- This topic is empty.
Cliffs near Skibbereen, Co. Cork
-
jb7 wrote:
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.since we’re quoting…
No, if you’re using a 17mm lens, presumably on a crop camera, then your lens will be focused at infinity,
and there will be no effect from tilting.That was my point earlier.
On the same camera, a 17mm tilt lens, even used wide open, at full tilt, would have no dicernible effect either,
save from an overall reduction in image quality.The only way to get this effect, without using a very large camera, is by altering the image in post processing.
As much as I’d never question the word of his lordship I think we need to get an independent review on this matter.
Does anyone have a number for the Lord Mayor of Photography, Mark Sedgwick?
jb7 wrote:
The only way to get this effect, without using a very large camera, is by altering the image in post processing.
JP, I’ve used Nikkor PC-E lenses (borrowed) and had almost the same effect.
Same thing seems to happen to lots of people on lots of different Flickr groups, and they’re surely not using large format cameras, nor they’re all using Photoshop or doing the “effect” in post-production…or am i missing the point?I kinda like this effect, not sure it works with straight landscape as much. Maybe with this
if there was more of a focal point…On technique, I believe that the latest lensbaby has t/s type capabilities…
ok, well, I’ve just done a quick test on the 24mm PC-E, out of an attic window, and there is some effect,
but nowhere near the amount shown in your picture, at least not in the far distance, in the infinity range.
For the sake of argument, this is the equivalent of c. 17mm on a crop sensor…Of course, the only way to tell if you could get an image like you claim to be able to,
would be to revisit the scene, and test properly.I don’t know the distances involved, but it looks like you’re a few hundred feet up,
and quite a distance from the cliffs-
you could probably measure using google earth-This is taken with reverse tilt in relation to the scene- Anti-Scheimpflug, at f/3.5.
The lens is tilted to reduce focus in the foreground as much as possible.
Focus was on the houses in the middle distance, a couple of hundred meters away.At such a distance, the difference in focus between the houses and the mountains is negligible, though there is some.
I would imagine it would be very difficult for me to get much focus differential if the distance was much greater-This isn’t a thorough test, this lens is in its standard configuration,
perhaps rotating the shift in relation to the tilt might give some more extreme options,
though I doubt it somewhat-
in general, the test hasn’t changed my opinion of how the lens behaves in the far distance-
though I have no doubt that the foreground would be softened more-
it really depends on the height differential.I really can’t see how you would have been able to distinguish the cliffs from the mountains behind, to such a degree, at this scale.
Again, not a thorough test, re-shooting the same scene would be the only way to prove it either way-
I know it will not be enough to convince you or the people in the flickr groups,
but it demonstrates to me, that the scale of the blur you’ve presented would be extremely difficult to achieve using the optics you proposed,
at the distances and heights shown,
and that altering the image using software is by far more ‘effective’ at this scale-And just to reiterate, it’s the difference in focus between the cliffs and the hills which I’ve been talking about-
not necessarily the foreground-
detail…
jb7 wrote:
ok, well, I’ve just done a quick test on the 24mm PC-E, out of an attic window, and there is some effect,
but nowhere near the amount shown in your picture, at least not in the far distance, in the infinity range.Thanks for taking the time to run that test, the result is indeed interesting and it clearly shows that the effect applied in post-production is much stronger than the effect in “real life”.
Of course, the only way to tell if you could get an image like you claim to be able to,
would be to revisit the scene, and test properly.I’ll see if I can find a place to rent a PC-E lens here in Cork and will try and revisit the scene or find some similar subject.
I know it will not be enough to convince you or the people in the flickr groups
JB, I’m not here to convince anyone of some strange truth, or to claim that whatever you say is just plain wrong. I just posted a picture with what is now commonly known as “tilt&shift effect”. I don’t think the people in the flickr groups need to be convinced either, since it looks like lots of them are shooting pictures like the one I’ve posted but relying solely on their pc-e lenses. Others, like i did, use Photoshop or other programs. In the end, I guess, what matters most is the final picture.
but it demonstrates to me, that the scale of the blur you’ve presented would be extremely difficult to achieve using the optics you proposed, at the distances and heights shown, and that altering the image using software is by far more ‘effective’ at this scale-
from your test it surely looks like it. It’d be interesting to hear the opinion from someone who posts regularly on those flickr groups, or someone who uses those lenses to achieve that effect.
Thank you
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
