Grads still have a place in digital photography

Today I’d like to discuss the validity in still using Grads in an age where digital cameras have so much dynamic range that many believe that grads are no longer required. To do this, I need to go over what happens to the exposure when we apply grads.

Yesterday I discussed why using Aperture Priority is better than using Manual, particularly when using grads. Aperture Priority automatically re-balances the exposure as the grad is applied:

As you can see, the grad reduces the difference in contrast between sky and ground. And since the camera wants to take an average between the two values, we find the sky and ground moving towards mid-grey (18%).

In the above illustration you can see that the ground values are now lighter once the grad has been applied. This is key to my post today. When you apply grads, what you are essentially doing is opening up the shadow detail in the histogram / exposure of the photo.

Consider the histogram on the left. No grad was applied, so we end up with a classic ‘double humper’. The ground has been squeezed into the lower tones of the histogram while the sky has been squeezed into the upper registers of the histogram.

Note where 18% grey is.

The ground is essentially underexposed, while the sky is overexposed.

Also consider that the ground is residing in the shadow ‘darker’ area of the histogram. This results in loss of tonal information in the shadows as many dark tones are being quantised. Many tones become one.

Now let’s consider the same image shot with a graduated filter:

The ground values have been moved towards the middle area of the histogram. Same for the sky values. The important points to consider are:

The shadow information has been opened up (marked in red). We now have more tonal information stretching over a longer tonal scale way down into the shadows.

The highlight information has also been opened up (marked in red). We now have more tonal information stretching over a longer tonal scale way up into the highlights.

For me, the main reasons why I use grads are:

1. I wish to avoid underexposed ground and overexposed sky

2. I want to go home with a pleasing negative to work with.

3. I don’t want to have to jump through additional hoops in the processing to figure out if the image is any good. Working with an image where the sky is overexposed and the ground is underexposed isn’t very inspiring at all !

4. if I didn’t grad, I’d have to process every file I shot to see if they were any good before I began work.

5. Working with a nicely balanced exposure straight out of the camera can be, and often is, a very inspiring way of working. You can see straight away whether the composition and image works or not, and I remain engaged.

Engagement is the key for me.

I don’t want to struggle with bad exposures to make them nicer. I want to work with images that inspire me, and that means pleasing, balanced exposures.

If I go home with a nicely balanced exposures, I am more likely to work with them. Conversely, having to trawl through hundreds of images with dark foregrounds and bleached out skies wondering if they might be good once I’ve put them through my editor of choice isn’t going to fuel my creativity. And it’s certainly not going to inspire me.

Light meters are dumb, they just try to turn everything 18% Grey

This is not a complaint. It’s just a fact. And something we all need to understand about light meters.

Here are some fallacies:

1. There is such a thing as the correct exposure

2. Metering something gives its correct exposure

Here are the truths:

1. Metering something gives the exposure values to turn it 18% grey

2. You choose which part of the scene is turned 18% grey, and let everything else transpose around that.

Why 18% grey?

There are a number of reasons for why 18% grey was chosen:

1. A light meter has to set the exposure for something. So an average value is as good as any. Most things look about right when exposed as an 18% grey subject.

2. The human eye perceives most things as a mid-tone.

With point 2, let’s consider this some more. If you point your camera down at the ground and take a shot of your feet, and check the picture, the image will look about right. If you also check the histogram it will be right in the middle of the graph. The shot has been exposed as an average (18% grey) and it looks about right. Now do the same with the sky. Point the camera right up at the sky so the entire sky fills the frame and take a shot. The photo will look about right, and guess what: the exposure will be right in the middle of the histogram. Another 18% grey exposure.

So the human eye tends to perceive most things as an exposure around 18% grey. Knowing this, and also knowing that your light meter is trying to turn everything 18% grey is useful.

For me, all I need is Aperture Priority and Exposure Compensation. When shooting a scene I let the camera work out the average value (18% grey) and if I feel it’s underexposed (as will happen with snow white scenes as the camera tries to make the snow 18% grey) I can apply compensation of maybe +1 or +2 stops.

Exposure is pretty simple. Camera light meters are really dumb. They just try to take an average all the time and make the scene 18% grey. There is no such thing as ‘the correct exposure’, and the meter reading you get is the values you need to turn the subject 18% grey. That’s all a light meter does.

