| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/24/2007 03:13:09 PM · #1 |
I received comments on my I Bought it on eBay entry that a tilt-shift lens could produce the same effect in real life:
I think I understand tilt-shift, and that it can produce focal planes that aren't aligned with the scene (e.g., something far away can be in the same focal plane as something nearby.
But why is a tilt-shift necessary to get a small, consistently distant piece of a scene in focus? Isn't a wide-open aperture going to do the same thing?
On my shot, I stopped down a bit to improve the sharpness overall (I knew I was going to blur the rest of it). But at 2.8 or so, wouldn't I have gotten similar results?
Upshot: why is tilt-shift needed vs. wide open aperture?
|
|
|
|
12/24/2007 03:18:33 PM · #2 |
It's not so much that it's NEEDED as that it allows you to use the lens at the sharpest aperture, then control your DOF with the tilting. Plus you can (in fact WILL) have your plane of focus at an angle, instead of perpendicular to the axis of the lens. In other words, if you shoot wide open and use the tilts creatively, you can have, for example, foreground objects and ceiling details in the distance both in focus, and everything in between OOF.
It's tricky to use though :-)
R.
ETA: in your shot you have the zone of sharpness right in the middle of the image and it is sharp from edge-to-edge, right-to left and top-to-bottom, across that zone. See the light fixture (or whatever it is) upper left? Had you access to a tilt/shift lens, you could have tilted so that fixture was no longer in focus, and more of the long wall on the right where it recedes from the tree could have been in focus, and that would be a different effect.
Message edited by author 2007-12-24 15:21:44.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2007 03:35:45 PM · #3 |
| i thought a tilt shift was more used to eliminate the converging line syndrome of a wide angle lens looking up at a bldg--thought you tilted the lens so the edges or whatever lines there were would be parelle |
|
|
|
12/24/2007 03:42:03 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by rider:
i thought a tilt shift was more used to eliminate the converging line syndrome of a wide angle lens looking up at a bldg--thought you tilted the lens so the edges or whatever lines there were would be parelle |
That's the "shift" part; the "tilt" part is for dealing with zones of focus.
IN a nutshell, if the plane of the subject, the plane of sensor, and the plane of the lens, when projected, intersect at a single point, everything on the plane of the subject will be in focus regardless of the aperture you are using. And the "new" DOF is perpendicular to the focus plane.
So, for example, you want to shoot a large, ornate oriental carpet, in situ on the floor, and you want all of it to be tack-sharp, but if you stop down enough to do that your DOF makes everything else in the room too sharp, and it competes with the carpet.
So yous et up a tripod, angle the camera to frame up the carpet, and tilt the lens forward until the entire carpet is in focus. Now the DOF extends UP from the carpet (and down, for that matter, but you can't see under the floor) so if you use a widish aperture then everything above a certain height will be going OOF, and the eye will be drawn to the carpet.
Contrariwise, you can reverse-tilt the lens and isolate just a tiny portion of the subject. The possibilities are endless.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2007 03:44:56 PM · #5 |
| thanks bear you learn something new every day!! Merry Christmas by the way!! |
|
|
|
12/24/2007 03:47:16 PM · #6 |
In a standard lens, the focal plane of the lens is parallel to the sensor, so when something at, say, 50 feet is in focus, everything at 50 feet is in focus.
This focus is only "perfect" at a single point (with an ideal lens); however how fast it falls off from "perfect" varies with the aperture; with a wide aperture the range of acceptable focus is much narrower than with a small aperture.
However, the range of acceptable focus is also dependent on the distance of the plane of ideal focus from the lens; the farther away you focus, the more will be in focus. So while f/1.4 will give you whisper-thin DOF at 2 feet (0.02' for a 50mm lens), it's much wider at, say, 100 feet (73.2 feet, in this example).
But this focus only exists in a plane parallel to the lens itself - so if you tilt the lens relative to the sensor, the sensor will cut through the focal plane (as they're no longer parallel). This allows a thin sliver of focus in a subject that's far away from the lens.
Of course, our brains think that the thin DOF represents a subject that's close by, so we interpret the scene as being small and close, thus the 'miniature' effect.
The shift part of a tilt-shift lens does what rider's talking about, which wouldn't do you much good here.
Edit to say: or, you know, what Bear said.
Message edited by author 2007-12-24 15:53:19. |
|
|
|
12/24/2007 03:56:21 PM · #7 |
Understanding Camera Movements - Tilt/Shift
Real landscapes/cityscapes looking like Toy miniatures by Vincent Laforet.
Message edited by author 2007-12-24 15:56:38.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2007 03:58:26 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by eamurdock:
Edit to say: or, you know, what Bear said. |
Jejeje� It's the large format, architectural photographer part of me coming to the surface from where he was hibernating. I used to be able to do those adjustments in my sleep, basically, with my Sinar-P camera. It's really the only thing I miss about LF photography, this incredible control over both zone of focus and perspective.
I's LOVE to have a tilt-shift lens for my Canon, but I can't even come close to affording it :-(
R.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2007 04:06:03 PM · #9 |
Sooooo ... no, a tilt-shift lens isn't necessary to do in-camera what I did in Photoshop. :)
Now, if I'd wanted the line in the middle of the floor extending to infinity to be in focus, and a narrow band on either side of it, a tilt movement would've been perfect.
ETA: Bear, I figured you knew the answer, and hoped you'd step in, but also figured others might learn in a thread vs. me PMing you!
Message edited by author 2007-12-24 16:06:30.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2007 04:12:59 PM · #10 |
Man Jeff Not that it has anything to do with anything else but when I read the title of the thread I had a feeling that you started it for some reason. I noticed that you joined June of 06 and have created an AMAZING 251 threads.
I just have to say HOLY CRAP.
JUDI...  judi Can we get this man an award for creating the most threads in a year? JUDI!!! you thereeeeee |
|
|
|
12/24/2007 04:15:56 PM · #11 |
Not having neither a tilt-shift lens nor an especially wide aperture I have to resort to using the blur filter through a graduated mask.
There was a thread on fake miniatures quite a while ago -- maybe we should start another ...
  
I have a flat plastic Fresnel lens which I think I'll try out and see what effects it gives ... :-) |
|
|
|
12/24/2007 05:30:46 PM · #12 |
I was in the newsagent's yesterday and in one of the Australian photography magazines was an article about a young photographer from Melbourne who uses the technique - with a Canon 300D, I think it is.
Fortunately, he didn't claim to be the the inventor of the technique but the writer of the article seemed to be bowled over by it.
I'm sure I linked, in the thread GeneralE mentioned, to a Japanese photographer who does the same thing in Tokyo. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 12:07:27 AM EDT.
