tilt shift thread

enjoy ur $3000 photoshop correction.

File: eyeemfiltered1501600357591.jpg (447KB, 1397x940px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 1397x940px

>not doing it in post

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Height	940
Image Created	2017:07:10 16:11:25
Image Width	1397

>>3127521
Stop posting this garbage photo of a chair

>>3127520
you could just hire one. Costs like $60 for three days of fun.

>>3127541
youd have to be alphon too for it not to be a waste of money, though.

>>3127520
>>3127521
itt people who do not know what they are talking about it.

>>3127560
No you don't know what your talking about. you can use a tilt shift to make things look tiny but to also photograph buildings and have it so they don't look like they are leaning away into the distance. In short kys.

>>3127557
or just capable of finding architecture worth taking photos of... which isnt that hard.

if you want to tilt shift people just find a high spot over a condensed walkway and hire the damn lens.

>>3127520
>>3127521
You can't do it all in post. I just did a real estate shoot the other day using a 14mm. The lines are absolutely uncorrectable in photoshop, it distorts the image so heavily that it shows the transparent layer in the background. I'm going to pick up a cheap tiltshift just for that

>>3127588
A tilt shift lens is just an ultrawide with an image circle much larger than your sensor.
"shifting" is nothing more than moving the cropped image.

If you have a similarly ultrawide lens designed for your sensor you can do the "shift" in post just by cropping.
Such a lens is generally much cheaper.

Only downside of doing it in post is you lose some megapixels.
But with modern sensors that's usually no big deal.

>>3127606
you lose pixels with a tilt shift too
sharpness goes down dramatically because you're not using the center of the lens
the dirty little secret about these things is they usually don't make much sense on 35mm, unless you're a real estate photographer

>>3127606
I don't see how that would work though. There isn't a single straight line vertical line in any of my photos, it wouldn't matter if I cropped the image or not.

File: Tilt-Shift-for-creecting-converging-verticals-diagram-Cameraplex-1024x576.jpg (33KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 640x360px

>>3127790

Unless you're talking about lens distortion, which is a one button fix in Lightroom, the distortion is caused by tilting the camera.
If you keep the camera perfectly level the verticals will remain vertical.

If you're photographing a tall building from the ground this means half the image will be of the ground, which is probably not what you want so you crop off the bottom half of the image.

The shift function on the tilt-shift lens works exactly the same way:
You keep the camera body level and shift up to get more sky and less ground.
There is no magic anti-distortion mechanism, all it does is move the image circle around so the sensor sees a different part of the image.

I understand how tilt movement is useful, but I still can't wrap my head around why shifting is useful. Why couldn't you just raise the camera on a tripod a bit more?

>>3127834
>Why couldn't you just raise the camera on a tripod a bit more?

Because you would have to raise it a lot more than "a bit".

If you wanted to photograph a 20 story building you would have to raid the tripod to the 10th floor to get it nice and straight.

File: Screen Shot 2017-08-05 at 3.17.52 PM.png (2MB, 1392x924px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1392x924px

>>3127830
I get what you're saying, but Im saying the photos I took last week were absolutely uncorrectable. Photoshop just couldn't do it. pic related (unedited just to show an example)

Are you saying that If I got an 8mm instead of a 14mm and just pointed the camera a different way, it would work better?

>>3127840
sikk barrel distortion bro, did you shoot that on a fisheye?

>>3127840
For that shot you didn't even need a different lens.

All you had to do was bend your knees.
ie: take it from about 1.5m off the ground instead of from eye level.

File: Screen Shot 2017-08-05 at 3.28.13 PM.png (2MB, 1576x1048px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1576x1048px

>>3127843
no, a 14mm rokinon. The barrel distortion is easily correctable because it really isn't that bad. You clearly don't know what a fucking fisheye even looks like.

>>3127847
Thanks for the tip. I'll practice a little bit more at my house before the next shoot I do. It was the first time I shot real estate photos, so it was just a different process than what I normally do

File: medium-1501971602323.jpg (145KB, 500x332px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 500x332px

>>3127840
2 clicks in lightroom (auto perspective and constrain crop)

Not perfect but shows how far you get with no work.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:08:06 00:33:42
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: Screen Shot 2017-08-05 at 3.38.14 PM.png (4MB, 2442x1338px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2442x1338px

>>3127854
That's probably my problem. I edited these in ACR. Why the fuck does it not have the constrain crop function here?

This is why I thought it was uncorrectable, obviously, I can crop in manually, but shouldn't have this problem

>>3127849
>14mm rokinon. The barrel distortion is easily correctable because it really isn't that bad.

It does have a weird "mustache" type distortion.

Correcting it by hand is very difficult.
But there are profiles to do it automatically, I would definitely do that.

>>3127855
>uncorrectable
>i don't want to do any work

>>3127857
Yeah, there's a profile in photoshop for the correction, works pretty good can't complain.

>>3127859
I needed to have a fast turn around on these photos, I didn't want to fuck around with scaling the images one by one, it would've taken hours for all the photos I took. I've never encountered photoshop fucking up on the distortion correction before except for extreme cases, and I thought it was just an extreme case that it wouldn't work on. Clearly, they removed the function to keep the correction from causing issues. Why would they do that?

>>3127855
You could still crop manually.
Which is what I normally use anyways.
With automatic crop you might lose something you wanted to include, which you can include by excluding something else.
Plus I like to crop my images anyways, to improve composition and avoid clutter on the edges. (haters gonna hate)

>>3127863
Yeah, I know it. I was just under a very short timeline. I finished taking the photos around 7:30pm, and started editing them at 8am. The realtor was already asking for them at 8:30, so I got them out as quick as I could. I just don't understand why the distortion correction doesn't work like it used to though

File: tilt.jpg (1MB, 1800x891px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1800x891px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2015:11:17 15:56:44
Exposure Time	1/1250 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1800
Image Height	891
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

There you go faggots, it'll soon be Christmas

http://www.canonrumors.com/three-new-tilt-shift-lenses-on-the-way-cr2/

Ignore the haters, hating is the only thing they are good at

>>3127505
DUDE EERIE EFFECT LMAO

>>3127855
holy shit you are aware that a tilt shift lense/photoshop/lightroom also just crop the image? that the image of every lense gets cropped down to a square format? just do it manually of you dont have the software, dont start buying shift lenses all of a sudden

>>3127684
>they usually don't make much sense on 35mm

What about for macro?

>>3127870
Pyongyang? You been there?

>>3127521
>not doing it at all

>>3127870
>>3130547
Also interested. Post more please.

>>3130547
yeah quite a few times.

>>3127505
Does anyone use tilt shift lenses for landscapes? Like how the large format guys maximise the depth of field for the scene.

Anyone have any luck making one of those DIY tilt shift dealies? I'm looking at picking up a medium format lens for the purpose.