# tilt/shift photography!!!!!!!



## iPhoto17 (Jun 28, 2010)

my friend showed me something called tilt/shift photography and went online to find a tilt/shift lens, but sadly they are around 1800 dollars, is there a way to simulate tilt/shift with a normal lens?


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 28, 2010)

There was a thread not long ago asking about that...

One person suggested to just hold the lens up to the mount and move it around.  Not perfect, but it would work.  You would surely have some light leaks though...

Lensbabies are pretty much T/S lenses.  They just don't shift.  Tilt only.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 28, 2010)

You could try something like this too:
Build a Tilt-Shift Camera Lens for Peanuts | CreativePro.com


----------



## iPhoto17 (Jun 28, 2010)

O|||||||O said:


> There was a thread not long ago asking about that...
> 
> One person suggested to just hold the lens up to the mount and move it around.  Not perfect, but it would work.  You would surely have some light leaks though...
> 
> Lensbabies are pretty much T/S lenses.  They just don't shift.  Tilt only.


can you please explain more on this, i didnt quite understand....nevermind, do you mean not actually having the lens locked into the camera and hold the lens up to the body and tilt it and whatnot? i should try this, but how does shutter speed and aperture play into this?


----------



## Christie Photo (Jun 28, 2010)

iPhoto17 said:


> ...is there a way to simulate tilt/shift with a normal lens?



The "shift" and "rise/fall" are fairly easy to simulate in Photoshop using perspective correction.  

The "tilt" will more of a challenge.  I JUST saw that here somewhere, but can't recall where.  It involves making multiple exposures, all focused at gradually increasing depths and then stitching or merging the images somehow.

-Pete


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 28, 2010)

iPhoto17 said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > There was a thread not long ago asking about that...
> ...


Yes, just hold it up to the mount by hand.  You might be able to rig up some kind of rubber boot to help make it light tight.

You won't be able to autofocus, and you'll have to shoot in Manual mode.
Metering will still work fine, but you will only have control over aperture if your lens has an aperture ring.  Shutter speed will basically be the only way you'll be able to control the exposure.  (or ISO)

On Canon lenses, you can can sort of get around that by holding the DOF preview button down as you remove the lens.

Mount lens to camera, select aperture, hold down DOF preview, remove lens.  It will still be stopped down.  To get the aperture opened up again, just mount the lens back onto the camera (with the camera on, of course).

The same trick probably works for other brands too, but I've never tried it.


----------



## iPhoto17 (Jun 28, 2010)

Christie Photo said:


> iPhoto17 said:
> 
> 
> > ...is there a way to simulate tilt/shift with a normal lens?
> ...


almost like old stereoscopic photos used for old 3d stereoscopes


----------



## iPhoto17 (Jun 28, 2010)

my D3000 wont let me take pictures without the lens on it


----------



## Christie Photo (Jun 28, 2010)

iPhoto17 said:


> almost like old stereoscopic photos used for old 3d stereoscopes



No... not really.  Well, not at all.

Stereoscope photos were just that: stereo images.  Two images made at slightly different angels to provide a 3D effect when viewed together.

Tilting a lens allows the plane of focus to be different than a static lens standard.  The lens and sensor will no longer be on parallel planes.

If you were making a table-top photograph of something not so tall...  say a book.  Tilting the lens forward would allow you to have the entire surface of the book cover come into focus while working with a large aperture.

I hope this isn't confusing.

-Pete


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 28, 2010)

iPhoto17 said:


> my D3000 wont let me take pictures without the lens on it


Even in manual mode?

That sucks...  That would mean lots of interesting things like pinhole, t-rings (for mounting to a telescope), the use of any lens that would require an adapter, etc, would not be possible.


----------



## iPhoto17 (Jun 28, 2010)

O|||||||O said:


> iPhoto17 said:
> 
> 
> > my D3000 wont let me take pictures without the lens on it
> ...


oooo, i forgot manual mode


----------



## iPhoto17 (Jun 28, 2010)

i tried it in manual mode, and it worked, but im not really getting the tilt/shift effect, the pictures just come out as they normally would, how close to i hold the lens to the body?


