gratuitous tilt - rant!

[BradS]

What is it with the current fad of using way too much front tilt...in the WRONG direction to throw things in the foreground all out of focus?!?! I see all manner of formal portaits now with this "look". It is nauseating. <ok, end rant...sorry>

[stehei]

that's david burnetts fault! ;)

[Daniel_Buck]

it doesn't bother me. I see it used very well sometimes, and other times it feels like it was used as an effect that looks like nothing more than an effect.

[Brian Ellis]

Beats me, I've wondered the same thing. Maybe once or twice I've seen one like that that worked but 99% of the time it looks like the kind of thing I went to school to learn how to avoid. Mostly it looks like such an obvious "effect for effect's sake" that I find the photographs laughable. Reminds me of my Beginning Photography students who thought anything out of focus was automatically "art."

[Louie Powell]

Reminds me of my Beginning Photography students who thought anything out of focus was automatically "art."


The same guys who are always obsessing about bokeh?

[BrianShaw]

I don't like it when noses are out of focus... but many people don't mine, so I must be wrong. That is worse than foregrounds being OOF, IMHO!

[dsphotog]

Made mainstream by the people that use DSLR's with Lensbabies!
David Silva
Modesto, Ca

[BradS]

Just saw another one...pretty young lady in a summer dress standing in a field of wild flowers on a brightly lit morning...only a narrow horizontal band of focus...everything above her forehead and below her chin is grossly OOF....<BARF!>

[Steven Barall]

It's just another look and it has it's purposes. Anything you can get your camera to do is no more or less valid than anything someone else can get their camera can do. If your thing to to get everything in the photo as sharp and distortion free as possible just remember that no matter what you do it's never quite enough and it never will be. It only describes nature to a point and is never really indexical like people like to imagine that it is.

Photography is a medium like any other. It comes between the photographer and the subject and to a point it remains independent of both.

Thanks for the original post and cheers to all.

[claudiocambon]

I see both the gratuitous use of camera movements, which of course make one yawn, and wonderful ones, such as Sabine Delcour, who was in a beautiful show at the French National Library in Paris last month about the French coastline along with Micheal Kenna, Koudelka, among several others. The movements created this weird sense of scale, because optically they recreated something resembling a macro focus scale, but applied to a large, open field scale of view. It's the opposite of what David Levinthal did in all his pix of plastic statues of cowboys and soldiers, making the small seem huge; here the huge seems alternately itself and then also small. Here is her site:

http://sabinedelcour.com/

[Gordon Moat]

The you probably will not like this shot (http://www.gordonmoat.com/life_04.html). Really it is just another technique. Sometimes it is very appropriate, and sometimes not appropriate. Just another tool in the bag.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[gevalia]

Gordon,

She could never be OOF.


The you probably will not like this shot (http://www.gordonmoat.com/life_04.html). Really it is just another technique. Sometimes it is very appropriate, and sometimes not appropriate. Just another tool in the bag.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[BradS]

Gordon,
Thanks for supplying an example. May we may discuss this photo a bit? May I ask, what was your photographic or artistic objective here? Do you feel that it was accomplished?

I guess to me, the excessive tilt...just does not add to the image.

[Bill_1856]

Oh -- is it tilt? I thought that it was just sloppy Photoshop blur.
Could someone give a like to one of the portraits being discussed (I've apparently never noticed it)?

[QT Luong]

Gordon,
Thanks for supplying an example. May we may discuss this photo a bit? May I ask, what was your photographic or artistic objective here? Do you feel that it was accomplished?

I guess to me, the excessive tilt...just does not add to the image.

I am not speaking for Gordon here, but in listening to other photographers who use this effect, the objective is often to do "something different" (which is often equaled with artsy).

[Terence McDonagh]

How is this any different from using a shallow depth of field, petzval lens or diffusing filter with center opening for portraits?

I noticed its use in advertising pick up a few years ago. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. Given that everyone's tastes are different, I'm sure we'd disagree on which is which.

I notice the website listed in your profile has a pinhole photography section. Obviously you're not an Ansel Adams "everything must be tack sharp" type. So what about it doesn't work for you? It's just another means of selective focus.

[Andrew O'Neill]

One word...."fad".

[xmishx]

I use this technique often. When over done and obvious, like anything else that shouts and screams, it isn't as effective. I think I've gone to this technique only to enhance shallow depth of field, which is a look I like very much.

http://www.artistsimageresource.net/blog/2008/2008-04-09jeanette.jpg

With the advent of lens babies and the dslr, many folks are trying the technique and fail miserably. Also, photoshop actions can bring this effect, which I also use, but I think the key to the shift is delicacy. Going for an effect for the sake of it, often just doesn't work.

