Tilt shift?

tilt shifts are cool... but the photos rly suck. they are soft or defracted 99% of the time. i wouldnt buy one. i know you want to make those really cool montages or intros.... just demo one and take some shots then you will realise that you would raher not drok 2 grand on one. its like a fisheye... they are a one trick pony.
 
please dont do any of those miniature videos.

it was cool 2 years ago.

now, quoting an NS member, "TSE videos are the HDR of video". so true.
 
I use a fisheye for probably 40% of my shots.and a tilt shift isn't a one trick, its at least a 2 trick. The original use of tilt shifts was to get a deep focus on landscapes but if you tilt it the opposite way you get the "miniature effect". Research is key.
 
Tilt-shift videos can look good. As with anything, they get a bad rap because amateurs with a tenuous grasp on composition use it randomly. The result: busy footage with a circular defocused vignette place arbitrarily in the frame for no apparent reason.

Having said that, I honestly have yet to find one pleasing example of tilt-shift videography. I've seen plenty of great photos, so I know it's possible...
 
5367268655_b9fa3c37e1_z.jpg


5623568822_28551a4ac9_z.jpg


^ BAD
 
I was just going to say that that video looks all too similar to the examples I posted above, but I didn't want to sound like an a-hole.
 
research? i worked at a camera store, i have had time to play with the lens, i think i know a lil but about it.
and 40% nice. that means you are really getting th composition in your shots. you defs dont shoot skiing or skateboarding where the goal is to film so the skieror skateboarder looks like whatever he is doing is actually much bigger and his trick is that much sicker then it actually is.
or you have a "through the eyes of the fish" art exhibit up soon. if so good luck, i wish the best of the showing.
its still a one trick pony.
 
As far as the fisheye, I use all the usual composition and companies buy the shots but I still respect your opinion. The rest of the time is 30% 24-105, 20% 70-200, 10% 100 macro. "Such lenses are frequently used in architectural photography to control perspective, and in landscape photography to get an entire scene sharp." -Wikipedia about tilt-shift
 
Ugh at this thread.

Besides, the perspective given by UWA and fisheye lenses, although the shots can get redundant, make things look a lot bigger than they are based on perspective, so, if you wanted to make every shot of every skier on every jump look bigger than it is, the best thing you could do is shoot fish or ultra wide laying on the deck.
 
i can think of about 4 newschoolers that would actually use it for that, and not some gimmicky crap.
 
If they were using the TS lenses for the interior ones, getting everything sharp and correcting perspective, those ones were tight. but over 60 percent of those were the same gimmick

OP, selective focus can be cool. Not every photo / video one sees with blurry parts mean "Tilt Shift", as a those lenses can only do so much. Taking advantage of selectively focusing parts of your composition and blurring others is awesome when done well, and done to enhance the photo. Otherwise, it's just a giant, steaming, corn-filled pile of gimmicky bullshit.

Lensbabies are fun, don't bother even looking into tilt shift lenses unless you actually want to use them to correct perspective, etc. Most of the "tilt shift" stuff you have seen is done in the media editing software, and not with a lens.

The only time I've seen a tilt shift video done well was the Tyler, The Creator music video. The only well done photos I've seen with tilting and shifting lens movements were done on view cameras with bellows, people that are using them for what they are made for, and one or two of Anathema's shots that were maybe done with lens movements on a view camera too, I don't remember.

All the miniature stuff is straight dildos. And that's my opinion. lol
 
do you think the OP is going to use a tilt shift for landscape and architectural photography? thats why i said i think he/she shouldnt get one. its also very expensive for a beginner photographer, what are they 2.5 grand? i think those lenses should be saved for later years in photography. im more of an artist then a gearhead when it comes to photography, i have 3 lenses and i sell my work through an art gallery. tilt shift is nothing i have nor it is somehing i would like to have. based on my work and my personal experiences comes my response to the origonal post.

 
thanks for all the advice guys, but i have another question

as of now i have an 18-55 and 55-300

what kind of lenses do you guys recomend for filming skiing and other action sports?
 
get away from kit lenses. and buy a wide angle for your first lens.
Really go out and spend more than $300 on a lens. A good wide angle should cost anywhere from $600-up.
 
or buy vintage primes with buttery manual focus rings, and get 2-3 lenses for the same cost.
 
Hahahaha it's fine, I don't really know the difference between a good TS and a bad one, but I know the photos that were posted are pure shit. It gave me the illusion of being small, and was visually appealing, so I just assumed. My bad.
 
Your 55-300 is going to be one of your best friend for. Standing on the landing of one jump and filming the lip of the second is going to look real nice with that lense (Correct me if im wrong) the 18-55 is stock? If not keep it. I just like to have my wide angles a fixed mm.

Personally I would grab a 10mm fish eye. JordanLoyd uses this lense very well. And it is great for smaller, technical type of riding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top