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 29, 2010)

I tried it too, and was also unable to reproduce the effect....  Getting it focused was pretty difficult too...

Building your own (see the link a few posts up) might be the only option other than just ponying up for a real T/S lens...

You could also try a Lensbaby - they do tilt.  ...A lot cheaper than a T/S lens...

I've been wanting a T/S lens for a while ... I might have to get myself one for Christmas.  It'll probably be that long before I can save up the money, lol.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jun 29, 2010)

A tilt-shift lens was originally designed (that I know of) for architectural photography so its price tag, compared to a "nifty fifty," is high.

Btw, it was designed to do the exact opposite of what most people want to do today. It was designed to correct perspective errors due to tilt-shift.

All that to say that it is an expensive way to do a special effect. And, as most special effects, it is only fun/interesting for a few shots.

Just look around the forum. How many people want a fisheye lens? How many fisheye lenses do you see for sale?

Such lenses wear out their novelty effect very fast.

You are better off learning how to take a straight shot first.When you can get a good one of those and you have money to waste, please, spend your money however you want.


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 29, 2010)

Get an old Crown Graphic and one of these..
Moveable Digital back 4x5 camera on Nikon D3 D300 D4000 - eBay (item 250553103728 end time Jul-22-10 01:03:17 PDT)


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 29, 2010)

The two main things I can see it being useful for are architecture and landscapes.

For landscapes - you could use it to basically get more DOF without stopping down so much.  For architecture - well that seems pretty obvious.

You can eliminate the perspective distortion without have to mess with it in PS (and thus degrade the IQ), and without the cropping that would be required to do it in PS.

I mainly want one for the things they were intended to be used for.
The other effects that people try to fake all the time, yeah it might be fun for a while - but that's not the real reason I want one.

This is what I've had my eye on (for quite a while, lol):
Canon - TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II Tilt-Shift Manual Focus - 3552B002 -

Even though it will take me a while to save up for it, I'm pretty sure that will be my next lens...  There are no cheap (<$1000) toys left for me to buy, lol.

LOL, my "Lenses" wishlist at B&H is just over $16,000.  


...One day.


----------



## flyingember (Jun 30, 2010)

iPhoto17 said:


> i tried it in manual mode, and it worked, but im not really getting the tilt/shift effect, the pictures just come out as they normally would, how close to i hold the lens to the body?



tilting requires an element of the lens to tilt and then for the light to end up hitting the image sensor the same way as a normal lens.  taking the lens off would be close but you'd be missing that not every element tilts in a real tilt-shift

shift requires a single element of the lens to shift relative to the  plane of focus.  to simulate it you would effectively have to take the lens apart/modify it yourself

the lens babies don't do tilting or shifting in the same way so don't expect it.  they're made for focus control

even the stacking doesn't work the same way.  

tilt-shift actually changes how light is moved through the lens.   you know how lenses flip the object upside down 1:1? in a tilt shift, using a building as an example, properly tilted/shifted the light from top of the building may now move through the lens on a shorter path and the light from what's closer now takes longer so they appear to be the same size.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jun 30, 2010)

O|||||||O said:


> The two main things I can see it being useful for are architecture and landscapes.
> 
> For landscapes - you could use it to basically get more DOF without stopping down so much.  For architecture - well that seems pretty obvious.
> 
> ...



Never heard of anyone using a TS lens for landscape and I'm not even sure why it would increase your DOF.

But more importantly, for the price of the lens you want you could probably get a nice 4x5 view camera and they have built in TS which can be used with any lens


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 30, 2010)

I guess I didn't explain it very good...

Instead of stopping down for more DOF, you could tilt the lens so that you didn't need as much DOF.  More of the scene would be inside the DOF.  You could have foreground detail and distant detail without having to stop down to f/22 or whatever.

