Talk:Tilt–shift photography

message: The article Perspective correction lens explains this with images. Link/redirect there?
84.135.208.54 12:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  link to perspective correction lens? 

message: A far more comprehensive article is in place for the same topic, and camera movements are not restricted to tilt/shift and thus a bad name for this topic. --antilivedT | C | G 07:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Perspective correction lens]] and [[View_camera#View_camera_movements]] 

message: The text doesn't say who Dennison Betram is or why his advice is notable. The Storm Surfer 00:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dennison Betram 

message: "This was popular in the early years of the twenty-first century."
That sounds odd.
Last time I checked, we were still in the early years of the twenty-first century...
Arnaudf 19:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that you mention the sentence, I wonder if the source even makes the claim.  It doesn't look to me like it does, but I don't have time to read it all in detail.  Could someone please either provide a quotation or confirm that there isn't one that could be provided and remove the sentence? — The Storm Surfer 00:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just write "it has become popular in recent years" (unless you actually mean the first years of the twentieth century)? Arnaudf 08:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should say whatever the source says.  The word popular isn't very meaningful anyway.  — The Storm Surfer 00:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twenty-first century 

message: If possible, the example tilt-shift photograph at the start of the article should be replaced with an example of an actual tilt-shift image, not a fake one. --Richmeistertalk 16:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace image 

message: Should the redirect go here or to Perspective correction lens? This article refers to a technique rather than a lens. That article, of course, would need to have some material on tilt added;  discussion of technique could be fairly minimal if the objective is to have View camera#Movements (or a new separate article) be the definitive treatment. JeffConrad (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect from Tilt-shift lens 

message: I've revised the article in attempt to make it more readable and correct several technical errors. I've tried to keep it as non-technical as possible while still ensuring that it is correct.
A Google search for “tilt-shift photography” yields over 75,000 hits, but it's not always clear what is meant by the term. In most cases, it seems to refer to tilting the plane of focus away from the subject for a shallow DoF, but some sites also use it to refer to camera movements in the more traditional sense of preventing convergence of parallel lines and maximizing DoF. Accordingly, I've included the general description of tilt and shift in the lead section.
A few specific comments:
* I used “refers to” rather than “is” because the latter would imply that use of movements on small-format cameras is tilt-shift photography, a statement with which many photographers, myself included, would disagree. I cannot imagine Adams or Weston ever using the term “tilt-shift photography”.
* I changed a wikilink from Perspective (graphical) to Perspective (visual) because the former (in this context, essentially “point of view”) is determined by the position of the camera in relation to objects in a scene, and cannot be controlled by camera movements. The View camera article makes a big deal of this, but it's really just a matter of recognizing that photographers use “perspective” with two different meanings.
* I eliminated terminology such as “sweet spots of focus” and “gradient of focus” because they are imprecise and unencyclopedic. Hopefully, I've adequately described whats happening with more correct term.
* The section Use of effects obviously needs some work; I left it for now because I'm not quite sure what to do with it. I removed the last paragraph because there was an obvious confusion between control of perspective and of the plane of focus.
I've removed the stub designation. The article still obviously needs a bit of cleanup, but I'm not sure that great expansion is required—I think the best approach is to keep this article for the reader not interested in the technical details and direct others to the more detailed descriptions in other articles. Some diagrams might help, but most would duplicate those in the other articles. If others agree that the thrust of this article is selective focus, I suppose a diagram specifically showing how tilt can be used to achieve this might be helpful. JeffConrad (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit of 10 July 2008 

message: Might be nice to include some (non-copyrighted) exampel photos on this page too.
To show the effect of this type of photography and the pictures that you can get, anyone able to add some?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.153.156.60 (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. Shinobu (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example photos 

message: I've once again removed the link spam that Dicklyon removed a couple of weeks ago. In the interest of even application of WP policy, I think many of the other links should get a hard look as well. This article is looking more like Flickr than part of an encyclopedia. JeffConrad (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proliferation of link spam 

