Tilt-Shift lenses

[Westside guy]

Hi,

I'll admit right off that I haven't thought this all the way through.

For some reason I've seen several rather cool shots done with tilt-shift lenses recently; and learning how to use this sort of lens has piqued my interest. It appears to be a rather expensive area to get into, though; and, as far as i can tell, renting a tilt-shift lens is not easily done.

Do any of you own a tilt-shift lens? If so, have you felt it was a worthwhile investment? I realize it's not an "everyday" lens; and it's certainly something I'd have to save up for (I'm not made of money, unfortunately).

Additionally, what would "rotation" accomplish on a PC lens? I notice the new Nikkor is listed as being capable of tilt/shift/rotation.

Thanks!

 

[seenew]

I've used tilt and shift on view cameras, but not on SLRs. I don't know how much use you'd get out of it. With a view camera you're already doing a lot of setup for single shot, so having more control kind of goes with that whole deal. But when walking around with an SLR in hand you tend to do a lot less planning, and a tilt/shift lens isn't something you'd just walk around with.

Basically I guess it comes down to whether or not you do a lot of planned out shots (typically meaning using a tripod, but not always), or do you not do as much planning, shooting 'from the hip'.

If it's something you'd like to get into (portraiture, architecture) then yeah, go for it. Otherwise, it's just an expensive novelty.

 

[Martin C]

I don't see it being worth the investment--the same effect is easily doable in Photoshop.

 

[Westside guy]

I should probably have specified that what particularly caught my eye is the interesting stuff you can do with depth of field. The usual examples people use, where you're "correcting" perspective on buildings and the like, aren't particularly interesting to me.

If you poke around Bjørn Røslett's site, you'll find a number of examples - one is on this page (the pine cone photo).

 

[OreoCookie]

I don't see it being worth the investment--the same effect is easily doable in Photoshop.

No, you can't.
A tilt-shift lens tilts the focal plane. PS can only transform the geometry of the image.

 

[ipodtoucher]

A professional tilt shift lens that will gve you the modelesque look would run you about $4000 i think...but you can buy LensBabies for much cheaper, but they just tilt the focus and don't add that sharpness..

 

[rhett7660]

I was going to mention lensbaby also. I have one and I freaking love it. It isn't really a tilt-shift lens per say but man you can get some pretty cool effects.

Great lens and it is reasonable pretty cheap too for a lens!

 

[Grimace]

We should keep in mind that one of the primary uses of tilt-shift lenses is for wide angle architecture work where you want *every part* of the photo to be in focus - and most importantly, not distorted. Wide angle lenses often distort the image (extreme example is fisheye) - tilt-shift lenses are also known as perspective-correction lenses.

Good examples and explanation here:

 

[cube]

Perspective-correction lenses don't need to tilt. You can get the older Nikkor lenses which only shift for cheaper.

 

[ChrisA]

Hi,

I'll admit right off that I haven't thought this all the way through.

For some reason I've seen several rather cool shots done with tilt-shift lenses recently; and learning how to use this sort of lens has piqued my interest. It appears to be a rather expensive area to get into, though; and, as far as i can tell, renting a tilt-shift lens is not easily done.

Do any of you own a tilt-shift lens? If so, have you felt it was a worthwhile investment? I realize it's not an "everyday" lens; and it's certainly something I'd have to save up for (I'm not made of money, unfortunately).

Additionally, what would "rotation" accomplish on a PC lens? I notice the new Nikkor is listed as being capable of tilt/shift/rotation.

Thanks!

If you want to do this get a view camera. It's better and cheaper. Used view camera have gotten very inexpensive

Why rotate? The tilt is only up/down rotatinf allows it to move on an axis that is not horizontal or vertical. Yes, you could rotate the entire camera bit that moves the frame too. Just get a view camera where you have frame size to burn

We should keep in mind that one of the primary uses of tilt-shift lenses is for wide angle architecture work where you want *every part* of the photo to be in focus - and most importantly, not distorted.

Just to add a bit more. You'd use shift to correct for perspective and tilt to distribute sharpness. With a tilt, one edge of the frame is fouced at a different distance than the other edge of the frame.

With a small format 35mm frame or the enven smaller DSLR frame the DOF is such that I doubt you need tilt. Andnow with Photoshop you can do the perspective correction on the computer.

A professional tilt shift lens that will gve you the modelesque look would run you about $4000 i think...but you can buy LensBabies for much cheaper, but they just tilt the focus and don't add that sharpness..

I was looking around recently and I can pick up a good used Sinar F for $350 and a 90mm lens for about the same. You have to scan the film Even with the price of 100 sheets of film the view camera is cheaper

 

[Martin C]

No, you can't.
A tilt-shift lens tilts the focal plane. PS can only transform the geometry of the image.