Found this after a quick google - it does a much better job explaining it than I can:
Using Tilt-Shift Lenses to Control Depth of Field
Scroll about 1/4 of the way down.  Just under the pictures of the rug.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 30, 2010)

The tilt function built into view cameras is probably one of the reasons they're so commonly used for landscapes (not saying that's all they're good for, by any means) - not to mention the much larger film.

Makes me wonder how many of the great landscapes we've all seen utilized that...
And, properly done I don't know that you would even be able to tell easily.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jun 30, 2010)

O|||||||O said:


> I guess I didn't explain it very good...
> 
> Instead of stopping down for more DOF, you could tilt the lens so that you didn't need as much DOF.  More of the scene would be inside the DOF.  You could have foreground detail and distant detail without having to stop down to f/22 or whatever.
> 
> ...





O|||||||O said:


> The tilt function built into view cameras is probably one of the reasons they're so commonly used for landscapes (not saying that's all they're good for, by any means) - not to mention the much larger film.
> 
> Makes me wonder how many of the great landscapes we've all seen utilized that...
> And, properly done I don't know that you would even be able to tell easily.



As I said, I have never heard of anyone using a TS lens for landscape. Now, I may not be reading this quite right because it's the end of the day and I'm tired but I'm reading and looking and I see an example that as little to do with landscape photography.

1/ it is inside where you may have limited amounts of light, and 2/ the subject is right in front of the camera. Neither is the case with most landscape photos. Are you familiar with Akira Kurosawa? He was a movie director famous for "The Seven Samurais" and for his great DOF. If he could do it without a TS lens, I'm sure you can too.

It seems to me that a wide angle lens gives you all the DOF you could want. But that doesn't mean it has not been done. TS lenses are, as far as I know, used mostly for architectural photography. I have heard of them being used in product photography too but I have never seen the need for that myself so I have no experience with it.

And of course, a lot of product photos are done with view cameras where there would be no need for a TS lens.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 30, 2010)

O|||||||O said:


> The two main things I can see it being useful for are architecture and landscapes.
> 
> For landscapes - you could use it to basically get more DOF without stopping down so much.  For architecture - well that seems pretty obvious.
> 
> ...



Josh... have you thought about another alternative, one which would allow you to use more than just one focal length,and at lower cost?   http://www.zoerk.com/media/images/Fuji_S2_ProSA_MFS.jpg

Zörk Pro Shift adapter


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 30, 2010)

Interesting.  Looks kinda complicated though.


----------



## flyingember (Jul 1, 2010)

O|||||||O said:


> Interesting.  Looks kinda complicated though.



tilt shift is, which is why it's not cheap


----------



## AlexL (Jul 1, 2010)

very expensive for a specialized type of photography.


----------



## Christie Photo (Jul 1, 2010)

O|||||||O said:


> I guess I didn't explain it very good...
> 
> Instead of stopping down for more DOF, you could tilt the lens so that you didn't need as much DOF.  More of the scene would be inside the DOF.  You could have foreground detail and distant detail without having to stop down to f/22 or whatever.



Well...  sort of.

You really don't gain any more depth in your field (plane) of focus; you merely change what is in that field.

Go back to the images in the link you posted...  the ones with the rug and the lenses.  Imagine it's your landscape photo...  the rug is the terrain and the lenses are trees.  It would seldom be beneficial to have just the treetops in focus.  Of course in a landscape scenario you would realize much more depth of field than in the rug photo because you are focusing on things much farther away.

I really don't see an application for this in landscape photography.

Now...  couldn't you achieve what you want with a Lens Baby?

-Pete


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 1, 2010)

flyingember said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting.  Looks kinda complicated though.
> ...


I meant that the link Derrel posted looked like a very complicated way to go about it.

Yes it may be cheaper, but I would need (1) a lens, (2) the T/S adapter thing, (3) an adapter (maybe 2 adapters?) to mount that adapter to my camera.

Or I could just buy a T/S lens...

Did you even read the post I was replying to?




Christie Photo said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I didn't  explain it very good...
> ...


