use of tllt shift lens at weddings

spxxxx said:
Raymond that was just a quick example .... and as you can see from the tools it is infinitely tweakable
Click to expand...

You can't make something that isn't in focus back to focus though (or at least not yet), and you have to work out where the focus plane cuts through in the photo should there be a series of objects that the focus plane cuts.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
You can't make something that isn't in focus back to focus though (or at least not yet), and you have to work out where the focus plane cuts through in the photo should there be a series of objects that the focus plane cuts.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point Raymond - I don't shoot with the purpose of applying tilt shift effects - hence my example not being perfect - it was just that - an example.

I'm well aware of the differences - but that doesn't mean it can't be done far cheaper and just as well with software
 
spxxxx said:
You are missing the point Raymond - I don't shoot with the purpose of applying tilt shift effects - hence my example not being perfect - it was just that - an example.

I'm well aware of the differences - but that doesn't mean it can't be done far cheaper and just as well with software
Click to expand...

If the photo is "complicated", it would take a long time to get it looking right, easier just to take it in camera in the first place.

For example, how do you take that room shot with a normal camera? If you took it with an intention of faking it in post.

Tripod, F/20, 10 seconds exposure and then go home and blur out things bit by bit? Notice how the focus plane its cutting horizontally so the flowers are in focus but the pot isn't, nor are the seats that is lower. So you have objects in focus that is stacked on objects that are not. Your gradient tool way of blurring things out simply WILL NOT WORK.
 
However it's achieved, in my view the effect is still bloody awful - it emphasises the effect rather than the photo - you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear by using such "trickery", be it from using a lens, a chunk of placcy from Mr Cokin or faffing about in photoshop.....
 
swanseamale47 said:
I'm afraid I'm old fashioned, I believe in capturing the day as it happens, yes I do use a lot of posed shots and I will add special effects at PP, but I don't believe in experimenting during the wedding just for effect because somebody else once did a shot like that.

A wedding is about the couples day not for playing with kit.
Click to expand...

With respect, you choose good lenses, because you want a nice clean shot. You choose to shoot at f1.4 or f8 for the effect you want. you do not call choosing f.4 over f8 playing with kit, but in essence it is the same thing. If one was fluid in the routine use of TS lenses and you had the lens in the bag, you would naturally just grab it and straighten up the building (for example)

The difference is few of us have a tilt shift lens, and when we first try one we find it a little unwieldy, so just like when we first learnt about aperture, it feels a bit odd

Just like with choice of aperture, TS can change reality, make reality worse or better
 
Organnyx said:
However it's achieved, in my view the effect is still bloody awful - it emphasises the effect rather than the photo - you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear by using such "trickery", be it from using a lens, a chunk of placcy from Mr Cokin or faffing about in photoshop.....
Click to expand...

TS is just a tool, it exists since forever, all large formats camera have them i think.

You think it is weird because it is alien to you, it is not what you've ever used nor you've ever seen. It is not how your eye sees the world as to our eyes the focal plane is perpendicular to our eyes, TS shifts that reality.
 
Raymond - we will agree to disagree ..... lets face it the amount of god awful portraits with NO complicated plane of focus that then are done by tilt shift lenses (it seems to be the current fad) that show a blurred mishmash can be done just as well with the software and both look equally bad
 
Tilt and shift lenses have existed for yonks, they're certainly not "alien" to me at all (I did most of my professional photography using film cameras) - they weren't designed to be used to produce terribly naff trendy "images" (far from it!) - to me this sort of thing is the very antithesis of good photography, and I view it as yet another attempt to make a bad picture into a good one....
 
spxxxx said:
I'm well aware of the differences - but that doesn't mean it can't be done far cheaper and just as well with software
Click to expand...

Only if you use a camera with an inherently deep field of focus such as a point and shoot. Most of the time you can spot fake tilt since the blur defies the laws of physics!
 
FruitFlakes said:
Only if you use a camera with an inherently deep field of focus such as a point and shoot. Most of the time you can spot fake tilt since the blur defies the laws of physics!
Click to expand...

which is possibly true, however it doesn't get round the fact the effect is overused at weddings, and IMHO as stylish as spot colour
 
boyfalldown said:
which is possibly true, however it doesn't get round the fact the effect is overused at weddings, and IMHO as stylish as spot colour
Click to expand...

As is "shooting at f1.4" or "only shooting with flash" or "Blindly not using a lighting and pumping up the ISO regardless"
 
spxxxx said:
Raymond - we will agree to disagree ..... lets face it the amount of god awful portraits with NO complicated plane of focus that then are done by tilt shift lenses (it seems to be the current fad) that show a blurred mishmash can be done just as well with the software and both look equally bad
Click to expand...

It just a tool, some people do it right, some people do it wrong.

That's it.

The debate is that the definition of right and wrong here is subjective.
 
If its any consolation, my mrs spotted me reading this thread and after quizzing me as to why I was looking at wedding photos said "blurgh, thats a bit naff, who would want that as a wedding photo?"

And she's so not a photographer its untrue.
 
worth remembering all sorts of people get married - some with good taste and a whole load who couldn't even spell taste.
 
ernesto said:
worth remembering all sorts of people get married - some with good taste and a whole load who couldn't even spell taste.
Click to expand...

This.
 
It does have other purpose...most often used for architecture...slightly more value in that use...
 
Johnytuono said:
Ah now I see it. Basically then it's over a grand for a lens that makes the picture look like I've blurred parts of it in Photoshop?
JohnyT
Click to expand...

that is more of a side effect than the purpose of the lens but when done well it can give a real miniature look to the photo although that is more suited to a high up view of town, railway station etc,. than a wedding...
 
ernesto said:
that is more of a side effect than the purpose of the lens but when done well it can give a real miniature look to the photo although that is more suited to a high up view of town, railway station etc,. than a wedding...
Click to expand...

It's odd that a lens designed to increase depth of field and to correct perspective distortion has become the by-word for creating shallow depth of field and visual distortions of reality.
 
Phil V said:
It's odd that a lens designed to increase depth of field and to correct perspective distortion has become the by-word for creating shallow depth of field and visual distortions of reality.
Click to expand...

This
 
Phil V said:
It's odd that a lens designed to increase depth of field and to correct perspective distortion has become the by-word for creating shallow depth of field and visual distortions of reality.
Click to expand...

yes it is odd but correcting perspective distortion doesn't please the crowds :)
 
Not only that but the perspective correction hasn't been the subject of as many recent magazine articles...
 
desantnik said:
It does have other purpose...most often used for architecture...slightly more value in that use...
Click to expand...

I will be using one all week.. I'm shooting a lot of artworks (paintings) A TS will allow me to shoot the art behind glass without being in the reflection, and allow me to shoot the paintings where the physical environment will prohibit me from getting the perfect camera position
 
Richard King said:
I will be using one all week.. I'm shooting a lot of artworks (paintings) A TS will allow me to shoot the art behind glass without being in the reflection, and allow me to shoot the paintings where the physical environment will prohibit me from getting the perfect camera position
Click to expand...

Cross polarising gels?
 
No need for polarisers, I simply lower the shooting position. TS the image back to rectangle / square and , ensure the camera is not in within the angle of reflection from the lighting from the glass
 
Richard King said:
No need for polarisers, I simply lower the shooting position. TS the image back to rectangle / square and , ensure the camera is not in within the angle of reflection from the lighting from the glass
Click to expand...

:thumbs:
 
Yup, thats a good use for one indeed!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top