Graduated filter update

The post below first appeared in April of 2016. Since then, I’ve been using the Medium grads extensively along with hard grads. I’ll explain at the end of the post below, why I have settled on medium as well as hard grads. Here is the post from April 2016:

Lee filters introduce two new graduations of ND filter

In April,  Lee-Filters announced two new graduation sets to their ND product range. Up until now, you had the choice of either soft-graduation or hard-graduation ND filters. Now you have two further choices - very-hard-graduation and also medium-graduation filters.

Lee filters have just introduced a new 'very-hard' and also a new 'medium' graduation filter set to their existing line of soft and hard ND-grad sets.

I currently own the 1, 2 & 3 stop versions of both soft and hard-grad filters. They are useful in many different ways. But with the news of the newer graduation types, I think my filter set is going to change.

Soft or Hard, which should you choose?

Each year when I send out my trip notes for the workshops I'm running, I ask everyone to buy the hard-graduation filters. Despite some participants reluctance to get the hard-grads because they think the graduation may be too obvious (it's not) in the picture, I find the existing Lee hard-grads just about right for most applications.

The reason is that Hard grads are actually quite diffused once they are put up so close to the front of the lens. They give enough bite to change the picture, and do so without being too obvious where their placement is. They are perfect for when you just want to grad the sky only.

Soft grads on the other hand are too soft for just grading the sky - their bite doesn't cut in as much as I'd like. But I do find that Soft-grads have other uses: they are ideal for instances when there is a gradual change from the bottom of the frame to the top. Instances like lakes where the water is extremely dark at the bottom of the frame and it gets brighter towards the horizon. Using soft grads across the middle of the water help control that.

So in general: hard grads are for controlling the sky when there is a sudden shift between ground and sky. Soft grads are useful for scenes where the entire scene changes gradually as you move up the frame.

Grad Placement may not be so critical, and here's why

It really depends on the focal length. Smaller focal-lengths provide a sharper rendering of the graduation whereas larger focal-lengths diffuse the graduation, making hard-grads softer.

If you zoom out - the graduation becomes more defined. And as you zoom in, the graduation becomes more diffused. With a hard-grad it means it's a hard-grad at 24mm but it starts to act more like a soft-grad when used at 75mm. Soft grads are soft at 24m but they become far too soft once you get up to and beyond 75mm.

I illustrate this below. Using the same hard-grad, I zoom in from 24mm to 150mm. As I do so, the graduation becomes softer. I am essentially zooming into the graduation:

Using the same hard-grad, as I go up the focal lengths from 24mm to 150mm, the graduation becomes more diffused. My hard-grad essentially becomes a soft-grad at 150mm.

I have a medium-format rangefinder system. I can't see through the lens, but I've never had a problem with placing the hard-grads, and it's all because of a combination of them being so diffused so close to the lens, and the higher focal lengths. My wide angle is a 50mm for example.

Which Graduations should I choose, and why?

Your choice of camera format will also determine how your grads will behave.  Smaller-formats user smaller focal lengths, while larger formats use larger focal lengths for the same angle of view. For example, a 24mm lens in 35mm format has the same angle of view as a 50mm does in medium-format. But the same grad used on a 24mm will be more defined than if it were used on a 50mm, even though both lenses give the same angle of view.

In the graph below, I show the equivalent focal lengths for the 'same angle of view' as you go up the formats from MFT (Micro-Four-Thirds) to Large format. You can see that the focal lengths get longer and longer. This means that your soft-grad filter will become softer and softer as you move up the formats.

As you go up the formats, the focal lengths get longer for the same angle of view. This also means that any hard-grads you buy become softer as you move up for camera formats. Or harder as you go down the formats.

So it's not just a simple case of choosing soft grads over hard ones, because you think they will be less noticeable in the final image. You also have to take into account the focal lengths you're using.

In my own case, I use Medium Format cameras, and I mostly use hard-grads because they give me the right amount of graduation across the frame for the focal lengths I mostly use (50 and 80). When I use the hard-grads with the 50mm, the placement isn't so critical as there's a degree of diffusion there already, but the filter still bites into the image enough to make hard-grads a viable choice. When I use soft-grads though, they tend to be too diffused for the focal lengths I use. 

Which of the new range will I be tempted to get?

Since I'm a medium format shooter, I'm tempted to replace most of my soft-grads with the new medium grads. The medium-grads will give me what I am looking for (but not getting) from my soft-grads.