message: The linked article appears to describe a postprocessing technique, which has nothing to do with this article. Moreover, the shallow DoF that obtains from using tilt with a small f-number isn't anything like that which obtains from close-up photography. The DoF is perpendicular to the plane of focus (with tilt, I use “perpendicular” loosely because the DoF is wedge shaped). Without tilt or swing, the PoF and the DoF are perpendicular to the line of sight; with tilt or swing, the PoF and DoF are at an angle, often a large one, to the line of sight. The effect isn't even close to similar. The linked article essentially says this, in the second paragraph under Techniques. But that article understates the case; digital postprocessing works better because selective focus using tilt doesn't simulate a miniature scene at all.
Unless someone can provided a reliable source for the current wording, I'm going to change the heading to Selective focus, and change the image caption accordingly. We could say that some claim to simulate a miniature scene using tilt, but indicate that the effect is quite different, along the lines of what I've stated above. Although this can easily be demonstrated from well-established principles, I don't have a good source that supports the final conclusion. But using tilt to simulate a miniature scene doesn't have a reliable source either, so if we insist on a specific citation, we may need to omit mention of miniature faking altogether.
As I've suggested in earlier comments, if Google hits are any guide, to many people, “tilt-shift photography” means selective focus, so expanding treatment of that application would seem appropriate. What's not appropriate is calling it “tilt-shift” or saying that it simulates close-up photography of a miniature scene. JeffConrad (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. So it probably doesn't really belong here. Perhaps it could go in Tilt-shift miniature faking as an example of simulating miniature using a (more or less) vertical gradient on a "horizontal" subject. I'm trying to clean up that article (see User:JeffConrad/Miniature Faking); it's proving to be a work in progress ... JeffConrad (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The linked user page no longer exists; it was deleted after the material was incorporated into the article. JeffConrad (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Of course, it may once again come back to “What is tilt-shift photography?” JeffConrad (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Again, it depends on what's meant by “tilt-shift miniature faking” and “tilt-shift photography”. Despite the bandying of vogue words, tilt/shift lenses are not big sellers, so I'd guess the vast majority of purported examples are done with postprocessing. To be fair, though, a sharpness gradient introduced in postprocessing often does a better job of simulating selective focus employing tilt than the latter does of simulating a miniature scene. JeffConrad (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Tilt-shift miniature faking” 

message: I neglected to mention something that seemed obvious to me, but perhaps is not so to others. Although the tilt affects the angular DoF, it's usually not available as a primary control. Perhaps it's worth a quick look the simpler situation that obtains without tilt. The focus control (usually a knob or ring) determines the position of the plane of focus, and the lens f-number determines the extent of the DoF, and hence the blur of the unsharp areas. When the lens is tilted, the position of the PoF is determined by the focus and the tilt.
As Jamesmcardle and Vincent Laforet indicate, the first step in effective use of tilt for selective focus is carefully choosing the position of the PoF to determine what is sharp and what is not. Once the position of the PoF is fixed, so are the tilt (and perhaps swing) and the focus. If the tilt is then adjusted to change the angular DoF, the position of the PoF is also changed. Thus the primary control of angular DoF (and the blur for unsharp elements) is the lens f-number. In most cases, adjusting tilt to control the blur would be akin to changing focus to control the blur without tilt, without regard to what's left in focus.
There are cases in which the tilt can be used as a blur control. For example, if photographing a row of buildings that cross the field of view at a large-to-moderate distance and it is desired to give selective focus to one or more of them, and there is nothing significant in the foreground or background, the tilt and focus can be adjusted to control the width and position of the focus “window”. Laforet describes using a similar approach in aerial photography, where there seldom are objects in the foreground and there seldom is a background.
Though many books have been written describing camera movements, usually on view cameras, surprisingly little has been said about exactly what happens with each control. It appears that even Stroebel didn't fully understand the details, and Sinar admit they didn't either until the development of the Sinar e in the late 1980s. Merklinger made the first widely read analysis in his articles in Shutterbug in the early 1990s, but may have made things seem overly complicated for many readers. As I indicated above, the principles are quite simple:
* The orientation of the PoF is determined by the focusing control
* The axis about which the PoF rotates as focus is changed is determined by the tilt.
* In combination, the tilt and focus determine the position of the PoF.
* The angular DoF (and, in effect, the blur of the unsharp areas) is determined by the lens f-number.
Though most of this is fairly easy to prove, and can be synthesized by grabbing pieces from several sources, I'm not aware of a current citable source that directly states everything. Perhaps that will change with the seemingly increased interest in tilt/shift lenses, but at present, I think we need to be very careful about what we say, especially without support from a reliable source. JeffConrad (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tilt is not a primary sharpness control 

