DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Tips, Tricks, and Q&A >> Is faked tilt-shift crap?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 23 of 23, (reverse)
AuthorThread
10/29/2010 01:14:22 PM · #1
So a while back, before I knew anything about photography, WAY back when I was using a point and shoot I got a hair up my ass to see if any of the photos looked good enough to print to put up in my pad.

When I made my selections and started working with them in photoshop I found myself adding in blur in selective areas in order to give the shots some sense of a shallow DoF, which is what I like. I did these to a bunch of photos and at some point showed them to a friend of mine, and he said "wow, nice tilt shift". I had NEVER heard of it, but when I looked it up, sure enough that's what my shots looked like.

I've always liked the look, but now that I take photography more seriously, I know how tilt shift works "in camera". Thing is, I'm not about to buy a tilt shift lense, they cost a fortune. I just found out about Lensebaby yesterday, and even it's a few hundred bucks.

So here is my problem..for my tilt shift photos to be taken seriously I feel I need to "spend the money" on SOMETHING so I can do it in camera. At the end of the day, I feel doing it "in camera" is just some type of macho personal challenge. Because honestly, by using lens blurs, and selective erasing in photoshop I can make it look EXACTLY the same, if not better.

I see TONS of "faked" tilt shift that looks like crap. You can't just smear a region of focus across any photograph and have it look good. To me, the "blur" is just 1 of about 5 qualities that I think make up a great tilt-shift photo.

Anyways, I'm not a pro.....so I'm curious to see what this forum thinks on this topic. I mean at the END of the day, I just want a piece of paper with an image printed on it, who CARES how it got there.

10/29/2010 01:47:03 PM · #2
The funny thing about the "macho" thing in photography is that what is seen from people who don't do a lot of photography as being rather silly and arbitrary (i.e. macho) has real impact on the sensibilities of people who take and process many, many images.

For instance, the dreaded "halo" effect from oversharpening, is not nearly as bothersome to someone who has never edited a photograph in a computer as it is to someone who fears creating that effect in their own images. Aggressive dodge and burn can be pleasing to the average viewer, but beware the heavy hand among those who feel they know the limits of the tool.

The same is certainly true with using Gaussian blur to create a tilt/shift effect. Tilt/shift work relies on close inspection to deliver the real payoff, and if on that closer inspection the editing is obvious, the enjoyment for those who know how the optics are ment to work will be much less than for those who don't. Take a look through the Tilt Shift challenge and decide for yourself. Sometimes it can be faked well enough to win first place by using the right image, and editing in plane to keep the right elements in focus, but you can never get it as good as it would have been if the effect was obtained in camera.



Look at the lack of a restraint cable on the crane in the winning image, its just too darned hard to fake it perfectly, though Daniel did do an amazing job in his shot selection and editing, only the use of a real Tilt/Shift lens could have gotten all the elements in plane in focus while blurring the background enough. It is a minor complaint, and clearly it did well enough to make a strong image and win the competition, but the fact that the effect was obtained is post processing is evident due to missing elements that ought to be there, and make this very nice image less than it would have been if the same shot had been done in camera.
10/29/2010 01:50:19 PM · #3
You just answered your own question. " at the end of the day I just want a piece of paper with an image printed on it, who cars how it got there"

Why spend the money on a lens that will give you th e same result in PS? If you are that adept in getting the same result in PS to the extent that not even your friend could tell, then why change it? I haven't looked at your shots, nor am I knowledgeable in tilt shift, from what you mentioned it is clear to me that you should save your money.

Just because it wasn't done in camera does not mean it is not art. You can express your vision with several different tools. The debate of how much post processing is done before it is no longer considered photography is a TIRED one. For me.

10/29/2010 02:09:52 PM · #4
well you would need to use a tilt shift lens to enter a challenge here, since usually selective areas are illegal.

but other than that, i usually cant tell the difference. do what makes you happy, if someone else likes it, thats great.
10/29/2010 02:12:41 PM · #5
DIY tilt-shift lens for under $10

Message edited by author 2010-10-29 14:13:26.
10/29/2010 02:13:21 PM · #6
While you can selectively blur images in PS, tilt-shift can't be achieved totally in PS. At least, I've never seen ANYONE totally nail the look.
10/29/2010 02:20:32 PM · #7
What you’re not going to get with Photoshop induced tilt-shift is the elliptical defocused light in your bokeh. Or hell, maybe you will. I don’t own Photoshop. Maybe there’s a filter for that. Anyway, true tilt shift is an optical phenomenon of which blur is only a small and incidental part. If you like what Photoshop gives you, then I can’t make a case for telling you to buy a Lensbaby.