I will remain using the standard hard-grads, as they are perfect for my wide and standard lenses, but I am interested in buying some very-hard-grads for use with my telephoto lenses. As explained, when you get up to such high focal-lengths, hard-grads become less and less effective.

Using different types of graduation is a key component to good exposures. I've found for many years that I could do with some graduation filters that are somewhere between the old hard-grad and soft-grad sets, and there is also cause to have very-hard grads for use when using higher focal lengths. So for me, I will be buying some of the medium-grads and very-hard grads to compliment my ever-growing set of ND filters.

—

January 2020

As of January 2020, I’ve had time to use the medium grads now for just under four years. I find them indispensable as part of my set of grad filters. I use medium and hard grads just as much in the field and both are used for different reasons that I can summarise as follows:

1. On longer focal length lenses, hard grads are always required. Zooming in just diffuses any graduation of any kind so they act more like a soft grad when you get up to the 100m focal lengths and beyond.

2. Hard grads are useful from 50mm to around 150mm. Go wider (below 50mm) and hard grads become too hard.

3. Medium grads are useful with very very small focal lengths (below 50mm). As you zoom out, the graduation becomes more defined. So medium grads give sufficient feathering.

In summary, medium grads at the right focal lengths do what most of us assume soft grads will do. They are really useful in empty areas of water and sky where we need some bite into the photo without being overly obvious. Using hard grads in empty areas of the photo can be too obvious.

I haven’t tried the very hard edged grads - I feel these would only be of use on longer focal lengths (100m and above). As my article stated above - as you zoom in, the graduation becomes more and more diffused. Hard becomes medium, and medium becomes soft. Soft becomes ineffective.

I have rarely found much use for soft grads. They are simply too soft once placed up close to the lens and the graduation becomes so diffused as to make little to no difference to the photo. Indeed, I find myself often placing soft grads so low in the frame in an attempt to make them bite into the photo that they end up just darkening the whole scene as if they were a full ND.

Hard and medium grads are the way to go. I use both and have all strengths from 1 to 3 stops.

Grayson & Chris

Today’s post is nothing to do with photography. But instead, I wanted to show you this because it moved and inspired me. It put a big smile on my face.

I loved watching these two very special bro’s hanging out together. Both very special people.

Chris has a natural aptitude for communication with people who have a wide variety of special needs, and it’s clear to me that his work comes from the heart.

Grayson is a very special boy. What a fantastic personality! He gives out so much love, and is so loved. It made me feel very privileged to watch this buddy chat.

Thank you Grayson and Chris!

3rd biggest challenge: removing the urge to impress

Dear reader, before I begin my post today, I wish to state that when I write entries on this blog, they are often written with the intention of stirring some inner thoughts within you. My aim is to help rather than dictate. My view is just that: a view, and often a highly personalised one.

Over the past few weeks I’ve written a few posts about the main obstacles that we have to overcome as photographers. They are:

1. 1st biggest challenge is being original.

2. 2nd biggest challenge is being objective about what we do.

They are as I have stated above, written to stir some inner thought. So I’d like to continue on this vein but feel I must stress that for myself, I do a lot of internalising. I find myself often questioning my own motivations and basically: why I do what I do. I’m never too clear if being too introspective is good or bad. Perhaps it’s both. I don’t know, but what I do know is that I think being aware of my own limitations, hang-ups, problems, strengths, weaknesses is a good thing. Brushing over the darker sides of my personality does not help me when creating my work. Trying to improve my process and the quality of my work often feels as if I have to do some work on myself, and not the art.

The art is a mirror of whom I am.

So with that pre-amble out of the way, I’d like to suggest that the 3rd biggest challenge we all face with our photography is in overcoming the need to impress.

It’s perhaps the most difficult to write about, without perhaps offending someone, or being easily misunderstood. My intentions are to help, not to give you a hard time, but I do think that progress is often hard, and truth can often hurt, and we all have to come face to face with our motivations if we are to be objective in what we do. It’s the only way we will know when our work comes from a good place, or when we are being overcome with a need to impress.

Sure we have to balance, measure and assess our work from time to time, but I think it needs to be devoid of considering how others may value it. If we can remove the need to impress others then I think we’re on the right path to a kind of truthfulness in our work.

