# Tilt & Shift Fan?



## mackguyver (May 6, 2014)

I thought I had found a fellow tilt / shift fan, but apparently it's some kind of LGBT inside joke thing - not that there's anything wrong with that, as Seinfeld would say. I have no idea what it means, but thought it was funny.


----------



## tolusina (May 6, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> ..... I have no idea what it means.......


Nor do I.
I googled, came up with this..... http://quinist.tumblr.com/
I want my clicks back.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (May 6, 2014)

I would not have initially considered that to mean tilt shift. ;D ;D


----------



## mackguyver (May 6, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> I would not have initially considered that to mean tilt shift. ;D ;D


I've been playing with my TS-E 24mm lately and just bought the TS-E 17mm, so I have Tilt/Shift on my mind ;D


----------



## AcutancePhotography (May 6, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > I would not have initially considered that to mean tilt shift. ;D ;D
> ...



I have been dreaming about getting a tilt shift lens. I think that would be a lot of fun.


----------



## mackguyver (May 6, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > AcutancePhotography said:
> ...


They are great once you get past the initial learning curve. It's actually somewhat difficult to go back to normal lenses after you use T/S ones and you wonder why all lenses can't be T/S  If you can borrow or rent one, you owe it to yourself to try one. I borrowed one from CPS before buying my first one.


----------



## RobertG. (May 7, 2014)

> They are great once you get past the initial learning curve. It's actually somewhat difficult to go back to normal lenses after you use T/S ones and you wonder why all lenses can't be T/S



After having bought 5 tilt shift lenses I can fully understand your statement above  Same for me.


----------



## mackguyver (May 7, 2014)

RobertG. said:


> > They are great once you get past the initial learning curve. It's actually somewhat difficult to go back to normal lenses after you use T/S ones and you wonder why all lenses can't be T/S
> 
> 
> 
> After having bought 5 tilt shift lenses I can fully understand your statement above  Same for me.


I'm rather tempted to buy the rest of the T/S lenses, but will wait for Photokina in case the rumors of new ones being released are true.


----------



## J.R. (May 7, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I'm rather tempted to buy the rest of the T/S lenses, but will wait for Photokina in case the rumors of new ones being released are true.



Maybe the owners of the car in the photo feel the same and are trying the message across to Canon


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 7, 2014)

Mac, do let us know how you feel the 24mm and the 17mm are different, and how they overlap.
I knew I wanted a TS lens, especially since I don't like perspective distortion and end up losing resolution and cropping. Also, the effect of selective focusing has always intrigued me. 
But I wasn't sure if I want the 24mm TS-E or the 17mm more. 
Pros for the 17mm include: wider angle will work better for the highrises that are my first goal. I work in a highrise complex and all the buildings are quite photogenic, especially at night. Also, I like indoor architectural photography a lot. If were to make photography my profession, this probably would be the most likely way.
Pros for the 24mm include: easier maneuverability, ability to use filters, and shallower depth of field.

Questions for the pros:
1. Do you expect restriction of movements with the 17mm + TC if you use a Lee adapter and 82mm screw-in/100mm square filters?
2. How much selective focusing is possible with the 17mm? How about 17mm + 1.4x and 17mm + 2x?
Thanks


----------



## JustMeOregon (May 8, 2014)

@ sagittariansrock

Regarding your first question, a _very_ quick & dirty test with my Canon 17 TS, 1.4x TC III, and the Lee adapter for the 17mm TS exhibited just a small amount of soft (non-mechanical) easily-correctable corner vignetting starting at about 10-11mm of shift. With a 1.4 TC hard-mechanical vignetting was never observable throughout the entire 12mm shift range. Of course without the TC, the 17mm adapter will start to (soft) vignette at about 5mm of shift and will become hard-corner vignetting at about 7mm.

I'm not sure what you mean by "...and 82mm screw-in/100mm square filters". The 105 screw-in (polarizing) filter and adapter-ring?


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 8, 2014)

JustMeOregon said:


> @ sagittariansrock
> 
> Regarding your first question, a _very_ quick & dirty test with my Canon 17 TS, 1.4x TC III, and the Lee adapter for the 17mm TS exhibited just a small amount of soft (non-mechanical) easily-correctable corner vignetting starting at about 10-11mm of shift. With a 1.4 TC hard-mechanical vignetting was never observable throughout the entire 12mm shift range. Of course without the TC, the 17mm adapter will start to (soft) vignette at about 5mm of shift and will become hard-corner vignetting at about 7mm.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by "...and 82mm screw-in/100mm square filters". The 105 screw-in (polarizing) filter and adapter-ring?