Message edited by author 2010-10-29 14:30:35.
10/29/2010 11:59:23 PM · #8
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

While you can selectively blur images in PS, tilt-shift can't be achieved totally in PS. At least, I've never seen ANYONE totally nail the look.


I try hard tho






I am not good enough to own expensive len's so I need to cheat every way I can. I would love a tilt shift lens
but the other issues is shooting out of a moving aircraft with a tilt shift. It is hard enough with a non
tilt shift lens...but Like I said, I am not that good.
10/30/2010 12:21:57 AM · #9
Originally posted by Derf:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

While you can selectively blur images in PS, tilt-shift can't be achieved totally in PS. At least, I've never seen ANYONE totally nail the look.


I try hard tho


Those are very good. It would have been interesting had you included some actual tilt shift photos and then ask if anybody can pick out the real ones.
10/30/2010 12:26:42 AM · #10
Originally posted by Derf:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

While you can selectively blur images in PS, tilt-shift can't be achieved totally in PS. At least, I've never seen ANYONE totally nail the look.


I try hard tho






I am not good enough to own expensive len's so I need to cheat every way I can. I would love a tilt shift lens
but the other issues is shooting out of a moving aircraft with a tilt shift. It is hard enough with a non
tilt shift lens...but Like I said, I am not that good.


Nice work.
10/30/2010 01:01:13 AM · #11
Originally posted by BrennanOB:



Look at the lack of a restraint cable on the crane in the winning image, its just too darned hard to fake it perfectly, though Daniel did do an amazing job in his shot selection and editing, only the use of a real Tilt/Shift lens could have gotten all the elements in plane in focus while blurring the background enough. It is a minor complaint, and clearly it did well enough to make a strong image and win the competition, but the fact that the effect was obtained is post processing is evident due to missing elements that ought to be there, and make this very nice image less than it would have been if the same shot had been done in camera.


I wouldn't go by the challenges as evidence. All you have to do here is make something look good for a two second viewing at 800 pixels so of course people are going to miss the cables not being in focus or whatnot. The tilt shift effect can be done to perfection in post. It just requires a lot of tedious work (like that photo demanded) that most can't or don't have to the time to do.

Message edited by author 2010-10-30 01:04:45.
10/30/2010 01:19:25 AM · #12
The thing I love about real tilt-shift lenses is not the shallow depth of field effect but rather the opposite. With a tilt-shift lens you can also achieve extremely deep DOF with large apertures. (In fact I can't remember seeing a real tilt shift image where it is used to create the "dollhouse" effect). See this article by Darwin Wiggett //darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/the-first-17mm-tilt-shift-shots/ for other uses of a tilt-shift lens. (just a provisio: I personally also like the fake tilt-shift effect but as I mentioned earlier I've never been able to compare it to a real tilt-shift)
10/30/2010 01:55:56 AM · #13
Originally posted by Citadel:

The thing I love about real tilt-shift lenses is not the shallow depth of field effect but rather the opposite. With a tilt-shift lens you can also achieve extremely deep DOF with large apertures. (In fact I can't remember seeing a real tilt shift image where it is used to create the "dollhouse" effect). See this article by Darwin Wiggett //darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/the-first-17mm-tilt-shift-shots/ for other uses of a tilt-shift lens. (just a provisio: I personally also like the fake tilt-shift effect but as I mentioned earlier I've never been able to compare it to a real tilt-shift)

Very interesting. I learned a lot from that link. Thanks.
10/30/2010 11:44:06 AM · #14
And that lens is sweet.
//www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-TS-E-17mm-f-4-L-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx
10/30/2010 12:07:43 PM · #15
Originally posted by Citadel:

....In fact I can't remember seeing a real tilt shift image where it is used to create the "dollhouse" effect...


Here is one :)
10/30/2010 12:43:25 PM · #16
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

DIY tilt-shift lens for under $10


Good reading. Thanks for sharing.
10/30/2010 03:16:23 PM · #17
Originally posted by mike_311:

well you would need to use a tilt shift lens to enter a challenge here, since usually selective areas are illegal.

Selective editing is legal under the Advanced and Expert rule sets, illegal under the Basic and Minimal rules. These are probably my best examples of the "fake" technique ...
10/30/2010 04:57:46 PM · #18
Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Derf:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

While you can selectively blur images in PS, tilt-shift can't be achieved totally in PS. At least, I've never seen ANYONE totally nail the look.


I try hard tho


Those are very good. It would have been interesting had you included some actual tilt shift photos and then ask if anybody can pick out the real ones.