Doing what we do because we love it, should come first and foremost.

Indeed, I would go as far as to say that doing what we do because we love it should be all that matters. Whether anyone else gets what we do, loves what we do, hates what we do, should not matter. Because it does not matter. It really doesn’t.

I have learned over the past twenty years from having a small profile that the comments about my work have varied enormously. All I can gather from this is that I will never please everybody and neither should I try to. I could get so lost if I tried.

I think my need to impress comes from times when I lack of confidence in what I do.

No one escapes. Not even the most professional of photographers. Everyone has low periods. Everyone has moments when they doubt what they are doing. It’s perfectly natural to have these moments. All of us, no matter how proficient, will go looking for validation from time to time.

I’ll never get away from this ‘need to impress’ rearing its ugly head from time to time in my psyche. But what I think is important is to realise that these moments are just that, and ultimately, how I feel about my work is the only thing that matters.

Camera height

I am in Hokkaido this month and I’ve been reminiscing about some of the images I have made over the past few years here, and one in particular required me to be high above the ground to accomplish what I saw in my mind’s eye.

This photo was made by being perched up high. While at ground level, I could see that the collection of trees in the bottom of the frame were clashing / hitting the row of trees at the top of the frame. To get the separation between them in my photograph, I had to go this height:

This is the actual photograph of me making the image you see in this post.

Camera height is often a critical part of composition. OK, my example to illustrate that is perhaps extreme, but I have had many times when I have wished to take photos from much higher than my tripod can reach to.

I have also had times when I have wished to take photos that are much lower than my tripod can compress down to. Going low allows me to compress the mid-ground, and it is also a useful device in removing any clutter or debris that is lying around on the ground. Going low also allows me to move objects that are on the ground closer to those objects higher in the frame. By bringing them together / closer, we can strengthen relationships between them.

Tripods don’t find compositions. They fine-tune them

I think camera height is an important consideration for composition. But I am always surprised to see many photographers doing this:

1. Get out of the car

2. Extend the tripod to eye-level

3. Put the camera on the tripod

All of this, without really considering if the height of the tripod is correct for any possible composition they see.

For me, this is what should happen:

1. Get out of the car

2. Take the camera out of the bag

3. Walk around with the camera looking for good compositions

4. When you find a possible candidate for a good composition, try the composition from different heights: down low, mid-height, eye-level, and of course, from above my own eye-level.

5. Once a nice composition has been found, set up the tripod to assist in keeping the camera in that ‘magic space’ that has just been found. You know - that ‘middle of the air’ place where the composition works.

So for me, having a very tall tripod is really invaluable. I have two tripods. One is over 7 feet tall, while the other is over 9 feet tall. I have used both fully extended many times, and I’ve been grateful to have the extended reach they have.

A word about centre columns

My tripods also have no centre column. For me, these get in the way and prevent me from putting the tripod so low that the camera is almost at ground level. So when I buy a tripod, I always buy one that is very tall, and also has no centre column.

There will also be occasions when you need the camera to be literally sitting on the ground. In these circumstances I take my camera off the tripod and actually sit it on the ground. I sometimes have to make a hollow in the earth to help support the camera to place it where I need to. But I also need to use a viewfinder that allows me to compose comfortably. For me, I have a 45º angle viewfinder on my camera. For you, you can either use your live-view, or buy a 90º angle finder for your camera (Nikon and Canon).

Tip: when working with cameras lower than you are : get low. That means having to lie on your tummy. You need your eye to be level with the view you’re seeing so you can balance it properly. Peering into a camera with your head sideways isn’t going to help.

Camera height is a critical part of composition. I have found many times that the same composition taken at different heights will have a ‘sweet spot’ where the height is just right for the composition to really gel.

Puna de Atacama space available

A last minute cancellation for my Puna tour has left an available space for anyone who has been keen to come on this trip.

Volcano Tour, Puna De Atacama, Argentina

Date: April 20th - 29th 2020

Price: $7,495 USD

10-Day Photographic Adventure

The Argentina area of the Atacama offers some unique landscapes not found with its Chilean and Bolivian siblings. For example, the Desert Labyrinth is a massive area of red clay mountains formed and shaped by the elements while the Campo de Piedra Pómez is many many miles of stunning pumice rock sculptures. But I think my favourite place here is the Cono de Arita, perhaps one of the most otherworldly volcanoes I've yet seen. 