Yes, I know.  That is what I have been trying to say the whole time.
By changing the field, you don't _need_ as much DOF.



Christie Photo said:


> Go back to the images in the link you  posted...  the ones with the rug and the lenses.  Imagine it's your  landscape photo...  the rug is the terrain and the lenses are trees.  It  would seldom be beneficial to have just the treetops in focus.  *Of  course in a landscape scenario you would realize much more depth of  field than in the rug photo because you are focusing on things much  farther away.*


Which is why your suggestion to go back to that picture and think of it as my landscape makes absolutely no sense at all.



Christie Photo said:


> I really don't see an application for this in landscape photography.


Couple landscapes taken with a T/S lens (not mine, so just links):
Loch Lomond Shores on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Matanuska River Spring View on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
_MG_0741 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!




Christie Photo said:


> Now...  couldn't you achieve what you want with a Lens Baby?
> 
> -Pete



I don't really know.  I'm not interested in getting a lensbaby.  From what I understand about them you probably could, but I don't think it would be ideal, and long exposures would be pretty much impossible.

The only reason I even mentioned it was as a low budget alternative to an actual T/S lens (what this thread is about).



edit

I _really_ do not understand what is so hard to understand about shooting a landscape with a tilt-shift lens.


----------



## Jeff Canes (Jul 1, 2010)

russian option for under $400

Arsat Arax MC 2.8/80mm TILT/SHIFT lens for Nikon AI - eBay (item 150442787233 end time Jul-10-10 10:43:25 PDT)


----------



## maris (Jul 1, 2010)

iPhoto17 said:


> my friend showed me something called tilt/shift photography and went online to find a tilt/shift lens, but sadly they are around 1800 dollars, is there a way to simulate tilt/shift with a normal lens?



The Ukranian tilt shift lenses run $400 to $500 and work just fine on Canon, Nikon, etc. There is a variety offered on Ebay and also on the web sites of Eastern European traders who are working their way through the vast left-over lens inventory from the Soviet days.


----------



## Christie Photo (Jul 1, 2010)

O|||||||O said:


> I _really_ do not understand what is so hard to understand about shooting a landscape with a tilt-shift lens.



I have no trouble understanding, not even a little bit.

Now I have to ask...  Have YOU ever made landscape images with a tilt-shift lens?

I've worked extensively with view cameras (which afford more movements than a field camera) and I can assure you that especially when working with a lens that short you gain SO little using a tilt.

I _really_ do not understand what is so hard for you to understand about shooting a landscape with a tilt-shift lens.  I suppose maybe if you used one, then you'd get it.

-Pete


----------



## Lipoly (Jul 6, 2010)

You can produce a decent tilt/shift effect in PP. My Tilt-Shift Instructions for GIMP : Bart Busschots


----------



## b_radd3 (Jul 12, 2010)

I tried the method referred to earlier in the thread where you take the lens off the camera and shoot everything manually. Getting use to it was difficult but with a few minute's patience i started seeing results. It seemed that the focus ring on the lens was essentially useless and i found that the most effective way to focus was simply by messing with the tilt, or the angle at which you hold the lens. Doing this in any slightly demanding shooting situation seems to me highly impractical though, plus the only way i could get a clear view of what the camera was seeing without sprouting a third arm was to shoot in live view, this leaves the cameras sensor completely exposed with not even a lens to protect it; a big no no if you ask me.  

Sort of a fun little process though! id encourage trying it out. 

heres some of the photos that sorta turned out
An obscure progression of time: Not really tilt shift

ps if it helps i was using a canon 50D and a canon 28-135mm USM IS lens


----------



## Flash Harry (Jul 12, 2010)

View cameras are great for landscape photography, not for their TS ability though, more the resolution possible with the large format, with product shots the movements were ideal for creativity/isolation/inclusion, with bellows extensions/multiple flashes for exposure correction they were also the tool of choice for true macro photography. A little on the heavy side for lugging around plus the heavy duty tripod for stability would have a weight lifter puffing like a train after thirty yards, but the end results were worth the effort, beautiful. H


