# Camera Tilt - A Mini-Rant



## Pugs (Jan 6, 2010)

So... what is it with the whole camera tilt thing?!  Could someone please explain to me why it is SUCH a popular technique?

Photographic techniques should enhance an image and should be done purposefully.  "It's artistic" or "I wanted it to be funky" are NOT good reasons!  How is it making the shot more artistic?  How is it making the shot funky?  If you can't answer those questions, then it probably is not an appropriate technique!

Camera tilt to emphasize a line or shape and where it is heading...  That's a good reason!  A toddler learning to walk and you want to emphasize the awkward clumsiness of those first attempts...  That's a good reason!  

Composition rules like the rule of thirds, the golden mean/ratio/spiral/rectangle/triangle/shower, action moving into negative space, leading lines, symmetry, balance, repetition, etc... are all meant to be broken.  But breaking a rule without purpose is NOT creative, NOT artistic, and NOT helping your image any!  Learn the rules and then break them to make a point, break them with purpose, break them to convey a feeling or story, just make sure you actually have a rational and creative reason for it!

'Kay... I'm done... just had to get that off of my chest...


----------



## PhotoXopher (Jan 6, 2010)

Feels good, doesn't it.


----------



## Mulewings~ (Jan 6, 2010)

I get tilted when trying to lean over a creek and not fall in while taking photos...or
too much to drink!:lmao::lmao:


----------



## rufus5150 (Jan 6, 2010)

I don't, often, but the shot has worked for me in a few rare occasions (the most recent was capturing my daughter on the extent of her on a swing, as it added to the motion of the photo, and another one was to take a regular picture of the underside of suspended stairs and change the angles such that it was more abstract, but I digress). I've recently seen it actually recommended as a means to get more of a person in a frame, and a 'good technique' for an edgy photo.

But I can tell you why it's so popular ... people love it. I generally include one tilted shot and one selective color shot in client photos, even though it sometimes pains me to do so, and people eat them up. Almost always result in an order.


----------



## bigtwinky (Jan 6, 2010)

I'm still in a learning phase with tilting, just as with something like HDR, you need to find the right moment for it to work properly.

So I tend to tilt more than less these days, trying to figure out where and when it works. 

There is also the amount of tilt in a photo.  From a slight tilt to the "OMG he is falling off the frame" tilt.  All need to be explored, tried and understood.

But again to compare with HDR, people tend to cling to it and keep doing thinking its funky and cool.


----------



## themedicine (Jan 6, 2010)

Pugs, I feel like you and I are gonna get along splendidly.


----------



## pharmakon (Jan 6, 2010)

Another buzz word for use of things like HDR, Tilt, selective color, etc...  is trendy. At some point or another you have seen it work well and even make money or possibly it defined a well known artist's work, but then a lot of the time the newbs like myself think "hey that's cool looking, and they're a pro, so I'm gonna try that out to see if I can get the same 'pro' look" (while all the other rules of composition fly out the window) and that's when the trendy stuff gets overused, and people start to hate it. 

I think there's a time and place for all sorts of gimmicks(for lack of a better term), but kind of like what bigtwinky said, when people are learning them they will tend to try it out a lot, and not always in ways that work well. But then again how will you know what works and what doesn't until you get comfortable with the technique?

as a side note: I'm still working on the basic rules of a good composition, I don't always get it right, but I won't be giving up on the technique any time soon.


----------



## Pugs (Jan 6, 2010)

PhotoXopher said:


> Feels good, doesn't it.



Heh!  It actually does!



Mulewings~ said:


> I get tilted when trying to lean over a creek and not fall in while taking photos...or
> too much to drink!:lmao::lmao:



  Well, those things might actually be part of the point or the story being told by the photo!  



rufus5150 said:


> I don't, often, but the shot has worked for me in a few rare occasions (the most recent was capturing my daughter on the extent of her on a swing, as it added to the motion of the photo, and another one was to take a regular picture of the underside of suspended stairs and change the angles such that it was more abstract, but I digress). I've recently seen it actually recommended as a means to get more of a person in a frame, and a 'good technique' for an edgy photo.
> 
> *But I can tell you why it's so popular ... people love it. I generally include one tilted shot and one selective color shot in client photos, even though it sometimes pains me to do so, and people eat them up. Almost always result in an order.*



Todd... you just made me cry a little...  you're breaking my heart with this insight...

And selective color is another one that sets me off most of the time!



bigtwinky said:


> I'm still in a learning phase with tilting, just as with something like HDR, you need to find the right moment for it to work properly.
> 
> So I tend to tilt more than less these days, trying to figure out where and when it works.
> 
> ...



Pierre!  You know how I feel about HDR!  Between you mentioning HDR and Todd mentioning selective color, I may need blood pressure meds!  



themedicine said:


> Pugs, I feel like you and I are gonna get along splendidly.



Right-on!



pharmakon said:


> Another buzz word for use of things like HDR, Tilt, selective color, etc... is trendy. At some point or another you have seen it work well and even make money or possibly it defined a well known artist's work, but then a lot of the time the newbs like myself think "hey that's cool looking, and they're a pro, so I'm gonna try that out to see if I can get the same 'pro' look" (while all the other rules of composition fly out the window) and that's when the trendy stuff gets overused, and people start to hate it.
> 
> I think there's a time and place for all sorts of gimmicks(for lack of a better term), but kind of like what bigtwinky said, when people are learning them they will tend to try it out a lot, and not always in ways that work well. But then again how will you know what works and what doesn't until you get comfortable with the technique?
> 
> as a side note: I'm still working on the basic rules of a good composition, I don't always get it right, but I won't be giving up on the technique any time soon.



And I get that.  Imitation is how we improve.  It's just c'mon... you don't use a hammer to drive a philips head screw, do you?!  It's a tool that should be used when appropriate!

I'm glad that you're working on the basics of composition!  I wish that others would take the same approach!  Learn the basics and then learn how to creatively break out of that mold and how to creatively use that foundation!


----------



## pharmakon (Jan 6, 2010)

Pugs said:


> I'm glad that you're working on the basics of composition! I wish that others would take the same approach! Learn the basics and then learn how to creatively break out of that mold and how to creatively use that foundation!