Ted

[Colin Graham]

I don't have a personal example but here's one I like from Mark Tucker (http://www.marktucker.com/07dream/index.html). I guess I'm just the opposite of the OP, I like dramatic effects, one of the reasons I use a camera with movements. With OOF in a way you're more at the photographer's mercy. Which can be cool, I suppose, if it's a photographer you like. Heinous if not.

http://www.marktucker.com/07dream/content/bin/images/large/dream_029_tytruck.jpg

[stehei]

Gordon,
Thanks for supplying an example. May we may discuss this photo a bit? May I ask, what was your photographic or artistic objective here? Do you feel that it was accomplished?
I guess to me, the excessive tilt...just does not add to the image.

the two previous posters clearly show pictures where the effect is used in a very nice way, to my eye. So lets stop ranting about tilt/shift, its just another way of working on an image. No rules, golden rules, always true rules and dogmas here, as far as I'm concerned.

regards

s

[BradS]

How is this any different from using a shallow depth of field, petzval lens or diffusing filter with center opening for portraits?
...snip...
I notice the website listed in your profile has a pinhole photography section. Obviously you're not an Ansel Adams "everything must be tack sharp" type. So what about it doesn't work for you? It's just another means of selective focus.

Thanks for looking at my stuff. I should confess up front, I am no artist. However, I realise very well that it is all subjective. So, why doesn't it work for me? Good question. I'm not really sure. I think the key word is: "gratuitous". That is, when the effect is excessive or seems un-necessary....it doesn't work.

When viewing any serious attempt at artistic expression, I always ask, "what it the artist trying to say or do with this piece? What emotion, message, etc. is he trying to convey?" When an effect like gratuitous tilt slaps me in the face, I have to ask "why did he do that? What's he trying to say with that?" Too often, the answer seems to me to be that the artist was simply trying to say, "Hey, I can throw the plane of focus somewhere strange and unexpected!". In other words, I don't really understand the artist's purpose and suspect that it was done for no really good reason...

Same goes for the old blurry lenses...is the point of the image "Hey! I made this with an old weird lens!" or does the effect (the blurryness in this case) have some artistic purpose? I can understand the positive benefit of less than clinical sharpness when photographing a subject whose vanity does not allow them a realistic self image but, swirly bokeh for swirly bokeh's sake is just empty and meaningless...uninteresting.

[Ben Hopson]

Mark Tucker's work immediately came to mind when I saw this thread. He has Incorporated selective focus and blur in much of his imagery. While I am one who always attempts to get everything in sharp focus, I think his style works well for him.

Ben

[Gordon Moat]

Gordon,
Thanks for supplying an example. May we may discuss this photo a bit? May I ask, what was your photographic or artistic objective here? Do you feel that it was accomplished?

I guess to me, the excessive tilt...just does not add to the image.

I suppose if everyone liked an image, then I would question it more. Same thing if everyone dislikes an image. This particular talent really liked this image, despite that several others were shot (technically) straight. If you look at the shot following that one, the colour shot was done later in the day prior to wrapping up everything.

So why use it at all . . . basically it forces emphasis towards the in-focus areas. The same reasoning applies to short DoF shots, Petzval lenses, Lens-Babies, Holgas . . . . . basically anything other than totally in-focus technically crisp images. I hear far fewer negative comments than positive . . . basically it is not really worth explaining: if someone doesn't like those techniques, then there will not be any way to change opinions . . . So . . . why bother.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Brian Ellis]

[QUOTE=Gordon Moat;372057]The you probably will not like this shotshot (http://www.gordonmoat.com/life_04.html). . . . /QUOTE]

You're right. But I'm open to hearing what purpose you think is served by the out-of focus legs and foreground.

[Frank Petronio]

I've experimented with all that shit. You have to go too far, "break it", find the edge....

A few thousand dollars and sheets of film later I figured it out.

I like subtle better. I'm real happy with a modern lens used wide open but not blowing it all outtawack. You don't want the technique to overpower the reason why you made the image.

[Brian Ellis]

[QUOTE=Gordon Moat;372255] . . . basically it forces emphasis towards the in-focus areas. . . .

If that was your purpose I don't think it worked, at least not for me. The first thing I see is the out-of-focus foreground and legs and I find it very distracting. So to me it actually works to defeat your purpose.

[Gordon Moat]

[QUOTE=Gordon Moat;372057]The you probably will not like this shot . . . . /QUOTE]

You're right. But I'm open to hearing what purpose you think is served by the out-of focus legs and foreground.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I doubt I could state anything that would change your mind. If you don't like a particular way of shooting, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I have never expected my images to have universal appeal, and I don't consider that a viable objective. If you don't like it, then you don't like it . . . no worries.