...and they look identical...

You can pay a couple grand for one, I won't.

 

[OreoCookie]

...and they look identical...

You can pay a couple grand for one, I won't.

No offense, but do you even know what I'm talking about?
Follow the link provided by the OP and look for the head of Homer Simpson. Just because you can't afford the lens, doesn't mean you can do something similar with Photoshop.

 

[Martin C]

No offense, but do you even know what I'm talking about?
Follow the link provided by the OP and look for the head of Homer Simpson. Just because you can't afford the lens, doesn't mean you can do something similar with Photoshop.

Yes, I know what you're talking about. Sure, doing it in Photoshop isn't the traditional way of having the axis in the lens tilt to different angles, but compare the two and they look similar.

Funny how you assume my financial situation when I am reluctant to buy a lens for a couple thousand dollars.

 

[cube]

You can get a shift-only Nikkor for around one thousand.

 

[OreoCookie]

Yes, I know what you're talking about. Sure, doing it in Photoshop isn't the traditional way of having the axis in the lens tilt to different angles, but compare the two and they look similar.

Funny how you assume my financial situation when I am reluctant to buy a lens for a couple thousand dollars.

Tilting the focal plane allows you to have things in focus that are not parallel to the film/sensor. Once you make the image, there is no amount of photoshopping with which you can recover that or get results that are even close.

Photoshop can only alter the geometry (i. e. avoid falling lines), by it cannot bring things into focus that weren't in focus at the time the pic was taken.

I'm not assuming anything about your financial situation, I'm just saying that in certain cases, the computer cannot make up for things you don't get right at the time you take the image. Plus, it doesn't have to be expensive, you can get a lensbaby for what, $200?

 

[compuwar]

No, you can't.
A tilt-shift lens tilts the focal plane. PS can only transform the geometry of the image.

Focus stacking.

 

[helium]

Focus stacking.

but if your subject is not perfectly still?

 

[taylorwilsdon]

but if your subject is not perfectly still?

Then shoot it with a gun first.

 

[timswim78]

Google lensbaby. They are a cheap way to get into tilt-shift photography.

 

[compuwar]

but if your subject is not perfectly still?

Ever shot a moving subject with tilt or rise or fall?

 

[helium]

Ever shot a moving subject with tilt or rise or fall?

yes plenty of times

as an example think of a landscape... a field of flowers with a a gentle breeze moving them around. the sun is low on the horizon and there isn't much light. you want the whole field to be in focus, but you have to shot wide open because if you stop down the flowers will be blurred due to wind motion.

I don't think photoshop could be of much help in such a situation, while a bit of back tilt would easily allow you to have the whole field in focus even with the lens wideopen and get the picture you were after




or think about an architectural shot where you have people/cars/trees moving in the fore/background





and even for those effects which you could obtain with photoshop.... why waste hours working in front of the computer, when you could have gotten better results with much less effort by doing things properly when you first took the picture?

 

[OreoCookie]

AFAIK focus stacking is usually used in macro photography and makes `everything sharp', i. e. you indiscriminately put everything parallel to the film plane in focus (pretty much like choosing a smaller aperture).

 

[compuwar]

yes plenty of times

as an example think of a landscape... a field of flowers with a a gentle breeze moving them around. the sun is low on the horizon and there isn't much light. you want the whole field to be in focus, but you have to shot wide open because if you stop down the flowers will be blurred due to wind motion.

Every time I've attempted that, I haven't been able to get a shutter speed that works- but that's always been with LF. In general, the right answer has almost always been to come back on a still day. In reality, with Scheimpflug you don't get the whole field in view (and to even come close you'd be _well_ outside the diffraction limits, let alone aperture sizes of small format sensors and lenses.) you get the closer and further points in focus, and there's plenty of room to blend exposures unless there's enough movement that you're not likely to get a good shot any way.

I don't think photoshop could be of much help in such a situation, while a bit of back tilt would easily allow you to have the whole field in focus even with the lens wideopen and get the picture you were after

In my experience, it's taken extreme movements to get fields of anything in the Scheimpflug wedge, more than is available in a small format camera tilt/shift lens. The only time you have a hope is a mountain slope.

or think about an architectural shot where you have people/cars/trees moving in the fore/background

ND filters handle people/cars just fine. For trees, you just need a single shot, as they're generally aligned with the focal plane unless they're leafless and wide, when calmer days prevail if you want critical sharpness.

and even for those effects which you could obtain with photoshop.... why waste hours working in front of the computer, when you could have gotten better results with much less effort by doing things properly when you first took the picture?

