Some tilt-shifts

rookieshooter

Taken at San Francisco pier at sunset

#1


#2


#3

Dogdots

I really like the first photo. The railing leads you in.

Wil Davis

OK, I'm speaking as one who isn't a "Dedicated Follower of Fashion", and to me these pictures really don't do much, apart from tell me that you've used your tilt-shift to over correct, so that now you have a weird situation where the verticals diverge…

Technically, it just doesn't come anywhere near what I would have hoped for.

In #1 you have some wicked aberrations around the edge of the building in the upper right…

Is that your point?

The only part of #1 in focus is a band in the centre, and in #2 a band about one third of the way up. The rest of those 2 pics is out of focus… …why? I think you've spoiled what could have been a great picture, especially with the railings having that interesting shape…

…but everything leads to the middle of the bloody picture!

Well, you might say "…but rules were made to be broken!"

…sorry, mate! I doesn't work for me!

Perhaps there's something wrong with my monitor…

Perhaps I'm missing the point here, but I see very little in any of the three pics which I would want to waste time trying to emulate…

Actually the one of the bridge is OK, but it's just a picture of a bridge & a boring sky… …so what?

What am I missing here?

…seriously!

BTW - thanks for sharing!

- Wil

WillCAD

Wil Davis wrote:

OK, I'm speaking as one who isn't a "Dedicated Follower of Fashion", and to me these pictures really don't do much, apart from tell me that you've used your tilt-shift to over correct, so that now you have a weird situation where the verticals diverge…

Technically, it just doesn't come anywhere near what I would have hoped for.

In #1 you have some wicked aberrations around the edge of the building in the upper right…

Is that your point?

The only part of #1 in focus is a band in the centre, and in #2 a band about one third of the way up. The rest of those 2 pics is out of focus… …why? I think you've spoiled what could have been a great picture, especially with the railings having that interesting shape…

…but everything leads to the middle of the bloody picture!

Well, you might say "…but rules were made to be broken!"

…sorry, mate! I doesn't work for me!

Perhaps there's something wrong with my monitor…

Perhaps I'm missing the point here, but I see very little in any of the three pics which I would want to waste time trying to emulate…

Actually the one of the bridge is OK, but it's just a picture of a bridge & a boring sky… …so what?

What am I missing here?

…seriously!

BTW - thanks for sharing!

- Wil

I think you may have missed the whole point, Wil. This is not about fashion, or about rules, or even about photographic composition - it's about an artistic technique designed to create a specific illusion.

A tilt-shift pic is one in which a narrow area is in focus, and rest of the image is not, creating a false and misleading impression that what you are seeing is a photo of a miniature model. When done correctly, a tilt-shift pic is an amazing illusion, particularly when populated with real people. The technique can, in fact, even be used in video, to impressive effect. A great example is this one of Walt Disney World's Magic Kingdom:
http://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/2009/10/a-model-day-at-the-park/

---

All that being said, however:

Rookieshooter, I'm no expert on tilt-shift, but I don't think any of your three examples really achieve the desired effect (which may be why Wil misinterpreted them and was so harsh in his C&C).

The first one doesn't have enough elements in focus. Were the entire image in focus, I think it would have been a terrific shot, but as a tilt-shift, it doesn't really work. It pretty much just looks like an out-of-focus pic.

#2 is the closest of the three. It's got foreground stuff in focus and background out of focus. But I think the perspective is wrong for it to be a good tilt-shift. Looking out accross the water that way reveals that it's a real pic, as opposed to a tilt-shift that looks like a pic of a model. The buildings are all too overwhelming; there is nothing to give them a sense of miniature-ness or unreality. A higher elevation is probably needed for that one, perhaps shooting in a tall building from one side of the water to the other.

#3 doesn't work as a tilt-shift, for all the same reasons as #2. But again, had #3 been completely in focus, I think it would have been a beautiful night shot of the bridge.

Tilt-shift is a tough technique. Every time I've tried it, I've failed miserably. Don't give up.

Richard

Well, you are both correct. You can use a tilt-shift lens to get interesting selective focus effects and you can use it to correct for perspective distortion in architectural or landscape shots to keep everything perfectly rectilinear. Looks like 1 & 2 are of the first variety and 3 is the second.

Wil Davis

Ah!

OK, I stand corrected, and have learned something new (which is A Good Thing).

I've always thought "Tilt-Shift" to be a feature seen mostly on technical or view cameras, or as a (very expensive) feature on some 35 mm camera lenses to achieve the same effects as being able to move the lens off and around the axis, and is used primarily to compensate for inherent problems when attempting to represent a 3-D object on a 2-D surface.

I'd no idea that it had become a art form in its own right and so I'm sorry if I was harsh, on the other hand I stand by my comments about rules and the dangers of deviating from them…

Interesting information on web about the technique, but after reading it I've still yet to be convinced!



- Wil

Richard

Wil Davis wrote:

Ah!

OK, I stand corrected, and have learned something new (which is A Good Thing).

I've always thought "Tilt-Shift" to be a feature seen mostly on technical or view cameras, or as a (very expensive) feature on some 35 mm camera lenses to achieve the same effects as being able to move the lens off and around the axis, and is used primarily to compensate for inherent problems when attempting to represent a 3-D object on a 2-D surface.

I'd no idea that it had become a art form in its own right and so I'm sorry if I was harsh, on the other hand I stand by my comments about rules and the dangers of deviating from them…

Interesting information on web about the technique, but after reading it I've still yet to be convinced!



- Wil

You're absolutely right about the affinity to field cameras and the 2D v. 3D problem. That's what they were made for. But people love to play, hence other ideas emerge. Inevitably, people have also come up with ways of creating TS effects (of the second kind) in Photoshop, and we have seen a number of "miniatures" here that were entirely created in PP. Unfortunately, PS doesn't do as good a job simulating the field camera adjustments for the original use, so TS lenses (which are expensive and not easy to use) still have their place.

rookieshooter

Thanks for everyone's input and feedback! It was my first time checking one out and it's pretty tough to get what you want in focus but I will keep working at it. Thanks again.