Thanks so much for this information. I wasn't sure whether adding the TC alters the vignetting characteristics and you have completely resolved the question.
Regarding the 82/100- it was a bit of mistake. I was actually thinking of a DIY adapter that allows an 82mm screw in filter at the front end of the lens. But I don't presume a lot of people use that route.


----------



## mackguyver (May 8, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Mac, do let us know how you feel the 24mm and the 17mm are different, and how they overlap.
> I knew I wanted a TS lens, especially since I don't like perspective distortion and end up losing resolution and cropping. Also, the effect of selective focusing has always intrigued me.
> But I wasn't sure if I want the 24mm TS-E or the 17mm more.
> Pros for the 17mm include: wider angle will work better for the highrises that are my first goal. I work in a highrise complex and all the buildings are quite photogenic, especially at night. Also, I like indoor architectural photography a lot. If were to make photography my profession, this probably would be the most likely way.
> Pros for the 24mm include: easier maneuverability, ability to use filters, and shallower depth of field.


I chose the 24 mainly because I use a polarizer a whole lot here in Florida and I had the luck to get it during a refurb sale as well. I find it too narrow for most interiors without stitching but have shot up to 20+ story buildings with it (see the three somewhat sloppy [aka personal work]) examples below). The problem is that you have to get a good way from the building and sometimes, streets & buildings (in photo 2), water (I'm watching for alligators in photo 3), and such get in the way and limit your compositions. I'm happy to say that the 17mm is much wider and should really help in that dept. I didn't have much time to play with the 17 last night (my mother in law is coming, so my current Honey-do list is rather long...), but they seem very similar but I know the 17mm has slightly less range in one of the movements. Given the huge angle of view, that shouldn't be an issue. As for filters, I'm sure I'll go the Wonderpana direction, mainly for the ND filters. I use them a lot to blur water, people, and cars for exterior shots.







I'm smashing myself against the door to the Florida Supreme Court to get everything in frame for this photo. Something the security doesn't find too exciting, even after hours:





I'm trying not to fall into the water here and I had to use the 1.4x to get better framing. Also, note that a ND32 filter was used - and poorly as the fountain somehow disappeared:


----------



## mackguyver (May 9, 2014)

One more thought on the TS-E 17 - the lens cap is awesome! It's so much better than the 14L II that I had. I put the 17 and 24 on the 1D X & 5DIII last night for comparison and they are far more alike than different, but the test will come when I shoot with them both this weekend. I'll post some shots...


----------



## Sporgon (May 9, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> One more thought on the TS-E 17 - the lens cap is awesome! It's so much better than the 14L II that I had. I put the 17 and 24 on the 1D X & 5DIII last night for comparison and they are far more alike than different, but the test will come when I shoot with them both this weekend. I'll post some shots...



Just a comment on your pictures you posted: it is natural to have converging lines in perspective; it's how we see things as they get further away. I can still remember my art teacher showing me this at my first school ! Correcting this fully in shift gives a very unnatural image that isn't actually correct.


----------



## mackguyver (May 9, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > One more thought on the TS-E 17 - the lens cap is awesome! It's so much better than the 14L II that I had. I put the 17 and 24 on the 1D X & 5DIII last night for comparison and they are far more alike than different, but the test will come when I shoot with them both this weekend. I'll post some shots...
> ...


Sporgon, you're right, and I guess I wasn't clear in my post - these were meant to be examples of when I was limited by the 24mm focal length and are poor photos because they were done when I was just fooling around with the gear walking around or on vacation. My paid shots are done with far more care and I I tend to correct fully and then back off just a bit to avoid the unnatural look. I also avoid shooting straight on from unflattering angles like this, but I appreciate the feedback.


----------



## dstppy (May 9, 2014)

Time & Sales?

Love me my deep-book.

Gets my arbitrage on!

;D


----------



## Sporgon (May 9, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Sporgon, you're right, and I guess I wasn't clear in my post - these were meant to be examples of when I was limited by the 24mm focal length and are poor photos because they were done when I was just fooling around with the gear walking around or on vacation. My paid shots are done with far more care and I I tend to correct fully and then back off just a bit to avoid the unnatural look. I also avoid shooting straight on from unflattering angles like this, but I appreciate the feedback.