I can't say I don't like the look that these guys are getting using post-processing, I do, but to me, it just doesn't look like real TS.
11/02/2010 01:40:02 PM · #19
GREAT responses. I'm still learning my way, and as I'm not really trained, I tend to do things without knowing. I never have thought about the plane of focus, but I have NOT done "fake" tilt shift before because I can't get the "entire object" that I want in focus to be correct because it's to tall/wide.

I think this comes from my career as a computer artist...to often people push stuff WAY to far and it looks bad. For example, the visual FX in Blade Runner still hold up, because they were FULLY aware of their limitations and didn't go to far. They planned, and went as far as the tech would allow.

I don't think you can use Gaussian blur and get a correct look, blur isn't Bokeh. I use multiple levels of lense blur to get it to look nice and soft. Here is my latest Tilt-Shift photo, lets critique it, I wonder if anything is out of the focus plane.


Li'l Venice by velocity visual, on Flickr

son of a'....even though I put my focus area at a slight angle, same as the sidewalk....yep..there are the telltale FAKE signs. The top of the trees should be "in focus" I'm assuming?

Man I LOVE this forum.
11/02/2010 02:11:07 PM · #20
Regarding where the plane of focus should be: the way a real tilt lens works is described by the "Scheimpflug Rule" (google it) which basically states that when the plane of the film/sensor, the plane of the lens, and the plane of the subject all intersect at the same point, everything on the plane of the subject will be in focus, and DOF will extend perpendicular to that plane.

So if you stand on a roof and shoot down on the streets at an angle, and use the plane of the street as your subject plane, and tilt the lens so its projected plane crosses the intersection of the film/sensor plane and the street plane, then everything on the street, out to infinity, will be in focus, and the tops of the palm trees will be less and less in focus the taller they are.

Now, your "fake" TS doesn't replicate that exactly, but in principle it's unlikely that the street and the palm tree tops both would be in focus at the same time if using a TS lens, although it depends entirely on where the actual intersection points are.

R.
11/02/2010 02:25:34 PM · #21
For images taken at a distance (lets say, for arguments sake, 'miniature' shots taken from the top of a building etc.) it's possible to fake it in a way that is virtually indistinguishable from the real thing. Placement of the blur gradient aligned to the ground plane will lead to a much more convincing result.

A recent study, "Using Blur to Affect Perceived Distance and Size" by Held et al. from the Computer Graphics department at UC Berkeley, demonstrated that careful choice of the placement of the blur gradient in the image will create a convincing miniaturised image. This result was verified by showing a series of test 'faked' images to volunteer subjects; they found a significant connection between the amount of blur and the perceived 'scale' of the miniaturised objects. Moreover, another recent paper by McCloskey et al demonstrated that the pattern of out-of-focus blur caused by lens tilt is a linear gradient. As stated in Held et al., "...it stands to reason that a tilt-and-shift image could be similar to a sharply rendered image treated with a linear blur gradient."

Outside of this specialised scenario, I don't think it's possible to easily 'fake' the effect of a tilt-shift lens using just a single image and a blur filter. Tilt-shift lenses turn the normal in-focus 'box' into a wedge, and the amount of blur at any point depends on the position inside this wedge. For subjects close to the camera, this can lead to some non-obvious, complex interactions.

It's not the most well-researched piece, but I wrote a little page on how tilt-shift works (both real and 'fake') - just search for "Tilt-shift: A DIY Guide" on google (I can't seem to be able to post URL's).

Message edited by author 2010-11-02 14:26:53.
11/02/2010 03:01:56 PM · #22
Originally posted by Citadel:

....In fact I can't remember seeing a real tilt shift image where it is used to create the "dollhouse" effect...


Here is another one :) , but it wasn't recognized as such :(
11/02/2010 09:36:49 PM · #23
@bjoshi your response sounds 1/2 ass...haha JUST KIDDING, that's some awesome data that I will 500% look up and parse through.

Interesting talking of the miniaturization as related to focus, but in my experience which is zero, to get that miniature look it is even more important to be at the correct angle and distance. And to have subject matter, that when shot at that distance, holds the perfect amount of detail to appear to in fact be miniature. In addition to this I think having things in primary colors also helps the effect. I'm personally convinced that there is something in our brain, back from when we were all children, that "knows" what it's like to play with a little toy. It makes sense, because we spend QUITE a few many years, about 2 feet up, looking down at little cars that are about 1/2 an inch long visually.....

In my picture there is something about those little surfboards and the couple at the table to the right of them, that looks convincingly made of painted toothpicks or something.

I love the cars, interesting study. The older cars look much more convincing as little toys than the new cars. Specifically, there is something about that Bently in the lower left that looks strange. I love the pic, I want to do some auto "tilt shift" as well.

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 04:54:33 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 04:54:33 PM EDT.