectable.

All the best to all !
Erez.

Originally Posted by Felipe Garcia

Because he doesn't seem to miss an opportunity to bash the crew for unfairness and whatnot. Sorry for being so harsh, but he keeps on insisting how the crew is unflexible with him, and so far, nobody else has said "Yes, the crew keeps on rejecting my shots due to an apparently unleveled non-vertical pole.
...

Not at all, I'm not to bash the crew for unfairness and whatnot.
It's definitely not true, it's like you're telling me "You're a thief" or any other tort.
I think that the crew are deal with me very good even without your kind support...

Note: I answering for this part just now, because I saw it after my previous response.

[seahawk]

Originally Posted by PMN

That's all very well and good, Felipe, but it doesn't change the fact this thread was started by a crew member so the point is probably worth discussing. Please understand I'm not mindlessly sticking up for Erez here and randomly having a go at you; I've spent long enough around JP to know he brings some of the comments people make on himself and I've also made my disagreement at some of his opinions known before, but this thread is being steered away from the original point which Brian made. That point is one that's very much worthy of discussion because however much certain people may try deny it, it does cause problems, and a little sensible discussion will help make things more consistent.

Well Brain (the crewmember) pointed out that poles can be a dangerous reference for levelling a photo. Nothing more and nothing less.

In general think a forum is a place to discuss the problems that the users are having. But it should also be a place of a respectful exchange of opinion. ErezS is a valued and long time contributor to the site. I have the greatest respect for his desire to improve the user experience of this site for all users, even tough I do disagree with him on the correct way to achieve this goal.

[Felipe Garcia]

I'm not trying to go below your belt, but it's been less than 2 weeks since your heartache thread was locked, and IIRC, the issue of leveling was mentioned several times. This time, Brian brings a very valid point and it feels (at least to some of us) that you're trying to use it only for your personal gain.

I feel like you're bashing the crew just because you keep on mentioning about being flexible and being flexible but that's it. If that wasn't your intention or you don't see it that way, I apologize for judging you and for the photo I posted, but coming home after several hours of being stuck in classes only to see again the same stuff from 3 weeks ago from the same person, it can get frustrating.

Like somebody said, yes, flexibility is needed when the buildings are leaning or the poles are. Growing up in the developing world I learned that you can expect lightpoles to have a 30ish degree deviation from the vertical. I had this discussion in the past with the screener of another website (a non-aviation one), couldn't convince him that there's places in the world where you can't use them as reference lines.

To be honest with you, I am familiar with the airport I normally shoot at. I'm sure many screeners aren't, yet I haven't had rejections due to them using an unfair, unleveled reference line (which DO exist); but, I am prepared to defend myself should the need arise.

As for distortion, check this photo
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.p...23024&nseq=287

A simple look and no flexibility would have gotten me an unlevel rejection, but, it is well known how ultrawides tend to distort lines. As a matter of fact, I recall having the camera placed flat on the hangar floor for that shot.

I once stuck to the convention of leveling the verticals and ended up with a photo that looked terrible, and sure enough, it got rejected as it just didn't look right, and it wasn't with an ultrawide, but it was just the angle I was shooting at that made it look horrible.

Another thing nobody mentioned yet is that some poles are tapered, and if you don't notice it right away, it will mess up the angles too.

Originally Posted by seahawk

Well Brain (the crewmember) pointed out that poles can be a dangerous reference for levelling a photo. Nothing more and nothing less.

It's very true, Stefan,
And if so, why when I made leveled acording to the buildings, I received a rejection for "horizon unlevel" with a comment like "see the poles, all of them are tends to ..." (etc.)
Actually, I have the answer: It's because everything is by the eye of the beholder !
Nothing more and nothing less.

By the way...Just one week ago, after the rejection of the Dash 8, and after a lengthy discussion in this forum about the subject, and after I made another version followed the recommendation of Peter, I got rejection again for the same reason ...
Only after I sent an appeal, and I wrote that it's according to Peter's recommendation in the forum, the appeal was accepted.
So I ask: Why do I need to be a "scapegoat" when there is disagreement between the crew?
Do you understand me (and understand the problem) now more clearly and better than before?
I'm never not to bash the crew, I'm just confused so many times, becouse of the disagreement between the crew.
So, I using in the words like "to find flexibility", nothing more and nothing less.
All the best

Originally Posted by Felipe Garcia

I'm not trying to go below your belt, but it's been less than 2 weeks since your heartache thread was locked, and IIRC, the issue of leveling was mentioned several times. This time, Brian brings a very valid point and it feels (at least to some of us) that you're trying to use it only for your personal gain.

I feel like you're bashing the crew just because you keep on mentioning about being flexible and being flexible but that's it. If that wasn't your intention or you don't see it that way, I apologize for judging you and for the photo I posted, but coming home after several hours of being stuck in classes only to see again the same stuff from 3 weeks ago from the same person, it can get frustrating.

Like somebody said, yes, flexibility is needed when the buildings are leaning or the poles are. Growing up in the developing world I learned that you can expect lightpoles to have a 30ish degree deviation from the vertical. I had this discussion in the past with the screener of another website (a non-aviation one), couldn't convince him that there's places in the world where you can't use them as reference lines.