 
Like they say... you gotta walk before you can run...  or something like that


----------



## gsgary (Jan 6, 2010)

Most of Garry Winnogrands shots had a tilt because he was shooting so quick but nobody had a rant at him because they looked so good
I use it when i'm shooting motorbike racing http://gsgary.smugmug.com/Sports/Sports-Portfolio/Image00037/188043117_ZSJPr-L.jpg
rallying and cycle racing


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jan 6, 2010)

Pugs said:


> So... what is it with the whole camera tilt thing?!  Could someone please explain to me why it is SUCH a popular technique?



Can't help you there because I don't get it either. Can't stand all the tilting going on that adds nothing whatsoever to the image. It sometimes works but it's pretty rare imho. And I have a simple test for deciding: if the image makes me turn my head, the tilt did not work. 




Mulewings~ said:


> I get tilted when ... too much to drink!:lmao::lmao:



Now, that, I can understand. :lmao:


----------



## Pugs (Jan 6, 2010)

gsgary said:


> Most of Garry Winnogrands shots had a tilt because he was shooting so quick but nobody had a rant at him because they looked so good
> I use it when i'm shooting motorbike racing http://gsgary.smugmug.com/Sports/Sports-Portfolio/Image00037/188043117_ZSJPr-L.jpg
> rallying and cycle racing



Most of us aren't Gary Winnogrand!  

And the shot you gave as a sample of your tilted camera work, actually is an example of how to use it appropriately.  In your sample, it's creating a sense of motion, it's emphasizing that LEAN into a turn, and it's giving that sense of flowing downhill which is actually how I feel when I take a corner aggressively (but I have a big-a$$ muscle cruiser and would low-side if I got THAT aggressive!  LOL!!).


----------



## gsgary (Jan 6, 2010)

Pugs said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Most of Garry Winnogrands shots had a tilt because he was shooting so quick but nobody had a rant at him because they looked so good
> ...



Cheers, get yourself a GS it will do anything :mrgreen:


----------



## Chiller (Jan 6, 2010)

I use the tilt method a lot in the horror shoots, and live band shoots.  With shooting in the horror world, it adds more to the chaos of the shot. Straight on, seems....normal and boring in *some  *situations.
 I find shooting live acts in clubs the same.  Once there is a guitar strapped onto somebody, the confines are tight, a lot of movement between members, the tilt can work to my advantage to get rid of distractions.  Most of the bands that have used my photos prefer the tilt. 
I dont think there is a right or wrong way to shoot any photo, just opinions.  I have been hunting the name of the person who wrote the "Rules of Photography" but his/her book is not available on Amazon. 
  I do what I want.  It is my image. :mrgreen:


----------



## gsgary (Jan 6, 2010)

Chiller said:


> I use the tilt method a lot in the horror shoots, and live band shoots.  With shooting in the horror world, it adds more to the chaos of the shot. Straight on, seems....normal and boring in *some  *situations.
> I find shooting live acts in clubs the same.  Once there is a guitar strapped onto somebody, the confines are tight, a lot of movement between members, the tilt can work to my advantage to get rid of distractions.  Most of the bands that have used my photos prefer the tilt.
> I dont think there is a right or wrong way to shoot any photo, just opinions.  I have been hunting the name of the person who wrote the "Rules of Photography" but his/her book is not available on Amazon.
> I do what I want.  It is my image. :mrgreen:




Forgot about that i will tilt to get the whole guitar in


----------



## Dominantly (Jan 6, 2010)

suck it






:lmao:


----------



## Christie Photo (Jan 6, 2010)

Pugs said:


> So... what is it with the whole camera tilt thing?!  Could someone please explain to me why it is SUCH a popular technique?



I'm not a big fan either.  But I will venture a guess:

Today's cameras make it possible for just about anyone to make exposures that are adequately exposed and in focus.  Along with the advances in camera technology came a flood of camera users, feeling secure they could produce images consistently enough to offer themselves for hire.  Although they have little or no background or training in posing or lighting, these people continue to get plenty of customers, working for very little or no pay.  Countless mediocre images pour into the market daily.  So....  when the camera gets tipped to one side, diagonal lines suddenly appear in the composition, providing a bit of motion...  some interest.  None of the players, customers and camera users alike, has a clue why the image strangely stands out from others.  It just seems nicer.

It's either all that, or I'm just as you...  baffled by the whole phenomenon.

-Pete


----------



## Pugs (Jan 6, 2010)

Dominantly said:


> suck it
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh! No you di'n't!  LOL!!:lmao:


----------



## KmH (Jan 6, 2010)

Dominantly said:


> suck it
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hey! Balboa Park! I used to skate there and terrorize tourists all summer long zipping up and down the sidwalk.......Great memories, I was skinny then. They passed a law.....:lmao:


----------



## Dominantly (Jan 6, 2010)

Sure is Balboa Park! I went there a little while back for a walkabout with my camera... 
Couple photos in here if interested Structures - Dominant Photography-- Brandon Fischer


----------



## Pugs (Jan 6, 2010)

Dominantly said:


> Sure is Balboa Park! I went there a little while back for a walkabout with my camera...
> Couple photos in here if interested Structures - Dominant Photography-- Brandon Fischer


I didn't recognize it!  But... then again, I've only been there once.  My buddy got married in La Jolla in September and my wife and I made a day trip out of Balboa Park.


----------



## CSR Studio (Jan 6, 2010)

rufus5150 said:


> But I can tell you why it's so popular ... people love it. I generally include one tilted shot and one selective color shot in client photos, even though it sometimes pains me to do so, and people eat them up. Almost always result in an order.


 
Do your clients really like it that much because mine don't like it at all. I even have cleints telling me when we sit down to talk the first time that they don't want any of the tilty pictures.



pharmakon said:


> Another buzz word for use of things like HDR, Tilt, selective color, etc... is trendy. At some point or another you have seen it work well and even make money or possibly it defined a well known artist's work, but then a lot of the time the newbs like myself think "hey that's cool looking, and they're a pro, so I'm gonna try that out to see if I can get the same 'pro' look" (while all the other rules of composition fly out the window) and that's when the trendy stuff gets overused, and people start to hate it.
> 
> I think there's a time and place for all sorts of gimmicks(for lack of a better term), but kind of like what bigtwinky said, when people are learning them they will tend to try it out a lot, and not always in ways that work well. But then again how will you know what works and what doesn't until you get comfortable with the technique?
> 
> as a side note: I'm still working on the basic rules of a good composition, I don't always get it right, but I won't be giving up on the technique any time soon.


