- This topic is empty.
Cliffs near Skibbereen, Co. Cork
-
Beautiful shot. Was it taken using a tilt and shift lens? Love the foreground and background blur
RASMITH32 wrote:
Beautiful shot. Was it taken using a tilt and shift lens? Love the foreground and background blur
Thanks!
Nope, no Tilt&Shift lens, don’t own one at the moment. The effect was applied in post-production. As I wrote before, this is just me experimenting, messing around with a specific effect (t&s) applied to a specific subject/genre (landscape). Glad you like it!As a gimmick this thing is OK… I can recall Wonka doing some ‘fun’ one’s back in the day.
As a serious landscape… no, it’s just too much of a gimmick to be taken seriously. It doesn’t do any justice to the scene at all in my humble opinion.
Thanks for the feedback, nfl-fan!
nfl-fan wrote:
As a serious landscape… no, it’s just too much of a gimmick to be taken seriously. It doesn’t do any justice to the scene at all in my humble opinion.
you’re making a very interesting point: why is that a gimmick? and what does constitute “serious landscape”? Where does it cease to be an aesthetic choice and becomes just some wacky Photoshop effect?
What if the original picture was so dull that it required extensive post-production work in order to be more interesting? or hdr?If I started to answer those questions we’d end up at the most obvious of places i.e. “Photography is Subjective”.
Being honest I’m not really one to be bothered about answering all the questions that eventually reveal the Secret to the Universe and all that.
To say it is too gimmicky is just my opinion… by posting this here you’ve asked and I’ve supplied… you can choose to ignore it :wink:
nfl-fan wrote:
If I started to answer those questions we’d end up at the most obvious of places i.e. “Photography is Subjective”.
yep, i guess you’re right. :)
thank you for taking a little bit of time to post a comment :)Is T/S effect an effect, simply because people call it that?
This looks more like fake model photography, to me-
where the extreme shallow depth of field of close-up photography is replicated.
It does seem a little perverse; if a tilting lens was used to photograph a model,
I’m sure that it would be to increase depth of field along the plane of focus,
rather than lessen it-Although the tilt is sometimes applied in landscape to produce ‘anti Scheimpflug’,
whether it would have this effect in this picture, effectively focused at infinity, is moot-
it tends to work better with closer subjects.What if the original picture was so dull that it required extensive post-production work in order to be more interesting? or hdr?
That probably says more about the confidence of the photographer to produce the work he wants to-
and the necessity to make a picture stand out in a crowded marketplace-
There is a perception that photography is only a means to acquire some pixels to upload into the computer,
and that is where the real work (of software) begins.If it was difficult, or required more than a few minutes to learn,
do you think the majority of people would be interested in even attempting it?
Or is the promise of the instant gratification of the magic wand reason enough?If you were to apply those effects you mentioned, then post the picture in the relevant flickr sections,
would they stand out, or would they be examples of the herd instinct?
Photography is like a sweet shop, there’s an awful lot of candy to choose from,
and new brands come and go all the time.I’ll admit, I have my own prejudices about photography,
and like everyone else, I have a preference for the good stuff.
I don’t think it’s a problem that we all can’t agree what the good stuff is-
but again like everyone else, I know it when I see it-Sorry to go on so long without addressing the picture-
to me it looks more like a fake model picture, with a reduced depth of field,
than a fake tilt effect- I can see no evidence, or need, for shift in it.
If you haven’t seen it before, it can produce a reaction- like, wow-
if you have seen it before, it might lead you to compare it to other examples of the same effect,
rather than other examples from within the genre of photography in which it’s posted.It probably doesn’t matter whether it was taken with a lens, or processed in software, there are plenty of examples of either-
In this case, I’m not sure that the effect adds to the picture, in my opinion-
it ceases to be a picture of the cliffs, and becomes an example of the effect-Was the picture dull to begin with?
I don’t know, though I do know how difficult it is to produce good, original landscape work-
or any kind of work, for that matter-It’s all part of the learning process, I suppose, and therefore, probably a necessary step, rather an end in itself-
In my opinion, of course-
I like it. As JB says you probably couldn’t take a lot of it but contrary to HDR fake T&S images are rare around these parts. Although I do belong to a couple of Flickr groups that praise the effect it isn’t something I’ve looked at in a while.
Alan.
PS – JB – you might want to look up the “Hinge Rule” – it might be more apt in this case. :wink:
jb7 wrote:
Is T/S effect an effect, simply because people call it that?
well, I could’ve said i was trying to replicate the look of an image taken with a perspective control lens, but since we’ve seen an increase of “fake model” pictures, I didn’t think it was a big deal calling it T/S effect :)
jb7 wrote:
What if the original picture was so dull that it required extensive post-production work in order to be more interesting? or hdr?