message: Both Kwenchin and I seem to have overlooked the unreferenced material on the relationship between tilt and angular DoF already in the article ... and which I seem to have added in September 2009, so I probably have no business objecting to it now. Moreover, if others had strong objections, they presumably would have raised them. And if people now object, I suppose they will so indicate.
I've expanded the discussion of factors that affect angular DoF, beginning in the section Tilt, because they apply when the objective is to get everything sharp as well as when the objective is selective focus. I've mentioned using a large tilt to decrease the DoF, while including the caveat that this also affect the position of the DoF. I think everything I've added is correct and defensible, and finds some support in the Depth of field section of the Scheimpflug principle article. A glance at my notes suggests that a solid derivation of the first equation I presented above would be at least as long as the explanation provided, so it probably should be considered only as a last resort.
I've removed the image of selective focus achieved with the LensBaby lens, because I agree with others here that it has little to do with the subject at hand. I've also tagged the WL to freelensing, because the article to which the WL points relies on a source that freely admits that they grab stuff from the web, which hardly qualifies them as reliable. A quick Google search suggests to me that “freelensing” is yet another semi-viral net neologism;  I'll change my mind if a reliable source can be provided, but absent a reliable source, the link will soon be history. I suppose we could use weasel words to the effect of “some people use ‘freelensing’ to describe ...”, but I agree with WP policy that this usually doesn't improve articles.
Hopefully, the changes address some of the issues discussed above. JeffConrad (talk) 08:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not quite sure how this relates to the recent edits; are you suggesting that the article as it now reads may not be correct for large tilts? JeffConrad (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits of 6 April 2010 

message: In retrospect, it would appear that Porlob intended  rather than cn. But I’m still a bit confused by the reference to the 1960s—that time was the introduction of the PC-Nikkor lens for 35 mm cameras, and had nothing whatsoever to do with view cameras. Is the question whether view cameras had movements long before the 1960s? The Scheimpflug principle was clearly known to Jules Carpentier in 1901, though I concede this isn’t direct evidence of the incorporation of tilt movements on view cameras. And it’s probably debatable whether even 1901 would qualify as “the early days of photography”. JeffConrad (talk) 10:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for history of view camera movements 

message: I agree that there is too much overlap in the articles:-
Scheimpflug principle
View camera#Movements
Perspective control
Perspective control lens
Tilt–shift photography
Miniature faking
This all needs to be tidied up. Maybe the individual articles can still exist but some could be greatly shortened by taking out repetition of material in the other articles and having links to them. When a section directs the reader to a main article there is little point in repeating a lot of the main article's information and making readers read much of the same information again. QuentinUK (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: AGREED the content of the Tilt-shift and Perspective control articles overlap to such a degree that they are almost "identical".  They use the same explanations, cover the same subject matter, use the same illustrations.  Apart from trivial distinctions, one is longer than the other, they have different titles, etc., I can see no substantive difference so find it hard to see any reason not to merge the two. LookingGlass (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge suggestion 

message: It's not really clear here, but does a tilt-shift lens change the actual depth of field, or does it simulate it by creating areas of different sharpness on the focal plane? Kortoso (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depth of field 

message: it would be nice to see a diagram illustrating the geometric relationship between the various planes and axes involved at the camera (and comparison between "normal" and "tilt-shifted").  it's hard to visualise what's involved from text alone, and hard to infer it from result (i.e. photo) comparisons if you don't already know a lot about cameras and photography. 118.209.110.12 (talk) 03:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  diagram? 

message: Fotodiox company is producing Tilt-Shift and Shift adapters, Nikon F -> mirrorless and Medium Format -> Nikon F Lens Mount Adapters. I've just added this information to Polish Wikipedia :pl:Tilt-shift it may be good idea to add this information. Unfortunately I didn't found any sources of someone talk about this solution for cheap Tilt-Shift. I've purchased one adapter, will take shot of it and with it and publish in commons. jcubic (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fotodiox 

message: I think that Lensbaby should be mentioned inside this article. Not only in see also section. They create tilt effect without shift and they also produced Tilt transformer (adapter for Nikon F -> 4/3). jcubic (talk) 07:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lensbaby