2nd Biggest Challenge is being objective

The 2nd biggest challenge you have as a photographer, is in developing the skill to look at your work from the outside.

Being connected to your work is important. But in order to be able to judge and tune your work accordingly, you need to be able to step outside of yourself, and view / judge your work like you would if you were looking at someone else’s work.

Good artists are able to be part of their work while at the same time exist outside of their work.

How you achieve that is not something I can advise you on. But I would imagine that we are all self-editors. In our jobs and daily encounters we often have to audit how well our work is being done, how much time we are spending with our family, and whether we have the right balance in our lives. This process is no different from the act of looking at one’s own art and judging it. We all step outside of our lives to look within, and we do that in order to try to get some sense of objectivity about it.

Creating art has always been about the marriage between creating an idea, and then shaping the idea. Often new ideas are roughly formed. They then go through a process of being shaped and finely-tuned. That is where a sense of judgement about the work comes in. It is also when we need to be able to self-judge what we are doing.

2nd hardest thing to do as a photographer, is to learn to be objective about what we do. To be able to step outside of our work while at the same time maintain a connection to it.

Biggest challenge is being original

I’ve been thinking recently, that my blog has been about one thing: about trying to work on our creativity, with the aim of producing work that is our own.

We live in an age now, where there is a glut of good work. It’s now a case that making well crafted images is something that is within the grasp of many.

What I’ve been thinking about lately, is that I think we need to celebrate originality a lot more. Being able to produce a nicely crafted image is fine, but I think we need to be thinking about how to foster and develop our own individuality - or perhaps ‘originality’?

Which I suppose leads to the question - what is originality? Is there indeed such a thing as being original? Or isn’t everybody just influenced by everyone else? In other words, isn’t it ok to go to all the same places that everyone else is going to, and to make similar images as everyone else?

“I was there all along,
except that all my influences were mostly so strong,
that I just couldn’t see me in the work at all.”

Everyone’s images, even the highly-influenced close copies of our heroes work will have elements of ourselves in them. You are always in the images you make, even if you choose to go and make a homage to the work that inspired you. It’s just that it’s quite hard to see who you are from the layers of influences that are often overlapping and perhaps hiding you, from you.

When I look back at my earlier photographs, most of course showed very strong influences in Kenna’s work, and also Galen Rowell’s work. I was always attracted (at the beginning) to strong colour and dramatic compositions. My photography has changed a lot over the years but as I look back, I can see traces, elements of ‘me’ in my emulations of my heroes work. I was there all along, except that all my influences were mostly so strong that I just couldn’t see me there at all.

It is only with a great deal of insight, self-reflection and looking at my older work, that I’m able to see ‘me’ in my work. There is an audit-trail in the chronology of my work that shows my style adapting and changing, but there has always been something in the work that has always inherently been ‘me’. It’s that part of the image making that you can’t seem to change. That’s you. It’s who you are. And you need to find it, embrace it, and let it grow.

It’s really hard to find out who you are as an artist and I think it only becomes obvious over a great amount of time, and a great amount of image making and by looking back. Over time, I think we surface, and when we go and look at the earlier work, can often see more clearly that we were there all along.

The biggest challenge in photography now, is in being individualistic. Being individualistic means you’re creating work that others aren’t. It also just makes photography for all of us a whole lot more interesting!

But being an individual is a tough place to be. When you follow a trend, you are (in my view) conforming. And you’re not leading. But conversely, when you are doing your own thing, it’s a much lonelier place to be, because you aren’t part of the pack. It also means you have to be strong to follow your convictions, and not care that what you are doing, isn’t widely accepted. Heck, you may even find that what you are doing isn’t appreciated, or understood by others. That’s the price of being different from everyone else.

And this brings me to this point: being more original about what you do, means caring less (or not at all) about what others think of your work. It means having the confidence to follow your own convictions, and follow a path that no one else may be on.

For me, the web and many platforms show a lot of accomplished work. But the icing on the cake, is to do something that helps you stand out from that massive volume of proficient work.

Biggest challenge facing photographers now, Is not being proficient. It’s in being original.

Imperceptible Horizons

When you take the horizon away from a landscape photograph, the viewer is inclined to invent one.

We tend to imagine what we need to complete (to make sense of) what we see. This is true of photography, but it is also true of how we use our visual cortex in our daily activities.