That probably says more about the confidence of the photographer to produce the work he wants to-
and the necessity to make a picture stand out in a crowded marketplace-Or just some guy, who usually shoots other kinds of pictures, having fun and experimenting with fake model photography. :)
IMHO, the more you consciously try to stand out in a crowded marketplace, and let that be your motivation, the less you’re going to succeed. But maybe that’s just me…jb7 wrote:
There is a perception that photography is only a means to acquire some pixels to upload into the computer,
and that is where the real work (of software) begins.Well, I agree to a certain extent: some people who are new to (digital) photography get completely blown away by the possibilities that Photoshop or other software offer, others use the same programs with a purpose. Same thing with the new gear, or off camera lighting. I guess the excitement of something “new” sometimes has this effect. Unfortunately some people get “stuck” with their fascination of the tools and just don’t move on from there.
Personally I come from a film background, wet dark room and all, so I usually don’t mess around too much with my pictures (but i went through a short “this-software-is-so-cool-i’m-going-to-use-56-filters-and-92-layers-on-this-picture-without-knowing-why” period 5 or 6 years ago, when I started using digital cameras) :D.
I try not to do in Photoshop what I wouldn’t do in my dark room, though sometimes I have and i do use digital post-production to achieve a specific look for specific reasons.jb7 wrote:
If it was difficult, or required more than a few minutes to learn,
Technically, if you know how a tilt&shift lens actually works or if you’ve seen 2 or 3 fake model pictures, it takes 5 minutes to figure out how to replicate that fake model effect in any post-production software :)
jb7 wrote:
do you think the majority of people would be interested in even attempting it?
I don’t know, i think it’s highly subjective. I was tempted to try it for a number of reasons: 1) i’m taking advantage of this beautiful weather to go around the country, 2) I’ve never been that much into landscape photography, so i see this as a way to challenge myself and explore possibilities, 3) most of the fake model pictures i’ve seen recently (and i’ve seen way too many of them) are taken in cities, and just for the sake of it. As I wrote before, it’s just me using an effect i don’t normally use with pictures I don’t usually take, it’s not a desperate effort to save a dull picture or to cause a “wow” effect per se.
jb7 wrote:
Photography is like a sweet shop, there’s an awful lot of candy to choose from,
and new brands come and go all the time.True, though every once in a while new “brands” stick for longer than usual (look at what happened to lifestyle).
jb7 wrote:
I don’t think it’s a problem that we all can’t agree what the good stuff is-
but again like everyone else, I know it when I see itI guess we all agree on that, and the beauty of a forum is to share different opinions/view about it all. :)
JB, Thank you very much for taking the time to write such a reply.irishwonkafan wrote:
I like it. As JB says you probably couldn’t take a lot of it but contrary to HDR fake T&S images are rare around these parts. Although I do belong to a couple of Flickr groups that praise the effect it isn’t something I’ve looked at in a while.
Thanks, Alan!
francesco wrote:
Technically, if you know how a tilt&shift lens actually works or if you’ve seen 2 or 3 fake model pictures, it takes 5 minutes to figure out how to replicate that fake model effect in any post-production software :)
I think that knowing the principles that govern the plane of focus, (the Hinge Rule, Alan, thanks for that)
would be a hindrance in replicating the fake model effect,
which doesn’t rely on tilt at all…jb7 wrote:
I think that knowing the principles that govern the plane of focus, (the Hinge Rule, Alan, thanks for that)
would be a hindrance in replicating the fake model effect, which doesn’t rely on tilt at all…I’m curious, why would that be a hindrance?
I’m sorry, JB, I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. If you feel it’s off topic please send me a PM.
ThanksWell, the point doesn’t need to be laboured,
but applying blur either side of a subject is only an approximation of the effect of photographing in close up-The separation of that zone of sharp focus is a replication of a normal lens used at wide aperture,
and not a tilted lens at all.The ‘Tilt/Shift effect’ is shorthand for a software blur,
since the effect of either of those movements is separate and distinct-I have a picture posted in the Still Life section which uses Tilt and Shift,
and is close up photograph of an object with no software involved.There are clues within it as to what happens to focus,
but I seldom see those effects from pictures processed using software blur…jb7 wrote:
The separation of that zone of sharp focus is a replication of a normal lens used at wide aperture,
and not a tilted lens at all.If I had used a 17mm wide open, even at f/1.4, at such a distance from the subject, there’s no way I would’ve achieved that effect, which as far as I know is achievable only via tilt (i’ve used these lenses a few times in the past to achieve the same effect and if i remember correctly shifting was not involved) or by post-processing in photoshop (or other software), as i did.
EDIT: from Wikipedia:
“Selective focus via tilt is often used to simulate a miniature scene,[7][8] though as noted above, the effect is somewhat different from the shallow DoF in close-up photography of miniature subjects. Many such images are described as employing “tilt-shift”, but the term is somewhat of a misnomer because shift is seldom involved and is usually unrelated to the effect produced. The term may derive from the tilt-shift lens normally required when the effect is produced optically.”
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