----------



## Helen B (Jul 13, 2010)

I suspect that tilt (and sometimes swing, the horizontal equivalent of tilt) is not uncommon in large format landscape photography. I use tilt quite regularly. There are times when it could be useful with 35 mm landscape photography, but the increased DoF of the smaller format generally makes it unnecessary. (I'm not referring to tilt and swing used for pictorial effect) Having said that, I usually carry my D3 with the 45 mm TS lens mounted because it happens to be an excellent lens, and shift is useful at times. Remember that focus confirmation and exposure do not work properly when tilt and/or shift are used. It is, therefore, useful to have a decent optical or electronic viewfinder and/or live view. A gridded screen, such as the Nikon E screen, can also be helpful. 

I do use TS lenses with 'full frame' digital for product photography, for which the combination is near ideal.

Remember that TS, or plain shift lenses, need a greater image circle (the area they project an image onto) than fixed lenses. This may not bother you if you are using lens movements for effect rather than perspective correction or focus plane control.

If you are interested in focus plane control, Google 'scheimpflug principle'.

Despite what one of the previous posters wrote, all the tilt-shift and shift lenses I know of move the entire lens rather than only one group of elements or a single element. The optical properties of the lens are unchanged by the lens movement and nothing magic or arcane happens or needs to happen.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Dao (Jul 13, 2010)

OMG ...  Welcome Back Helen!!  We miss you here!


----------



## Helen B (Jul 14, 2010)

And here's me thinking that you would all be glad to be rid of me!

Thanks Dao.

Best,
Helen


----------



## icassell (Jul 14, 2010)

Let me echo Dao's comment -- Welcome Back!


----------



## SimpleFoto (Jul 15, 2010)

Here is a tilt shift how to video

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwYIl3SF6vY[/ame]


----------



## UUilliam (Jul 15, 2010)

If it is the miniture effect you are after...

Tilt-Shift Photography Photoshop Tutorial | Miniature Faking | TiltShiftPhotography.net

thank me later


----------



## Helen B (Jul 16, 2010)

icassell said:


> Let me echo Dao's comment -- Welcome Back!



Thanks Ian. 

Best wishes,
Helen


----------



## epatsellis (Jul 16, 2010)

Helen, great to see you again!!!!


Pete, regarding your comment on application in landscape work, I use slight tilt a great deal, predominantly with either a 65mm or 90mm(on 4x5) or a 120 (on 8x10), a slight tilt forward moves the focal plane closer to the ground (as you are aware, I'm sure), so when I emphasize the near/far juxatposition I am able to maintain focus on a plane reasonably coincident with the ground. 

It's a technique that has been in use for over a decade, when done right, you don't notice it. When done wrong (excessive rear tilt causing geometric distortions, etc.) it's screams at you.

erie


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jul 16, 2010)

epatsellis said:


> Helen, great to see you again!!!!
> 
> 
> Pete, regarding your comment on application in landscape work, I use slight tilt a great deal, predominantly with either a 65mm or 90mm(on 4x5) or a 120 (on 8x10), a slight tilt forward moves the focal plane closer to the ground (as you are aware, I'm sure), so when I emphasize the near/far juxatposition I am able to maintain focus on a plane reasonably coincident with the ground.
> ...



Interesting. Can you post a sample?


----------



## Helen B (Jul 16, 2010)

Are these examples of the sort of images you referred to? Tilt being used to keep the ground in focus beyond what would be possible with 'normal' use of depth of field? Both 5x4 images.












Best,
Helen


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jul 16, 2010)

Call me dumb if you will but I don't see what in those photos cannot be done with a regular wide angle.

Maybe I need to try it to get it...


----------



## Helen B (Jul 16, 2010)

Neither of them are wide angle photos. Using a wide angle lens would affect the perspective, of course. At web magnification it is not possible to see the resolution that is visible when they are printed large - the idea is that when printed large you can immerse yourself in the image with as little as possible detracting from the detail that was in the original scene. Stopping down to achieve sufficient DoF would result in unacceptable (to me) loss of definition in the case of the snow image and unacceptably long shutter speeds in the case of the pool image - I wanted to freeze the subtle light dancing on the water.