I could see they were just snaps, but I do see quite a few shots by others that are over corrected in shift; it's a pet hate of mine !


----------



## mackguyver (May 9, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon, you're right, and I guess I wasn't clear in my post - these were meant to be examples of when I was limited by the 24mm focal length and are poor photos because they were done when I was just fooling around with the gear walking around or on vacation. My paid shots are done with far more care and I I tend to correct fully and then back off just a bit to avoid the unnatural look. I also avoid shooting straight on from unflattering angles like this, but I appreciate the feedback.
> ...


I can understand and what I hate are the ones where the top of the building is larger than the bottom


----------



## tolusina (May 9, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> ........ I do see quite a few shots by others that are over corrected in shift; it's a pet hate of mine !


 


mackguyver said:


> ...
> I can understand and what I hate are the ones where the top of the building is larger than the bottom


I agree 100% with both of you, the look is so unnatural, my brain just knows it's wrong.

However, here's an example, I could never figure why it got printed or displayed, or even why the photographer shot it this way, he certainly knew exactly what he was doing, why he shot that way and what the print would look like.
From the first time I saw this photo, I did not get _"IT"_, I still don't.








Photo credit, hot linked from


----------



## mackguyver (May 12, 2014)

tolusina said:


> I agree 100% with both of you, the look is so unnatural, my brain just knows it's wrong.
> 
> However, here's an example, I could never figure why it got printed or displayed, or even why the photographer shot it this way, he certainly knew exactly what he was doing, why he shot that way and what the print would look like.
> From the first time I saw this photo, I did not get _"IT"_, I still don't.


Is there any chance that the structure itself is bigger at the top than the bottom? If you look at the building in the background and the windows, they don't look distorted. Either that or maybe I just need some more coffee to wake up this morning...


----------



## tolusina (May 12, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> ......Is there any chance that the structure itself is bigger at the top than the bottom? If you look at the building in the background and the windows, they don't look distorted. Either that or maybe I just need some more coffee to wake up this morning...


You are definitely maybe right.
Looking at the photo now, it doesn't look as whack as I thought it did when I first saw it years back.
I just put on screen rulers on the photo, as you pointed out, the building in the back ground is square, also, the light poles are vertical.
The horizontal ruler finds oddness in the lower support part of the tower, it's twisted. Upper slats are low on the left, lower slats are low on the right. 
The tower was in San Francisco, many things have always been 'different' there. Maybe it was built that way intentionally, reverse taper on top, corkscrew twist on the bottom?
---
This photo is one of those I haven't been able to un-see. I suppose that makes it memorable and is memorable by itself one of the marks of a good photo?


.


----------



## mackguyver (May 12, 2014)

tolusina said:


> This photo is one of those I haven't been able to un-see. I suppose that makes it memorable and is memorable by itself one of the marks of a good photo?


I think that you might finally have been able to define "art" for me, seriously. I think that is what separates art from everything else, and having had some bad experiences with the local art scene, it's refreshing to think about it differently. As for the photo, I wonder if it's some kind of water collection/storage structure and that's why it's a slight conical shape.

Also, here's an oldie but goodie about T/S lenses, and a funny quote from it (emphasis mine): 
"For those new to camera movements; my opinion is to never correct converging verticals into perfect parallels. *It is the best way to make a building look as if it will fall on top of you* and one of my long-time pet hates in architectural photography. I almost always leave a little convergence. After all, it is a normal visual phenomenon!"

Focusing the Tilt-Shift Lens


----------



## Sporgon (May 12, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> tolusina said:
> 
> 
> > I agree 100% with both of you, the look is so unnatural, my brain just knows it's wrong.
> ...



That was my thought when I first saw this picture. I assume this is a large water tower for the glasshouses, and it looks like it may be a form of 'clinker' build; that is where the ascending planks overlap slightly on the outside of those below- so it gets wider as it goes higher. Same thing happens when a boat is 'clinker' built.


----------



## tolusina (May 12, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> .....I think that you might finally have been able to define "art" for me, seriously. I think that is what separates art from everything else, and having had some bad experiences with the local art scene, it's refreshing to think about it differently. As for the photo, I wonder if it's some kind of water collection/storage structure and that's why it's a slight conical shape.....


Delighted to have been of such service,  

The artist who created the work above is the one who pretty well defined photography for me, I strive to adhere to his philosophy, doubt I'll ever even begin to approach his skill, knowledge, talent or contacts.