To be honest with you, I am familiar with the airport I normally shoot at. I'm sure many screeners aren't, yet I haven't had rejections due to them using an unfair, unleveled reference line (which DO exist); but, I am prepared to defend myself should the need arise.

As for distortion, check this photo
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.p...23024&nseq=287

A simple look and no flexibility would have gotten me an unlevel rejection, but, it is well known how ultrawides tend to distort lines. As a matter of fact, I recall having the camera placed flat on the hangar floor for that shot.

I once stuck to the convention of leveling the verticals and ended up with a photo that looked terrible, and sure enough, it got rejected as it just didn't look right, and it wasn't with an ultrawide, but it was just the angle I was shooting at that made it look horrible.

Another thing nobody mentioned yet is that some poles are tapered, and if you don't notice it right away, it will mess up the angles too.

Felipe,
First of all I welcome your apology, it proves that it's very possible to act otherwise.
Thank you.

I'm not trying, not at all, NEVER, to use in the forum only for my personal gain.
I already said that I'm an idiot like Don Quixote...

I'm sorry about your feeling, but did you trying, even for a moment, to understand me and the general problem, as I wrote so many times?
Did you can to understand my frustration, for example as in the case as I wrote in my last response to stefan ?

Best regards,
Erez.

[PMN]

Originally Posted by seahawk

Well Brain (the crewmember) pointed out that poles can be a dangerous reference for levelling a photo. Nothing more and nothing less.

Err... Eh? What on Earth do you mean by "nothing more and nothing less"? That's the most ridiculously dismissive reply imaginable. Why do you think it was mentioned in the first place, as a random out of the blue thing or because it's something actually worthy of discussion? Please, tell me.

This is precisely what my biggest problem with JP is, an apparent unwillingness to discuss things, especially from certain members of the senior team. Brian brought the point up, let it be discussed rather than dismissing it!

Originally Posted by ErezS

Paul, It's very good to have here someone who understands the issue, and he's writes about the issue in a very respectable.

I simply say what I believe to be right, Erez. I always have and I always will. Continuing from that, and as Felipe has now made his points in a clear and respectable way perhaps it might be an idea for you to sit back and observe this thread rather than actually take part in it?

[seahawk]

Paul free fell to discuss lamp posts that are not level and what that means for levelling your photo in editing.

[PMN]

Originally Posted by seahawk

Paul free fell to discuss lamp posts that are not level and what that means for levelling your photo in editing.

Not that you're being dismissive, Stefan. Again.

[B7772ADL]

Originally Posted by ErezS

It's very true, Stefan,
And if so, why when I made leveled acording to the buildings, I received a rejection for "horizon unlevel" with a comment like "see the poles, all of them are tends to ..." (etc.)
Actually, I have the answer: It's because everything is by the eye of the beholder !
Nothing more and nothing less.

If ALL the poles are leaning in the SAME direction then there is a very very good probability that the horizon is unlevel, therefore the poles are a good indicator since whoever put the poles in is very unlikely to have installed them all leaning in the same direction.

If all the poles are leaning in DIFFERENT directions, eg one to the left, one to the right then in all probability it's a bad indicator and a different reference will be needed.

[brianw999]

Well, this opened a can or worms didn't it.

My original intention was to point out that poles are not reliable sources for vertical reference and leave it at that. Yes, a row of poles all leaning the same way CAN be an indicator....but it isn't always so. I can show you a row of three lamp posts at Heathrow that all lean the same amount due to the prevailing winds. The point to be taken into account is how level the whole image is.

Re: terminal 5, yes there's a distinct lean on the facade there and I would never use that as a guide......most times !

but...

here's one I prepared earlier...




Taken at this angle the facade very obviously cannot be used for a vertical as it's not vertical....

.....but....

If I took a shot from bang in front of that facade then it would be a viable vertical. The window frames are all vertical, it just depends which angle you look at them.

The point of the thread is to say that buildings are the most reliable factor when determining a vertical. Sometimes even a horizontal building line is a better reference than a vertical. In this image I used the roof over the arches as a reference rather than the shorter verticals of the arches as the eye sees the longer horizontal first. And the ramp light pole is VERY obviously bent due to the prevailing wind !!

Looks nice and level, doesn't it ? ...............


................That's what the eye sees anyway because if you now look at the short white pillars at the far left it is actually leaning ever so slightly to the right. I originally levelled using those pillars and the verticals of the arches but the image looked wrong overall because the roof over the arches then looked wrong and made the image look like it was leaning to left !

And now....here's an absolute cracker that I guarantee in actuality is around 4 degrees off true level.....




Looks level ? ....... but now look at the trees in the right far horizon. They are leaning to right. This part of Popham actually slopes heavily to the left, including the fence posts behind yet to get it accepted I had to set a false horizon !!

None of this is in any way an attack on the screeners by the way, I simply use these to illustrate the problems that lie with deciding horizon.

[PMN]

3 perfect examples. This has been my point before, in the absence of a specific and accurate reference another approach must be used in both editing and screening, much like the sensible and logical one that's been used here!