I shot view cameras for a lot of years- most recently a Canham MQC 57, there are things they do well, moving subjects aren't one. Sometimes Scheimpflug works, sometimes you can't get enough movement to get everything in focus because of the arrangement of the scene, lens coverage, movement...- "better results" are obviously determined by what results you're seeking.

Movements are often but aren't always the right answer, especially when they're very small movements like with a T/S lens on a small format camera.

 

[helium]

I never thought I'd find a fellow large format shooter on a forum like this one

Every time I've attempted that, I haven't been able to get a shutter speed that works- but that's always been with LF.

ok with LF we might have to stop the lens down a couple of stops to get sufficent coverage, but it's always better than having to close the lens all the way to F/64 and beyond to get the required dof

In general, the right answer has almost always been to come back on a still day.

but with smaller formats wind is not that much of a problem

In reality, with Scheimpflug you don't get the whole field in view (and to even come close you'd be _well_ outside the diffraction limits, let alone aperture sizes of small format sensors and lenses.) you get the closer and further points in focus,

you've lost me there
when I get the closest and farther point in focus, also all the points in between that are on the same plane will also be in focus

In my experience, it's taken extreme movements to get fields of anything in the Scheimpflug wedge, more than is available in a small format camera tilt/shift lens. The only time you have a hope is a mountain slope.

for most work I always managed to get away with very very limited movements

the canon lenses have up to 8 degrees of tilt
which is more than enough for any kind of landscape work
also since the focal leghts are much shorter there is a lot more depth of field to play with and less need for movements

ND filters handle people/cars just fine. For trees, you just need a single shot, as they're generally aligned with the focal plane unless they're leafless and wide, when calmer days prevail if you want critical sharpness.

ND filters can get rid of them, but there are cases where you might want to keep them, and keep them still

I shot view cameras for a lot of years- most recently a Canham MQC 57, there are things they do well, moving subjects aren't one. Sometimes Scheimpflug works, sometimes you can't get enough movement to get everything in focus because of the arrangement of the scene, lens coverage, movement...- "better results" are obviously determined by what results you're seeking. 8

Movements are often but aren't always the right answer, especially when they're very small movements like with a T/S lens on a small format camera.

of course you can't do everything with movements
but when possible it's alway better to do it with movements rather than waste time in photoshop after having taken the picture

 

[compuwar]

I never thought I'd find a fellow large format shooter on a forum like this one

If I could justify it, I'd have a BetterLight back now for landscape, but I sell more nature than landscape images.

Digital has spoiled me, not that I don't still have some 5x7 Velvia kicking around somewhere.

There's at least one active LF shooter here, I've got three LF cameras, but I haven't even picked one up in probably 4 years now. However, I think the upsidedown and backwards under a darkcloth crowd is pretty-well represented here.

but with smaller formats wind is not that much of a problem

Depends a lot on final reproduction size, no? I mean, sure you get additional DoF from the sensor size, but then you get diffraction much sooner too, so I'm not sure they don't pretty-much cancel each other out other than in very bright light when landscapes mostly suck But in terms of bellows becoming sails, sure, wind is not much of a problem even with a 400/2.8 compared to a 5x7 at full extension!

you've lost me there
when I get the closest and farther point in focus, also all the points in between that are on the same plane will also be in focus

"on the same plane" is the operative phrase, and with Scheimpflug on a view camera, that's usually a "wedge," which is why I talked of mountainsides, where that tends to work better than it will on a flat field of flowers, where you're never on that plane over the whole field unless you're shooting straight down from an aircraft or bucket.

To me the typical LF landscape is some foreground element in focus and some background element in the distance, but high in the frame in focus because of the wedge Scheimpflug gives you with front and back tilt. Anything else can be shot on MF or a small format camera.

for most work I always managed to get away with very very limited movements

When I've needed them for landscapes, I've always needed them to be extreme, versus just shooting at the hyperfocal distance. I can see where it would depend on the landscape though.

the canon lenses have up to 8 degrees of tilt
which is more than enough for any kind of landscape work
also since the focal leghts are much shorter there is a lot more depth of field to play with and less need for movements

I suppose it depends on the results you want- if I haven't just needed perspective control, then I've needed pretty good movements if I needed movements and not just hyperfocal depth of field.

of course you can't do everything with movements
but when possible it's alway better to do it with movements rather than waste time in photoshop after having taken the picture

IMO, that depends too- I'd rather spend 2 minutes shooting for a focus stack than 25 minutes trying to get all the movements squared away if the light's changing quickly for instance (Otherwise, I'd rather enjoy LF given everyting equal.) Just like I'd rather shoot HDR than deal with high-actuance developers and several days printing in the dark room.