 
I understand that new photographers are trying different things but if you aren't at the point to know when something is enhanced or not by a gimmick then they should stick with the basics until they get to that point. Don't you think?

As a side note, a technically good photograph that evokes emotion is never boring.


----------



## rufus5150 (Jan 6, 2010)

> Do your clients really like it that much because mine don't like it at all.



When I ask for ideas, it's almost always the first one that comes up. "Can you do those angle shots? I really like those."


----------



## CSR Studio (Jan 6, 2010)

rufus5150 said:


> > Do your clients really like it that much because mine don't like it at all.
> 
> 
> 
> When I ask for ideas, it's almost always the first one that comes up. "Can you do those angle shots? I really like those."


 
I'm sorry for you. Sure glad mine don't like it! :mrgreen:


----------



## Antithesis (Jan 7, 2010)

I think sticking to stringent compositional rules is just plain retarded. If everyone did that, then we wouldn't have any variety, just the same old crap. I've actually heard some pretty strong criticism of people like Ansel Adams for being so damn mathematical about his composition. I know that probably sounds dumb, but in my opinion the drama of the moment in his photos are more important than a perfectly horizontal horizon. 

I've also had photography teachers tell me to add some tilt to photos, because it can often add drama to an otherwise boring shot. And, working as a wedding photographer for almost a year, tilting your camera was the norm. If you had a good subject in front of you, you'd shoot a horizontal, portrait and everything in between, and often the angles in between will end up being the more interesting photos. You can only arrange a bride and groom so many ways, or take so many dancing shots before it's time to tilt the camera and hope for some interesting photos. I've applied this outside of wedding photography, even to some landscapes and stuff, and it really can add interest.

I know that sounds haphazard, but show me one photographer who doesn't experiment with composition like that, and I'll show you a series of boring ass photos that look like everybody else's who adheres strictly to the rule of thirds and the golden ratio. Breaking those rules is freeing and can help you see your subjects in a different way. Granted, there is a time and a place for everything.


----------



## stephenrapoport (Jan 8, 2010)

....and relax!


----------



## gsgary (Jan 8, 2010)

Antithesis said:


> I think sticking to stringent compositional rules is just plain retarded. If everyone did that, then we wouldn't have any variety, just the same old crap. I've actually heard some pretty strong criticism of people like Ansel Adams for being so damn mathematical about his composition. I know that probably sounds dumb, but in my opinion the drama of the moment in his photos are more important than a perfectly horizontal horizon.
> 
> I've also had photography teachers tell me to add some tilt to photos, because it can often add drama to an otherwise boring shot. And, working as a wedding photographer for almost a year, tilting your camera was the norm. If you had a good subject in front of you, you'd shoot a horizontal, portrait and everything in between, and often the angles in between will end up being the more interesting photos. You can only arrange a bride and groom so many ways, or take so many dancing shots before it's time to tilt the camera and hope for some interesting photos. I've applied this outside of wedding photography, even to some landscapes and stuff, and it really can add interest.
> 
> I know that sounds haphazard, but show me one photographer who doesn't experiment with composition like that, and I'll show you a series of boring ass photos that look like everybody else's who adheres strictly to the rule of thirds and the golden ratio. Breaking those rules is freeing and can help you see your subjects in a different way. Granted, there is a time and a place for everything.




You shoot weddings with an E420 ?


----------



## epp_b (Jan 8, 2010)

As with most things, moderation is key.  Most of the time, tilting is used by talentless hacks who think it improves a dull photo (it doesn't).


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jan 8, 2010)

Antithesis said:


> I think sticking to stringent compositional rules is just plain retarded. If everyone did that, then we wouldn't have any variety, just the same old crap.
> Agreed until you change the word "rule" for that much nicer one "guidelines." What you call rules are not really so except for the noob. The noob (nothing bad intended here, btw, as we were all noobs once upon a time) has a lot to learn and having somewhat strict rules to deal with allows him to concentrate on what is more important, at first.
> 
> The rules allow him/her to come up with a decent photo if not a creative one. As the noob progresses, he/she can throw away all the rules and come up with his/her own vision. But you have to know the rules and know how to apply them before you can break them.
> ...




Not trying to be mean. Just trying to bring in a sense of reality.


----------



## Christie Photo (Jan 8, 2010)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Agreed until you change the word "rule" for that much nicer one "guidelines." .... Just breaking a rule does not make you creative.




Maybe a better yet description is the phrase "conventional wisdom."

I couldn't agree more.  Merely abandoning (or failing to learn) what is widely accepted as "good" is not in and of itself creative.

Simply put, producing work that is different is not the same as producing *good* work that is different.

-Pete


----------



## Antithesis (Jan 8, 2010)

gsgary said:


> You shoot weddings with an E420 ?



No, I shot weddings with a 5D and a 20D, a 24-70L, a 70-200L and a bunch of primes. The e-420 is like my 8th dSLR, plus a few film SLR's before that. I bought it to travel with as I sold my 5D to pay rent after I got laid off from the studio I used to shoot for. Ironic I know.

The Oly is just a little travel camera and something cheap to keep me shooting until I finish school.



c.cloudwalker said:


> I think sticking to stringent compositional rules is just plain retarded. If everyone did that, then we wouldn't have any variety, just the same old crap.
> Agreed until you change the word "rule" for that much nicer one "guidelines." What you call rules are not really so except for the noob. The noob (nothing bad intended here, btw, as we were all noobs once upon a time) has a lot to learn and having somewhat strict rules to deal with allows him to concentrate on what is more important, at first.
> 
> The rules allow him/her to come up with a decent photo if not a creative one. As the noob progresses, he/she can throw away all the rules and come up with his/her own vision. But you have to know the rules and know how to apply them before you can break them.
> ...