Does that make sense to you?

Best,
Helen


----------



## Christie Photo (Jul 16, 2010)

c.cloudwalker said:


> epatsellis said:
> 
> 
> > Pete, regarding your comment on application in landscape work, I use slight tilt a great deal...
> ...



I doubt it would be evident in a sample.

Erie...  don't you agree?  Especially working with lenses that short, a person would be hard pressed to see the benefit...  unless there are some big, puffy clouds in the sky...  out of focus.

-Pete


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jul 16, 2010)

Ok, yes, that does and thank you for playing along. And you are making a secondary point that I have tried to make a few times, ie we should be looking at prints rather than images on the web.

I have seen enough of my photos on the web to know they don't look quite the same. IMHO, the web is not the best place to look at photos and, therefore, it is not the place to judge them.


----------



## Christie Photo (Jul 16, 2010)

Oh...  nearly forgot.  I wanted to get in on the love-fest too.

Good to see you back, Helen!

-Pete


----------



## epatsellis (Jul 16, 2010)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Interesting. Can you post a sample?



As other's have said, it's hard to show unless done wrong. I don't keep that detailed notes on my images, though I'll dig and see what I have and if I remember. 

Coming from a fixed camera standpoint, you really can't get a feel for just how versatile camera movements can be. It's something that many struggle with for a long time, until the "a ha" moment, then it all becomes clear. 

Here's one that illustrates movements very well, but not landscape:







There is no way you can maintain focus sharply across the entire assembly using anything else but camera movements, this particular piece is approx 48" wide, and shot with a scanback on a Sinar P. 

Another, this time a landscape photo shot on 8x10 film, if I remember right, with front tilt and swing as well.





Another, with movements made to maintain (as best I could in the freezing cold) the plane of focus on the fence posts






All of these are subtle, I have a print of the lake image 50" wide, then it's very obvious, on smaller prints, it's not so obvious.


----------



## epatsellis (Jul 16, 2010)

To give you an idea of the shooting conditions for the last shot, here's a few snaps from my wife:








(I had to chip pockets into the ice to get the tripod to stay put)


----------



## epatsellis (Jul 16, 2010)

Here's another I just found, along with the setup shot:






and the camera setup (showing max front tilt, to get more I would need to start tilting the rear in reverse which changes the geometry of the image) Aperture looks to be around f16 with 210 Symmar-S:


----------



## Mike_E (Jul 16, 2010)

If I might give it a try?

When you focus a lens the of depth of focus is roughly a square box where the point of focus is (again roughly) one third of the way into the box.






When you tilt the lens you move the shape of the box in the same direction.  So your depth of field becomes







thereby making the things close to the ground in focus closer to the camera and the things in the air more in focus further away.

Have I confused things any further?  

Forgive the drawings. They're from short notice.


----------



## epatsellis (Jul 16, 2010)

If you google schiempflug you'll find a much better explanation. (you may want to try hinge rule as well.)


----------



## epatsellis (Jul 17, 2010)

Some things to keep in mind, DOF is really only a way of saying "acceptably unsharp", there is only one plane of focus. In a fixed lens camera, that plane is parallel to the lens/imaging unit plane. (consistent with Schiempflug, which states that the planes of the film, lens and subject much all meet at a single point). When you tilt either the lens plane or film plane (or both), Schiempflug must still apply, and there is only one plane truly in focus, which must meet the lens and film plane at some point. 

With a large format camera, you can use this to your advantage, if you have a plane that you want in focus, you can visualize the planes and roughly determine how much swing or tilt you need to employ. 

In the case of having the ground consistently in focus front to back, a front lens tilt or rear film tilt will have the same effect, IF the 3 planes are coincident at some point. It does take practice, and experience, but once you are able to use movements to control the plane of focus, your visual choices and controls are vastly expanded.


----------