You can learn just as much about photography by viewing images you do not like, as from viewing images that you do like. You don't need to like nor understand an approach to learn . . . maybe what you learn is that you want to do things differently, your own way . . . just don't expect universal appeal.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Brian Ellis]

[QUOTE=Brian Ellis;372258]

Don't take this the wrong way, but I doubt I could state anything that would change your mind. If you don't like a particular way of shooting, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I have never expected my images to have universal appeal, and I don't consider that a viable objective. If you don't like it, then you don't like it . . . no worries.

You can learn just as much about photography by viewing images you do not like, as from viewing images that you do like. You don't need to like nor understand an approach to learn . . . maybe what you learn is that you want to do things differently, your own way . . . just don't expect universal appeal.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

Gordon - I'm not asking that you change my mind. I was just interested in knowing what purpose you thought was served and you've answered that. Thanks.

[Gordon Moat]

Hello Brian,

I think the previous messages crossed a bit, though I am glad you got an answer out of those. I would imagine you were not the only one with that question.

Basically, any image with defocus areas is going to be questioned by someone. We don't generally recall seeing locations in that manner, so it never seems natural. Some people like that affect, and some people don't like it.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[jb7]

It's good to see this debate stay on track after some people started throwing up on their computers-
Focus, or selective focus, is just another tool-
It can be quite magical sometimes,
and trite at others-

Every picture is different, unless they're all the same...

I've done sharp, seemingly forever,
so I don't mind trying other techniques,
and playing with blur, and bokeh-

It may not amount to anything,
and I might not get anything worthwhile from it,
but who cares?

I've seen many boring sharp pictures too-

Great to see that portrait again Ted-

j

[Vaughn]

the two previous posters clearly show pictures where the effect is used in a very nice way, to my eye. So lets stop ranting about tilt/shift, its just another way of working on an image. No rules, golden rules, always true rules and dogmas here, as far as I'm concerned.

regards

s

Reminds me of AA's quote about sharp images of fuzzy concepts. Having everything in focus does not mean it is a good image either. In shear numbers, there are more lousy images that are all in focus than there are lousy shifted focus images.

Our eyes have a lousy DoF, but shifting our gaze around a scene and unconsciencely shifting our focus, our brain creates a gestalt of a fully in-focus image. So used well, a shifted lens and/or film plane can create an image closer to what our eyes see at any one time...or like Gordon said, just give emphsis to one part of the image.

Some of our students have used this with great effect.

Vaughn

[Brian K]

For some who know how and more importantly when to use it, it's a tool. For the majority it's just a gimmick, a way to add spice to an image with very little of interest. I put it this in the same school as Holgas, and some esoteric printing processes that look like underfixed and chemical stained prints with poor limited tonal ranges, streaks , blobs and mottle. It's all about appearing "arty". Techniques or tricks do not make up for lack of content.

[Scott Schroeder]

I think Gordon did a nice job of explaining what doesn't need to be explained.
Some like there coffee black, some with sugar, some with cream and some detest the stuff altogether.
There are some who follow Jesus, others Muhhammad, others follow others and some follow nothing at all.
Some like the color red, some green and others like 'colorless' things like black and white.
Which in photography many prefer to see B&W instead of color for a variety of reasons. Some will say because the color, 'gets in the way' and other just like it better.
There are those crazy people who shoot those tiny 35mm cameras and then there are those that shoot 20X24.
Some people think the rest of the world should do as they do.....
However, we live in a world of infinite possibilities and choices.
Enjoy what you enjoy and let others do the same.
In the hiking world there is a saying 'hike your own hike.'
Everybody has their different ways, means, and styles of doing things.
Rants are funny things because they usually are 'against' something, but they also inherently point to a view 'for' something.

[paulr]

Jan Groover did this a lot, with interesting results, back in the 80s. You could think of it as using the focal plane as a manipulatable, creative choice rather than as a tool bound to replicating the way the eyes see.

Much of the selective focus (or in this case, "tilted the wrong way") work that I see these days seems to use the method just for effect. Any esthetic choice used just for effect gets tiresome in a hurry. I'd have to agree that in many cases it's just a fad. But it's not fundamentally bad. Like with anything else, there are intelligent ways to use it.

[BradS]

...Much of the selective focus (or in this case, "tilted the wrong way") work that I see these days seems to use the method just for effect. Any esthetic choice used just for effect gets tiresome in a hurry. I'd have to agree that in many cases it's just a fad. But it's not fundamentally bad. Like with anything else, there are intelligent ways to use it.

I think this pretty accurately sums up my feelings on it too.