I'm just re-criticizing the people that insist that there can be no good way to tilt a camera. Certainly you shouldn't tilt every shot, just like you shouldn't shoot everything on a fisheye or cross process everything. Just because it's a trend, doesn't mean its not useful or compelling. The same way that HDR can be useful in producing some gorgeous landscapes. 

"Maybe a wedding is not a time to be that creative. Maybe it is more a time to capture the event."

I think it's easy to do both. Many people also cherish gorgeous, fine art images that can be blown up to a 20x30 and put up on the wall. At the studio where I was formerly employed, it was pretty standard for people to purchase numerous large prints to frame on top of their albums. I'm pretty sure these wouldn't sell if you were shooting strictly documentary photographs. Images with differing compositions can also be used to add variety to an album, while still covering the documentary side of things.

And many clients chose our studio strictly because we were very creative. And because of that we ended up with the highest paying clients in our neck of the woods, and often outside of it.

Also, much of your statement is saying that it's not creative to do this or that, and criticizing something because it's a trend. Following that thought process would totally do away with the rule of thirds or any other compositional "guidelines". They are all just additional tools to help us compose a shot when we are at creative odds with a subject. I don't think any of us have the right to really tell anyone that they are composing an image "wrong", even if they are imitating someone else.

Oh, and look at Adams' "Clearing Winter Storm" and tell me that's not dramatic. It's my favorite photo from any artist for that very reason.


----------



## rufus5150 (Jan 10, 2010)

Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned. It has been 3 months since my last tilting. Today, I took a picture of paperclips. The photo was not exciting. I tilted the camera and took it again and liked the result...


----------



## patrickt (Jan 10, 2010)

Rules aren't made to be broken. They're made to be followed unless you have a reason to break them. There can be a variety of worthy reasons but "because my teacher said it was more artistic" isn't one of them. A friend recently asked me to critique some photos. Every single one was at an odd angle because the teacher had said......

I went to an exhibit where the photographer had discovered the wonderful world of IR. Thirty prints, every one IR. Boring.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 10, 2010)

rufus5150 said:


> Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned. It has been 3 months since my last tilting. Today, I took a picture of paperclips. The photo was not exciting. I tilted the camera and took it again and liked the result...



^^^+1. An excellent point you've made. Touche!


----------



## Antithesis (Jan 13, 2010)

patrickt said:


> Rules aren't made to be broken. They're made to be followed unless you have a reason to break them. There can be a variety of worthy reasons but "because my teacher said it was more artistic" isn't one of them. A friend recently asked me to critique some photos. Every single one was at an odd angle because the teacher had said......
> 
> I went to an exhibit where the photographer had discovered the wonderful world of IR. Thirty prints, every one IR. Boring.



I think there is a difference between telling someone it is more artistic to "tilt" your photos than someone telling you to just try different compositions, which may or may not include tilting your camera. Obviously, having every single photo look exactly the same produces a very dull series of images and should be avoided.

My point is to have variety. I think I may actually be agreeing with the OP in that I dislike repetition just as much. I'm also saying that a technique shouldn't be obliterated from your repertoire simply because many people have used it poorly. I actually have a macro/landscape photo around somewhere that worked very well with a tilted horizon, and might actually look significantly worse without it. I'll post it up when I can find the DVD that it's on and see if anyone else agrees.


----------



## Pugs (Jan 13, 2010)

As the original poster, I was venting (a little tongue-in-cheek) about how tilting seems to be a "trend" of sorts and for some photographers has become a "rule" in and of itself.  As I've stated before, there is a time and place for this technique and, like any photographic technique, it really is another tool in the toolbox to be used when it fits the composition or the feel of the photo.  

My beef is that it seems like the assumption is that "breaking rules" (like the level horizon line, or the "rule" of thirds, or rule of negative space, or creating lines and shapes, or...) auto-magically makes a photo more artistic.  I've been accused of dumping on other people's "style", but that's not my intent.  I'm merely pointing out that in my opinion, using a single technique to be "different" is not necessarily a "style".  

By the same token, rigidly following the "rules" is not a style either.  The "rules" or in my opinion more accurately, the guidelines, is something like learning to ride a bicycle with both feet on the pedals and both hands on the handlebars before learning to ride no handed, or to do wheelies, or to stand up on the pedals, or...  

The thing is that while it's difficult to do a wheelie without knowing how to keep a bike upright in the first place, it is far more simple to pick up a camera and tilt it.  So what we get are people who might not understand composition latching on to a VERY popular technique and over-using (in my opinion) because that is all they see.  They see an INCREDIBLE photograph and note the tilted horizon line and that's all.  They don't see the leading lines.  They don't see the deepening levels of foreground, middleground, and background.  They don't see the shallow or deep depth of field.  They don't see the emotion.  They don't see the tonal range.  They don't see the perfect exposure.  They don't see...  Or at least they don't consciously see these things; they don't understand that ALL of these things are contributing to how powerful the photograph truly is.  They do, however, note the tilted horizon because it stands out, even to an untrained eye.  So, in an attempt to emulate the style/feel/power of that photograph, they start tilting their cameras.  

Emulation is good!  It's how we learn.  Babies learn to talk by trying to emulate the sounds that people around them make.  By trying to mimic a technique, we can master it and put it in our toolbag.  But we NEED other things in that toolbag or the imitation is shallow and trite.  

So, my rant about tilting was a little tongue-in-cheek, maybe a little poorly written in that it didn't convey everything I meant, but it was cathartic.

Go ahead and tilt your camera!  Just make sure that you're using the right tool for the job.


----------



## bennielou (Jan 13, 2010)

I hear your pain Pugs. LOL.

It's a gimmick.  You can put it in there with the "fade", "aged", "selective", "textured" category.  A new disturbing trend is the completely out of focus photo.  I kid you not.  People are doing this on purpose.  Even big time commercial shooters.  

But just like Jesus in the Brandy Glass  or the B&G smiling down onto the wedding ceremony photos are a thing of the past, these gimmicks too will pass.  Unfortunately only to be replaced with other gimmicks.

Now I'm not saying I haven't done these same gimmicks for clients in the past because they asked for it, but I did so with great grimacing.  

Anyhoo, if you blink for a moment, it will be gone.