Sporgon said:


> ..... I assume this is a large water tower for the glasshouses, and it looks like it may be a form of 'clinker' build; that is where the ascending planks overlap slightly on the outside of those below- so it gets wider as it goes higher. Same thing happens when a boat is 'clinker' built.


Sounds good to me.
Have you got any idea why the base of the tower has a twist to it? I didn't see the twist until today as I dragged a horizontal screen ruler across the photo, looking for irregularities.


.


----------



## mackguyver (May 12, 2014)

tolusina said:


> The artist who created the work above is the one who pretty well defined photography for me, I strive to adhere to his philosophy, doubt I'll ever even begin to approach his skill, knowledge, talent or contacts.


Ansel is one of the greats for sure! My wife bought several of his books for me last year as gifts and I'm astounded by his eye (even at a very young age) and his ability to take some of the simplest scenes and make them masterpieces. His work has so much more depth than the commonly seen photos from Yosemite and the like and this is a great example of that.



tolusina said:


> Sounds good to me.
> Have you got any idea why the base of the tower has a twist to it? I didn't see the twist until today as I dragged a horizontal screen ruler across the photo, looking for irregularities.


Are you talking about the bottom left of the frame where the greenhouse structure's foundation isn't straight across? If so, I think that's actually sloping down the hill, not twisting.


----------



## tolusina (May 12, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> ....Are you talking about the bottom left of the frame where the greenhouse structure's foundation isn't straight across? If so, I think that's actually sloping down the hill, not twisting....


No, nope. I see the slope downhill to the left, that's not the twisty bit I'm seeing.
The water tower itself, the top, water reservoir is an inverted, truncated cone.
The faces of the base below are trapezoidal.
On the camera facing side of the base, the horizontal slats slope downward slightly to the left at the top, they are horizontal in the middle, they slope downward to the right at the bottom. It makes the camera facing side appear to have a twist.
Looking at the side facing right, I'm not at all sure there's a twist there though there might be. All the horizontals on that side look like they'd converge in the distance if they were extended.

Can you see the twist?

.


----------



## mackguyver (May 12, 2014)

tolusina said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > ....Are you talking about the bottom left of the frame where the greenhouse structure's foundation isn't straight across? If so, I think that's actually sloping down the hill, not twisting....
> ...


Okay, I saw that, too, and fear we're headed down a path to madness that ends with us traveling to S.F. to looks for the building . I looked long and hard at it (again) and the width of the side panel of the base appears to be uniform and given the camera position, I think the slats are following the correct perspective in terms of converging to the vanishing point. Note the slat that aligns with the lower edge of the roof of the greenhouse on the bottom right and slats that match the angle of the roof line at the top of the greenhouse as well.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 14, 2014)

dstppy said:


> Time & Sales?
> 
> Love me my deep-book.
> 
> ...



Hint: S isn't actually an acronym, it is a phonetic.


----------



## dgatwood (May 15, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Okay, I saw that, too, and fear we're headed down a path to madness that ends with us traveling to S.F. to looks for the building . I looked long and hard at it (again) and the width of the side panel of the base appears to be uniform and given the camera position, I think the slats are following the correct perspective in terms of converging to the vanishing point. Note the slat that aligns with the lower edge of the roof of the greenhouse on the bottom right and slats that match the angle of the roof line at the top of the greenhouse as well.



If that's the water tower I'm thinking of, it's on one of the roads out to one of the public beaches south of Santa Cruz. Strangest looking thing you ever saw. But it might not be. I'd imagine there are lots of water towers like that, and I honestly don't recall whether the one I'm thinking of is attached to a building or not.


----------



## tolusina (May 15, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> ....If that's the water tower I'm thinking of, it's on one of the roads out to one of the public beaches south of Santa Cruz. .....


No, the photo above is an Ansel Adams, shot in 1960 in San Francisco.

But I'm thinking I recall the tower you mention south of Santa Cruz, I seem to recall there are 2 to 4 of them in a row, maybe a quarter mile between them.
I just google map cruised the area, thinking west of Watsonville on Beach Street, west of San Andreas, but I couldn't find them in satellite view.
--- a little later---
Kept google map cruising, found pedestals, no towers.
Paste;
2326 W. Beach St., Watsonville, CA
into google maps street view, there's one pedestal there, another down the road at 2488.

If you can think where towers are out that way, it's your turn. I sorta do and sorta don't remember towers now that I've found pedestals. 

Awful color cast, not my photo......








.


----------

