Talk:Tilted plane focus

message: I think the recent edits have improved the article. At the risk of seeming the naysayer, however, I think it still reads more like a personal essay than an encyclopedia article. Accordingly, I've restored the tag. A case could be made that a different tag, such as  or one or more of its many relatives would be more appropriate, but I think the specific tag is far less important that the underlying issues, some of which I describe below.
The biggest issue I see is the use of vague, abstract, and offbeat language for ideas that could easily be described using specific, concrete, and conventional terms. There also are many subjective comments unsupported by sources.
The article title, though hardly illogical, is nonetheless a neologism that seems to find little use other than articles that ultimately point to the author's web site. I question whether this is appropriate for Wikipedia, and I question whether it's appropriate to include in the Photography portal. I'm not sure it's sufficiently notable that it merits a separate article, either, though if not, there is some question about where it belongs. We currently have considerable duplication among View camera (especially regarding movements), Perspective control lens, Scheimpflug principle, Tilt-shift photography, and arguably some others. Offhand, I don't have a great solution to propose.
Perhaps a minor point, but the lead section refers to “Tilted plane photography” rather than “Tilted plane focus” used for the title.
Some examples of vague abstractions: “Focus is relative to spatial depth”;
“the scene in front of the camera can be modulated in depth”. I understand the principles involved quite well, but struggle to understand what these phrases mean.
The lead section is both subjective and unnecessarily abstract. I'm sure there's a less prosaic way of saying it, but this in essence,
:Tilting the lens (or the camera back) puts the plane of focus at an angle to the image plane rather than parallel to it; accordingly, it's possible to have elements at varying distances from the camera rendered sharply.
Whether the other, subjective comments apply is a matter of opinion. In particular, many photographers would take issue with the implication that this is a more consciously applied technique than selective focus without tilt; it's simply different. Without question, it's important to carefully chose the position of the plane of focus rather than just fiddling with the tilt, as Vincent Laforet points out in this interview; perhaps that's what's intended here.
I don't understand the purpose of the section “Plane of focus”. I don't think anyone disputes that focus is on a plane rather than a point, so I'm not sure why it's mentioned. Though nearly all lenses exhibit some curvature of field, except perhaps for a Lensbaby lens, it's definitely a second-order effect for what's discussed here, and I simply don't see its relevance.  I'd just eliminate the entire section.
The section Tilting the plane of focus includes the statement that tilting the PoF “will permit the photographer to select at least three points in depth in the scene in front of the camera on which to focus”; perhaps it's just me, but it would seem far simpler to say something to the effect of, “it's possible adjust the PoF so that it contains at least three points in the scene”. There's also less of an implication that it's simply a matter of adjusting focus.
I question the mention of the Lensbaby lens. Though it enables a form of selective focus different from that commonly seen, its significant curvature of field makes it difficult to use for what's described here.
The note for Prayer and Praise seems unnecessarily long, perhaps to the point that it's questionable whether it's still fair use.
The listed references include page numbers, but don't have inline citations, so it's difficult to see what they support. Perhaps inline citations would address some of my comments, but even so for someone outside Australia, most of the sources are very difficult to verify.
The article retains several significant technical errors. I repeat my earlier comment that the author confuses depth of field with depth of focus; the former is what applies to selective focus. I also reiterate my comment about the difference between focus and apparent sharpness. The ideal lens may by aspherical, but it's not parabolic. And again, it's completely irrelevant to this article.
In summary, the article contains so many vague abstractions that it's fairly simple essence is buried. It might help to make an outline of the key ideas to be conveyed and compare it with the article to see how each is addressed.
I hate to denigrate someone's hard work, and concede that my comments may seem a bit harsh. Nonetheless, I think the article has many issues that need to be addressed. JeffConrad (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits of 28 March 2010 

message: I've changed the tagging to better reflect the main issues.
The term itself may be a serious problem, perhaps to the extent that the article cannot stand.
* As noted above, it's an extreme neologism, and it's not even one in widespread use.
* Though the term isn't necessarily illogical, it co-opts other equally logical uses—such as using tilt and swing to render everything sharply. As such, it's misleading. Were the term established as referring to selective focus, the situation might be different. But that's not the case.
The technique is certainly valid and merits description somewhere in WP, if perhaps not here. Though it probably can be described more eloquently, the technique, whatever it's called, in plain English
* Achieves selective focus by rotating the plane of focus away from parallel to the image plane and using a large aperture to minimize the angular depth of field.
* Is distinct from “miniature faking”.
* Is probably not well described simply as “tilt-shift photography”.
* Is most effective when the position of the plane of focus is chosen carefully, as supported by Laforet's comments.
* Has been used for quite some time, as illustrated by Prayer and Praise.
As noted previously, the technical descriptions are in some cases superfluous, and in others inaccurate, and in any event, are better described elsewhere in WP.
The technique might possibly be merged into Depth of field (perhaps under selective focus) or perhaps under Tilt shift photography (if it's ever decided what that is). JeffConrad (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded tags 1 April 2010