----------



## javier (Jan 14, 2010)

Personally, I am a huge fan of the tilt. I believe it really enhances ''some'' street images. I do it often and purposeful. I believe a part of the question is; How much tilt is too much? A very subtle tilt looks like a mistake or bad technique. Now having said that, I find the tilt to be attractive only in street images. But this is me.


----------



## xintax (Jan 14, 2010)

Hahaha! I sometimes use tilts when I see a lot of lines in the picture... I hate parallels... I also do tilts when I'm in an awkward position (taking pictures of animals on my head or one leg on the ground, one leg on the wall situations)... or, like MuleWings... when I am drunk and the camera strap is wound up on my neck and/or wrist... heehee... 

But I do agree that there has to be some degree of propriety to tilting... Will try to lessen the use... Hahaha!!!


----------



## rufus5150 (Jan 14, 2010)

> I hate parallels...



Not one to burst bubbles, but even if you tilt, the lines within the frame are still parallel


----------



## Antithesis (Jan 14, 2010)

Pugs said:


> As the original poster, I was venting (a little tongue-in-cheek) about how tilting seems to be a "trend" of sorts and for some photographers has become a "rule" in and of itself.  As I've stated before, there is a time and place for this technique and, like any photographic technique, it really is another tool in the toolbox to be used when it fits the composition or the feel of the photo.
> 
> My beef is that it seems like the assumption is that "breaking rules" (like the level horizon line, or the "rule" of thirds, or rule of negative space, or creating lines and shapes, or...) auto-magically makes a photo more artistic.  I've been accused of dumping on other people's "style", but that's not my intent.  I'm merely pointing out that in my opinion, using a single technique to be "different" is not necessarily a "style".
> 
> ...



I also agree that you shouldn't simply break the "rules" or "guidelines" just to be different. It's a matter of intention, however questionable that intention is. Like, with out of focus photos. 

For example, I was in a photography class and the TA gave a big presentation on one of his favorite photographers and displayed an entire series from the guy that were all out of focus. Out of the 20 or so images he displayed, about half of them were just out of focus pictures of the horizon in the dead center of the image, in black and white. They looked almost exactly the same, with some very subtle differences in tone.

I stood up and decided to question the quality of the photos. I got the response that the images "were intended to look that way". I understood that they were supposed to be out of focus, and I responded that if I did that, they would be just considered erroneous and completely disregarded. I still don't understand or appreciate photography like that, regardless of intention. I actually got a small round of applause from the teacher for being the only person that criticized the "artwork", while all the other art students were busy searching for some sort of meaning in photographs where there really was none. I understand that the photos may have been intended to be that way, but it certainly doesn't create anything compelling (for me anyways).

I don't know where I was going with that other than the fact that we are all of different opinions, and sometimes it's necessary to go against the grain. I happen to think a tilted photo can add something to certain photos of certain subjects. For example: some architecture, people photography or motorsports, to name a few.


----------



## DennyCrane (Jan 14, 2010)

I blame the Facey Space social networking site generation and all the crappy phone camera pictures posted there. And yes, I am being serious.


----------



## bennielou (Jan 14, 2010)

Antithesis said:


> Pugs said:
> 
> 
> > As the original poster, I was venting (a little tongue-in-cheek) about how tilting seems to be a "trend" of sorts and for some photographers has become a "rule" in and of itself. As I've stated before, there is a time and place for this technique and, like any photographic technique, it really is another tool in the toolbox to be used when it fits the composition or the feel of the photo.
> ...


 
Your posts are well thought out and I agree with you on many aspects.

However, would you not agree that some photogs see something new, and use it to the enth?  IE: Tilt, Tilt Shift, Textures, Cross process...etc

(And by the way, tilt and tilt shift are two way differnt techs as far as I know).

Anyhoo, I knew this one girl who was a really artistic kind of gal who could have made a ton of money in wedding photography.  She had an outstanding eye.
But every single shot she took was a tilt shot, and every outdoor shot was not only tilted, but also had a sunburst.  Every.  Single.  One.
Next thing I know, she is getting sued left and right by wedding clients.  She finally filed for bankrupsy and moved out of state.  

I think the lesson here is a neat thing goes a long way.  Use gimmicks sparingly.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jan 14, 2010)

rufus5150 said:


> > I hate parallels...
> 
> 
> 
> Not one to burst bubbles, but even if you tilt, the lines within the frame are still parallel



:thumbup:  That was my first thought. 




Antithesis said:


> I also agree that you shouldn't simply break the "rules" or "guidelines" just to be different. It's a matter of intention, however questionable that intention is. Like, with out of focus photos.
> 
> For example, I was in a photography class and the TA gave a big presentation on one of his favorite photographers and displayed an entire series from the guy that were all out of focus. Out of the 20 or so images he displayed, about half of them were just out of focus pictures of the horizon in the dead center of the image, in black and white. They looked almost exactly the same, with some very subtle differences in tone.
> 
> ...



Well I don't know if I'm responsible for starting a movement but seeing more people use the word guidelines makes me happy. And call me an anarchist if you will but I have a problem with rules anyway 

That said, it is a lovely story. However, your professor may have applauded more for your thinking for yourself than for your thinking what was shown was crap. This is the biggest dilemma of the art world. What is crap? What is hype? What is truly artistic? Plenty of people hate some of my favorite artists such as Jackson Pollock. Plenty of people hated some of the work I've shown, some calling it what they left in their darkroom trash 

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...


----------



## djacobox372 (Jan 15, 2010)

Out of 180 degrees of possible tilt, there is only a 0.5% chance that the ideal composition will be one that is not tilted.

The question should be: why so little camera tilt?


----------



## Pugs (Jan 15, 2010)

djacobox372 said:


> Out of 180 degrees of possible tilt, there is only a 0.5% chance that the ideal composition will be one that is not tilted.
> 
> The question should be: why so little camera tilt?


Because statistical probability has no correlation whatsoever to creativity?  

Because you assuming that ALL 180 degrees of tilt have equal artistic merit and that's simply not true?

Personally I think that it's a combination of the two...


----------



## djacobox372 (Jan 18, 2010)

Pugs said:


> djacobox372 said:
> 
> 
> > Out of 180 degrees of possible tilt, there is only a 0.5% chance that the ideal composition will be one that is not tilted.
> ...



