Tom Robbins
Member
Windblown
Centered horizons are most often acceptable, as a rule, when a scene includes water which reflects the upper half. This is probably sound compositional advice, yet my experience with tilt and shift lenses during the last couple of years, particularly when vertical elements should remain vertical, has created some doubts about its validity.
Frank Gohlke wrote, in a 1993 essay, "Holding the camera level while standing in a flat landscape means that the horizon cuts the middle of the picture and divides it into equal portions of earth and sky. I gradually became aware that the bisected frame was for me emblematic of that landscape, with sky and earth in a dynamic equilibrium and human beings in the middle, exploiting both and being dominated by both."
Anyone here care to offer their thoughts on this? If it's a non-issue, that's OK. Just figured I'd kick the pebble into the pond.