Everything we see is a ‘construction’, and it’s so innate to us that we’re not even aware of it.

Consider the Necker cube. You immediately know it’s a wire frame cube. But what is interesting to me is that our ‘construction’ can be influenced. You can choose which walls of the cube become the back wall and the front wall. After a while you can flip them so what was the back wall is now the front wall, and what was the front wall is now the back wall. The necker cube is great at illustrating that your vision is a ‘construction’.

Necker cube. Can you imagine this cube in different ways?

When we look at photographs, we ‘imagine’ the scene in our mind’s eye. We essentially construct it. And most interestingly to me, we tend to create any missing supporting elements we need to help us make sense of an image. This means that we may imagine things that aren’t actually there.

In the three photographs in this post today there are no horizons in the shot. Yet I think most viewers of these three photographs will ‘imagine’ a horizon. They will essentially imagine what isn’t there to help them complete (or make sense of) the image.

There are many ways in which we tend to ‘imagine’ what isn’t there. For example:

1. What is outside of the frame. We tend to ‘continue’ the photograph outside of the frame. In our mind’s eye we tend to imagine beyond the perimeters of the frame.

2. Objects at the end of the frame tend to continue outside of the frame. If a mountain begins to slop up and out of the frame, we tend to imagine the rising angle continuing outside of the frame.

3. If there is no real horizon, we either tend to invent one in our mind’s eye, or if there is something within the photograph that can act as a substitute, we will use that. This is what false horizons are.

Knowing about this ‘feature’ of the visual cortex to ‘fill in the gaps’ can be a great photographic tool.

Indeed, in the case of point 1. above, (we imagine what is outside of the frame). I tend to use this a lot to help viewers imagine that the landscape is very empty. If there is nothing around the perimeter of the frame then one tends to imagine that everything outside of the frame is a continuation of that ‘nothingness’.

So in today’s post, I’ve selected three of my images where there isn’t a clear horizon. You can ‘imagine’ where the horizon is, even though in some of the images there really isn’t a horizon. No really, there really is absolutely no horizon in one of the images in this set. Do you know which one?

Imperceptable horizon, Lençois Maranhenses. The horizon does exist. Except that I’ve chosen to edit it to make it ‘almost’ invisible.

In the above image, perhaps, depending on your monitor, the horizon is perceptible. It is there, but it’s so faint that it’s almost become invisible.

Deliberately making things imperceptible

Indeed, this was my intention during the edit of this photo.

My aim was to reduce or simplify the image down to one subject : the graphic nature / shape of the lagoon edge. Remove the horizon line and the lagoon edge starts to float. It becomes the sole reason for looking at the photo.

And yet I know that most viewers will ‘construct’ or ‘invent’ a horizon if one isn’t present.

I’ve had to think about why I love making the horizon disappear in some of my photographs. I think there are several answers to this:

1. Pictures become more ‘mystical’, or ‘dreamy’ when things aren’t so obvious.

2. The mind has to work harder at figuring out what’s going on.

3. It reduces down and simplifies the image so it’s easy to ‘digest’.

4. The mind tends to fill in the gaps where there is missing crucial information. The viewer is forced into their own ‘dream state’ by imagining what isn’t there.

Which image really has no horizon?

As I promised you at the beginning of this post, here is the photograph that has no horizon. It was shot on a sloping field where the background behind the tree is actually the field rising up above the top of the frame. So I know from being there that the sky was never in the photograph.

Yet isn’t it interesting that we can’t help but imagine there’s a horizon in there!

I love playing with images where things are left open to interpretation. In my view, why should everything in an image be crystal clear? Why indeed do we need high-resolution all the time? And why do many of us strive to make everything so obvious to the viewer?

Well, my take on this is that for most of us, there’s an insecurity in worrying that the viewer may not see what we saw, feel what we felt. So we either tend to over-emphasise it (and almost everything else) in the edit to try to spell it out. And this can at best make the image too conventional, or at worst ruin it completely.

Final thoughts

I think it’s completely fine to leave things unanswered, to allow things to be inconclusive for the viewer. If it helps create an imaginary world of sorts for your viewer to disappear into, then it’s a feature rather than a problem.

This is why I love imperceptible horizons, because I know that often it’s best to leave as much of the interpretation to the viewer. It promotes engagement.