I for one would not recommend elevating the "artistic merit" of any given composition over another, otherwise you may miss something amazing that you weren't looking for.


----------



## Pugs (Jan 19, 2010)

djacobox372 said:


> Pugs said:
> 
> 
> > djacobox372 said:
> ...


So... you're recommending that every shot be taken at all 180 degrees just so that you don't miss something?

Seriously, I'm an IT Project Manager and Management Consultant.  I spend my working life immersed in numbers, probabilities, statistical analysis, etc...  When you have odds like 1 out of 180, you find ways to narrow that down and be more precise.  You use things like your past experience, the examples of those who came before you, the knowledge of those who have put in more time and study, and so on to make it so that you're NOT reinventing the wheel with every shot.  

To use your logic, I my camera can handle shutter speeds from 30 seconds to 1/8000 seconds; I need to try every one of the shutter speed settings it can handle so that I don't miss something even though my experience, the examples of those who've gone before me, the knowledge of those who've put in more time and study say that a 30 second exposure won't work at Noon in direct sunlight a f/1.8.  

Your argument lacks logic and is somewhat pedantic.


----------



## javier (Jan 20, 2010)

Pugs,
I was thinking about you the day before yesterday as I was pp some images I took a few months back.. 
This is an intentional tilt by the way.


----------



## Peyton (Jan 20, 2010)

In the mini-rant thread about camera tilt, a couple of people brought up some of my other photographic pet-peeves. I thought that it would be fun to see what sets all of your teeth on edge so if you have photographic pet-peeves.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 20, 2010)

Oh hey LOOK!  Another rant thread by Pugs!  How exceptionally beneficial.

Here, Pugs, try this...

John Singer Sargent walks up to Pablo Picasso...
JSS: "Good lord, man, that doesn't even _look_ like a woman!  There are RULES to painting people, you know.  Here, let me just fix that for you..."

Can you imagine Pablo's reaction to this?

Tell me, exactly, how you or anyone who dabbles in the artistry of anything gets to set rules or even guidelines of what is acceptable or appropriate.  

What each individual artist does is up to them.  If it doesn't happen to click with you, then so be it.  It didn't click.  Maybe it wasn't supposed to.  Who knows?  Who cares.  Stop trying to dictate to people what they can and cannot do with their artistic tools.

Look ...






Man, I not only tilted this but I did an HDR!  Oh noes!  I must have done it to be trendy, because there's absolutely no way that I felt that it accentuated the chaos of the room and brought out the rich deep warm tones of the various objects contained within in a way that only an HDR could!  Heavens no!  Lemming city!

You know if you spend half as much time growing your skills as you did semi-blindly criticizing the artistic choices of others, you might actually learn something.

And don't give me this tongue and cheek stuff... I ain't buying it.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 20, 2010)

javier said:


>





manaheim said:


> Sorry to be so blunt, but the tilt does nothing to make these "good photos". These could be tilted another .003 degrees or another 30 degrees, and nothing would elevate these into a "silk purse". Sorry...but if all it took to make these kinds of subject matter "good photos" or "more creative" then all anybody would need to do was to cant the camera. And I assume, the more seriously canted the camera the better the photos would be. Right???


----------



## javier (Jan 20, 2010)

Derrel said:


> javier said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


----------



## Derrel (Jan 21, 2010)

No offense intended Javier, but would you like to tell me just what the tilt does for the shot? Does the tilting make the bustlines on the two young women larger? I mean, I am familiar with your work and the heavy emphasis on top-heavy honies


----------



## kajiki (Jan 21, 2010)

you talking about Dutch Tilt

or tilt/shift (fake miniature)?


----------



## manaheim (Jan 21, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Sorry to be so blunt, but the tilt does nothing to make these "good photos". These could be tilted another .003 degrees or another 30 degrees, and nothing would elevate these into a "silk purse". Sorry...but if all it took to make these kinds of subject matter "good photos" or "more creative" then all anybody would need to do was to cant the camera. And I assume, the more seriously canted the camera the better the photos would be. Right???


 
You miss the point... by a country mile.

When did I say the tilt made the shot a "good photo"?  I didn't. 

And when did you get tapped on the shoulder to be the guy who determines what a good photo is?  You didn't.

THAT'S the point.

When _I_, the _artist_, saw that scene, Ilooked up and saw that frame in my minds eye, and said "oh wow, that's so cool" and that's the frame I composed and took.  It's exactly what I wanted, and I love it.

Could it have maybe worked straight?  Maybe.  That's not what I wanted.

As Chiller (now gone because of stuff like this) says... "My camera, my vision, my rules."

You don't like it?  Awesome.  I applaud your individual style choices and being aware of them, but if you don't like it just because you have some preconceived notion of it being "wrong" or because "you don't get it", then I feel very bad for you.

I think most of Picaso's work is absolutely hideous and I wouldn't personally choose to pain that way, but under no circumstances would I walk up to the man (were he alive) and suggest that what he was doing was wrong.  Perhaps you would.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 21, 2010)

Derrel said:


> No offense intended Javier, but would you like to tell me just what the tilt does for the shot? Does the tilting make the bustlines on the two young women larger? I mean, I am familiar with your work and the heavy emphasis on top-heavy honies


 
And would you mind explaining just how you think it would be better without it, or what the tilt does to "hurt" the image artistically?


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jan 21, 2010)

The human brain expects an horizon line to be horizontal therefore when it is not we look for a reason as to why it was tilted. Which is why most people agree that when one puts the guidelines aside, it should be for a reason.

Now, I do agree that the artist is the ultimate decider of how to create his/her own work. But the viewer ultimately decides whether to buy or not and, will he buy something he does not understand? Not that that really matters.

I've also said before that the artist is not always conscious of why he/she does certain things in certain ways. We get a feeling and just go with it.

That said, I have to agree with Derrel that the tilt doesn't add anything to Javier's image. Or if it does, I just don't see it.

As for Manaheim's image, I don't think it would be as good without the tilt. Without, it would just be another image with skewed perspective due to the angle. The tilt actually adds to the chaos.

