Forget the math.
Of course you want to forget the math. You want to hide it all the time considering how often it so easily demonstrates your claims are pure garbage.
If you actually had reality backing you up, you would want to use the math, as it would then support you.
If that supposed curve is as severe as shown then side on at a fair distance would show it up like a curve
Like the photos from space which you dismiss as fake?
yet we know it won't because the Earth is not a globe we walk upon or sail upon or fly over.
You mean you will dismiss anything that shows it as fake as you falsely believe that Earth is not a globe, even though all the available evidence which can determine the shape of Earth shows it is a globe and none shows it isn't, and you are entirely incapable of justifying your irrational attacks against the globe.
Rather than focusing on other photos, why not focus on this one?
If those pylons show a level line from a sideways view then that's what they are.
Which requires you to be able to show that it doesn't curve within the level of uncertainty. If you are unable to distinguish between it curving as per the RE model and it being flat, the photo would be entirely useless.
Do you mean zoomed out far enough to be able to see all along the line, at which point you wouldn't be able to resolve the individual pylons and the curvature would likely be less than a pixel; or do you mean zoomed in enough to clearly resolve a pylon, at which point you would have such a small view the curvature would be less than a pixel?
Nahhh, you know what I mean.
Yes, I know what you mean, some picture which cannot see the curve because it is not accurate enough to be able to do so, so you can dishonestly pretend that Earth doesn't curve.
If you were honest you would recognise the limitations and not ask for such an image.
Considering you hate the math so much, here is some for you:
I don't know just how far the distance is in that image, but the entire lake is ~25 km along those towers.
So if you had the camera centred in the middle, the distance to the edge would be ~12.5 km, making the drop ~0.0123 km or 12.3 m.
If you want that 12.3 m to be a single pixel, you would need the image to be over 2000 px wide.
But that would be quite hard to line up, and 1 px difference would easily be dismissed as noise or the like, especially given that the horizon typically spans a few px in most images.
So to make it accurate you would need an image closer to 20 000 px wide.
And you would need to make sure the picture is taken from an elevated vantage point so it isn't simply looking at a much closer horizon.