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 >> >