That said, I would not hang either image on my wall. You both have done much better. And that is more important. I don't like tilt much but it is not going to keep me from liking an image. I also won't like an image just because it is not tilted.

Cheers.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 21, 2010)

^ nicely said.


----------



## Pugs (Jan 21, 2010)

manaheim said:


> Oh hey LOOK!  Another rant thread by Pugs!  How exceptionally beneficial.
> 
> Here, Pugs, try this...
> 
> ...



Oh... wow...  And this from the author of the pact.  And for someone who claimed to not have a problem with me, you're thrown a few pointed barbs here.  

You seem to be reacting as if I had created thread after thread after thread of rants, when in reality there have been exactly two.  Both on the same day.  Perhaps I was having a bad day or perhaps I was trying to make a point about the difference between making an artistic choice and simply doing something without understanding why one is doing it or because "it's cool".  It's actually a combination of the two (in my opinion).  I was being a bit pissy that day and I did want to make a point.  It WAS mildly tongue-in-cheek, but that apparently wasn't well conveyed.  

In both this thread and in the photographic pet-peeves thread, I thought I had made it clear that ALL of the techniques that I was ranting about have their place and they ALL are useful tools.  My beef is with the random application of a cool technique that someone saw somewhere without any artistic thought or intention behind it.  

You mentioned Picasso and he is actually a FANTASTIC example of what I'm talking about.  Picasso studied art from a young age.  He didn't just do Cubism because it was something he saw and thought was cool, he had studied and mastered and applied traditional "rules" of composition and then chose to break them as his artistic vision changed and grew.  Even in his Cubist pieces, you see elements of traditional composition, so his choice to break an image apart and assemble it in a different way is reinforced by his background in, knowledge of, and application of traditional composition.  He followed the "rules" and chose to break them when it served the purpose of conveying his artistic vision and enhancing his images and sculptures.  

You also mentioned Chiller in this thread who's presence I miss around here GREATLY.  Chiller is another one who CLEARLY understands composition and traditional photographic technique but chooses to be artistically free of those constraints as it suits his vision.  But like Picasso, he wouldn't be able to make those choices if he didn't understand the "rules" in the first place.  

And speaking of people who's presence I miss around here, you were numbered among them.  I wasn't on TPF much at all last Summer and Fall and I missed (and still don't know) what exactly happened to drive so many long-standing members away.  I came back to TPF and found that many of the names I was used to seeing and who's posts I looked forward to were no longer posting.  You were one of those names.  

I'm a bit saddened that you CLEARLY have some issue with me.  I'd rather have your respect than your disdain as shown in this quote: "You know if you spend half as much time growing your skills as you did semi-blindly criticizing the artistic choices of others, you might actually learn something."  Apparently I don't have that respect from you and you apparently have a very diminished view of my abilities as a photographer and art critic.  I'm disappointed by that. 

I don't always agree with Derrel, but I always respect his opinion as he's demonstrated time and again that he knows his sh!t.  He may be blunt as hell at times, but I thought that you'd respect that as it's one of the things that you called for in the Pact.  It's actually one of the things that I respect about him; you know where he stands without any artifice.  

I don't always agree with Javier's choice to tilt the camera, but I always respect his work as he's shown time and again that he's a VERY good street photographer.  I took Javier's most recent post in this thread as friendly little dig at me because our past interaction has shown mutual respect and I doubt that Javier has suddenly changed.  

I didn't always agree with your posts and clearly still don't, but until your condescension towards and belittling of MY artistic views and abilities, I did respect you.  I still do to an extent, but my view of you has soured.  I just never thought that you'd stoop to the point of throwing insults like that.  

So, like the pet-peeves thread, I'm backing out of this one now, too.  I regret and apologize for starting threads that have caused people that I respect to turn like this.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jan 21, 2010)

^^^^ :thumbup:

Beautiful post. Manaheim is just having his periods, excuse him :lmao: 

I especially like what you said about Picasso. True, his cubism period is not going to appeal to everyone but the man was a great artist. His drawings are quite amazing. Cheers.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 21, 2010)

Hey, I owe you an apology for being overly snarky.  It STARTED as me trying to make a fairly good point, but things at home are a little quirky and it turned into something pretty spectacularly sharp.  I actually really DON'T have an issue with you. 

I post this here publicly to give myself a slap on the wrist in front of all, but I'll also send you a private note to apologize.

BTW, your last post here was very nicely put.

Sorry again.


----------



## javier (Jan 21, 2010)

Derrel said:


> No offense intended Javier, but would you like to tell me just what the tilt does for the shot? Does the tilting make the bustlines on the two young women larger? I mean, I am familiar with your work and the heavy emphasis on top-heavy honies



oK, here is the thing Derrel. First of all when I posted the image I posted, I addressed it to ''pugs'' as a poke of fun since he and I get along well..

I never said it was a good or bad picture..Infact, The truth, is, that it is an image that I would not have ever posted and after I was done, it was ready for the trash bin..No, the fact is you made a bad assumption...Then you assumed that I was out there shooting top heavy honies. Another assumption. Really, your statement is pretty stupid.. 

Now, I took a brief look at your photos and while you have 1 or maybe 2 that I liked, most I would have never even taken. The same could be said about mine as well...

There is likely more people who hate my street photography than like it, but I shoot for ''me''...I am not trying to sell anything... I am not trying to be the cats meow.


----------



## javier (Jan 21, 2010)

c.cloudwalker said:


> The human brain expects an horizon line to be horizontal therefore when it is not we look for a reason as to why it was tilted. Which is why most people agree that when one puts the guidelines aside, it should be for a reason.
> 
> Now, I do agree that the artist is the ultimate decider of how to create his/her own work. But the viewer ultimately decides whether to buy or not and, will he buy something he does not understand? Not that that really matters.
> 
> ...



Agreed. Well said.


----------



## Pugs (Jan 21, 2010)

manaheim said:


> Hey, I owe you an apology for being overly snarky.  It STARTED as me trying to make a fairly good point, but things at home are a little quirky and it turned into something pretty spectacularly sharp.  I actually really DON'T have an issue with you.
> 
> I post this here publicly to give myself a slap on the wrist in front of all, but I'll also send you a private note to apologize.
> 
> ...


I'm holding to backing out of this thread, but I do have to publicly acknowledge and accept Manaheim's apology.  It's a very stand-up thing and rare in real life and even rarer online for someone to apologize publicly and privately.  It says all sorts of good things about Manaheim's character that he would do so and I absolutely accept the apology.  Thank you, Manaheim!


----------



## Derrel (Jan 21, 2010)

javier said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > No offense intended Javier, but would you like to tell me just what the tilt does for the shot? Does the tilting make the bustlines on the two young women larger? I mean, I am familiar with your work and the heavy emphasis on top-heavy honies
> ...




it looks to me like my assumption was actually correct--the photo is not a good picture. You, yourself, said it's a trash bin picture. And yet, you published it here, ostensibly as a "poke at Pugs". Not a very good maneuver in a discussion, "poking" instead of making a valid point. I have seen your street photography,and have noticed that the vast majority of your shutter clicks come whenever there is a busty young female under 30 prominently in the picture. Lots and lots of them, all alike. "Candids" is the term most people call them these days. They used to be called "girl-watcher" pictures.
As c.cloudwalker stated, he would not hang your picture,nor manaheim's picture on his wall. Neither would I, not even for a day, hence my comment that those tilted pictures were not "good pictures". 

I honstly call 'em like I see 'em, and if The Pact's own author wishes to rail against an honest critical point, and if somebody wants to publish a picture in support of a point of view, but then later says it was done just to "poke" at somebody...well, obviously then the author of The Pact and the person publishing shots just to "poke" at others are being quite...what is the word...disingenuous, perhaps?

I have studied photography and art; those who do not understand Picasso, impressionism, cubism, dada, post modernism,etc,etc. do not strike me as people who are really "into" art, artistry, or the arts in general. There's an old expression that attempts to justify ignorance about art: "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like." People who spout off such sayings are typically ignorant of all the fine arts, and they enjoy kitschy, facile, easily-accessible popular culture junk that masquerades as art. Those that profess that opera is crap, classical music sucks, cubism was just a bunch of crap, claim that Mondrian was a failed crossword puzzle writer, and so on....those are the type of folks that seem to really rail against those who have an actual background in art of any type. The same type of people who badmouth PBS and watch Survivor seem to love to tell us how tilting a photo makes it "more artistic"; and in this case, I am not addressing either Javier or manaheim, but another, very young shooter who made an impassioned plea that "tilting" wedding photos makes the compositions "more artistic." Sigh...

My point was, if .003 degrees of tilt makes a photo better, then MORE tilt, like 30 degrees would therefore make the resultant photo better, and also that tilting a street photo substantially does not make it a "good photo" to use my own words. And now it seems that the street photo shooter's owner admits that the photo was destined for the trash bin-- he himself admitted that the photo was not even good enough to keep. So, I have to ask myself, if that was so, then WHY even bother publishing it as an example in the midst of a serious discussion?


----------



## javier (Jan 21, 2010)

Derrel said:


> javier said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



You really don't get it do you? Well, I am not going to bother explaining it to you. Continue to believe that indeed you are the cats meow.


----------



## Joves (Jan 21, 2010)

Well I like the top heavy hunnies. Even if they are tilted. Better if they were topless, then I wouldnt even notice the tilt at all.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 21, 2010)

Derrel said:


> My point was, if .003 degrees of tilt makes a photo better, then MORE tilt, like 30 degrees would therefore make the resultant photo better, and also that tilting a street photo substantially does not make it a "good photo" to use my own words.


 
If a dish happens to need a pinch of salt to make it "just so", then a pinch of salt is exactly what is needed.  Thirty pounds of salt probably wouldn't make it "that much more just so".  It's not a matter of "turn it up to 11!!!", it's a matter of doing what's right for that photo.

If your superior training and study in art tells you that my artistic choices are "poor", so be it.  Who knows, someday I may even change my mind and agree with you, but in the meantime I see elements of our world that are not always in nice tight little squared-off boxes, and so that's how I'll show them.

Such as this...







And this...






BTW, I think that pretty much completes my entire repitoire of "angled" images.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 21, 2010)

javier said:


> You really don't get it do you? Well, I am not going to bother explaining it to you. Continue to believe that indeed you are the cats meow.



Sorry Javier, all I was trying to point out is that the tilt you added to your photo did not make it a "good photo". I'm not judging myself or calling myself as you put it, "the cat's meow". All I am saying is I have seen your street photos, and a high preponderance of them are girl-shots. I'm not touting my abilities as a shooter, nor trying to advance myself. I commented on *your* posted photo, one which you said was a "trash bin" shot. Sorry, but no, I'm not taking the bait you keep putting out there. Tilt away!


----------



## themedicine (Jan 21, 2010)

So I can't believe this thread is still going, but since it is a discussion I guess I'll add my $0.02. I have to agree that in certain circumstances camera tilt can dramatically improve a photo. Sometimes, it can kill it. I have seen plenty of photos where all I can do is say to myself, "this is crooked" or, "the horizon isn't straight." But when it works, I don't even think anything about it. I just see tilt as a tool for a photographer to use to show or emphasize a perspective or point of view.  I mean, the whole world isn't either a landscape or portrait sized box, so why should I have to work within those constraints? Well, I shouldn't, and neither should anyone else. 
And I don't see where bringing up fine arts and the understanding of them is anything different. 
I am not trying to compare say, the Dada movement to camera tilt, but those artists did use junk, in a literal sense, to make a statement about the art world in general. Basically that the art world was too pretentious to begin with but as long as it made it into a gallery, it was accepted as art. So what did they do, they said "F it" and put a bunch of ready-mades in the gallery as basically a huge middle finger to the entire art world. That being said, who's to tell anyone what they are allowed to do with a camera so long as the image is striking and beautiful?
/mini rant.

OH and I love that 1st shot above manaheim!


----------



## manaheim (Jan 21, 2010)

themedicine said:


> OH and I love that 1st shot above manaheim!


 
 Thanks.  Nicely said, btw.  (the other bits... not the compliment on my shot...hahah)  I seriously need to go to bed.


----------



## themedicine (Jan 21, 2010)

hahaha, Yea yea...


----------

