Camera Tilt - A Mini-Rant

[Antithesis]

You shoot weddings with an E420 ?

No, I shot weddings with a 5D and a 20D, a 24-70L, a 70-200L and a bunch of primes. The e-420 is like my 8th dSLR, plus a few film SLR's before that. I bought it to travel with as I sold my 5D to pay rent after I got laid off from the studio I used to shoot for. Ironic I know.

The Oly is just a little travel camera and something cheap to keep me shooting until I finish school.

I think sticking to stringent compositional rules is just plain retarded. If everyone did that, then we wouldn't have any variety, just the same old crap.
Agreed until you change the word "rule" for that much nicer one "guidelines." What you call rules are not really so except for the noob. The noob (nothing bad intended here, btw, as we were all noobs once upon a time) has a lot to learn and having somewhat strict rules to deal with allows him to concentrate on what is more important, at first.

The rules allow him/her to come up with a decent photo if not a creative one. As the noob progresses, he/she can throw away all the rules and come up with his/her own vision. But you have to know the rules and know how to apply them before you can break them.

And you have to have a reason to break the rule before you break it. Just breaking a rule does not make you creative. Sorry. Every artist breaks the rules all the time but "I'm going to tilt this shot to be creative" is not creative. Actually, considering how many people are tilting their shots today, I would think it is more creative not to.


I've actually heard some pretty strong criticism of people like Ansel Adams for being so damn mathematical about his composition. I know that probably sounds dumb, but in my opinion the drama of the moment in his photos are more important than a perfectly horizontal horizon.
Lol at the skewed horizon. Most of the time someone mentions a skewed horizon, I need a ruler to see it and I had never heard so many people worried about horizons until I joined forums. That said, mentioning a name is dangerous. You like Adams, fine but I don't really. His photos are beautiful but they bore me to death. And I don't see the drama of the moment... 1/60th of a second in the life span of nature is like a speck of dust. No drama.

I've also had photography teachers tell me to add some tilt to photos, because it can often add drama to an otherwise boring shot.
Doesn't sound like a teacher I would want. Sounds to much like "well it did not work in color, let's make this B&W..."

And, working as a wedding photographer for almost a year, tilting your camera was the norm. Not in my work. If you had a good subject in front of you, you'd shoot a horizontal, portrait and everything in between, and often the angles in between will end up being the more interesting photos. Is it really or is it what the non-creative person (the client) sees as being creative? You can only arrange a bride and groom so many ways, or take so many dancing shots before it's time to tilt the camera and hope for some interesting photos. Are you sure it is not a case of your own creative limitation? I agree that there are only so many ways to arrange a bride and groom but do they really want to be arranged any other way? Maybe a wedding is not a time to be that creative. Maybe it is more a time to capture the event. I had the opportunity to think about this last summer when my son got married and the photos were extremely disappointing. Nothing wrong with them per say. Just your typical boring wedding photos which only my son and his bride will cherish.

Granted, there is a time and a place for everything. Amen to that

I'm just re-criticizing the people that insist that there can be no good way to tilt a camera. Certainly you shouldn't tilt every shot, just like you shouldn't shoot everything on a fisheye or cross process everything. Just because it's a trend, doesn't mean its not useful or compelling. The same way that HDR can be useful in producing some gorgeous landscapes.

"Maybe a wedding is not a time to be that creative. Maybe it is more a time to capture the event."

I think it's easy to do both. Many people also cherish gorgeous, fine art images that can be blown up to a 20x30 and put up on the wall. At the studio where I was formerly employed, it was pretty standard for people to purchase numerous large prints to frame on top of their albums. I'm pretty sure these wouldn't sell if you were shooting strictly documentary photographs. Images with differing compositions can also be used to add variety to an album, while still covering the documentary side of things.

And many clients chose our studio strictly because we were very creative. And because of that we ended up with the highest paying clients in our neck of the woods, and often outside of it.

Also, much of your statement is saying that it's not creative to do this or that, and criticizing something because it's a trend. Following that thought process would totally do away with the rule of thirds or any other compositional "guidelines". They are all just additional tools to help us compose a shot when we are at creative odds with a subject. I don't think any of us have the right to really tell anyone that they are composing an image "wrong", even if they are imitating someone else.

Oh, and look at Adams' "Clearing Winter Storm" and tell me that's not dramatic. It's my favorite photo from any artist for that very reason.

 

[rufus5150]

Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned. It has been 3 months since my last tilting. Today, I took a picture of paperclips. The photo was not exciting. I tilted the camera and took it again and liked the result...

 

[patrickt]

Rules aren't made to be broken. They're made to be followed unless you have a reason to break them. There can be a variety of worthy reasons but "because my teacher said it was more artistic" isn't one of them. A friend recently asked me to critique some photos. Every single one was at an odd angle because the teacher had said......

I went to an exhibit where the photographer had discovered the wonderful world of IR. Thirty prints, every one IR. Boring.

 

[Derrel]

Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned. It has been 3 months since my last tilting. Today, I took a picture of paperclips. The photo was not exciting. I tilted the camera and took it again and liked the result...

^^^+1. An excellent point you've made. Touche!

 

[Antithesis]

Rules aren't made to be broken. They're made to be followed unless you have a reason to break them. There can be a variety of worthy reasons but "because my teacher said it was more artistic" isn't one of them. A friend recently asked me to critique some photos. Every single one was at an odd angle because the teacher had said......

I went to an exhibit where the photographer had discovered the wonderful world of IR. Thirty prints, every one IR. Boring.

I think there is a difference between telling someone it is more artistic to "tilt" your photos than someone telling you to just try different compositions, which may or may not include tilting your camera. Obviously, having every single photo look exactly the same produces a very dull series of images and should be avoided.

My point is to have variety. I think I may actually be agreeing with the OP in that I dislike repetition just as much. I'm also saying that a technique shouldn't be obliterated from your repertoire simply because many people have used it poorly. I actually have a macro/landscape photo around somewhere that worked very well with a tilted horizon, and might actually look significantly worse without it. I'll post it up when I can find the DVD that it's on and see if anyone else agrees.

 

[Pugs]

As the original poster, I was venting (a little tongue-in-cheek) about how tilting seems to be a "trend" of sorts and for some photographers has become a "rule" in and of itself. As I've stated before, there is a time and place for this technique and, like any photographic technique, it really is another tool in the toolbox to be used when it fits the composition or the feel of the photo.

My beef is that it seems like the assumption is that "breaking rules" (like the level horizon line, or the "rule" of thirds, or rule of negative space, or creating lines and shapes, or...) auto-magically makes a photo more artistic. I've been accused of dumping on other people's "style", but that's not my intent. I'm merely pointing out that in my opinion, using a single technique to be "different" is not necessarily a "style".

By the same token, rigidly following the "rules" is not a style either. The "rules" or in my opinion more accurately, the guidelines, is something like learning to ride a bicycle with both feet on the pedals and both hands on the handlebars before learning to ride no handed, or to do wheelies, or to stand up on the pedals, or...

The thing is that while it's difficult to do a wheelie without knowing how to keep a bike upright in the first place, it is far more simple to pick up a camera and tilt it. So what we get are people who might not understand composition latching on to a VERY popular technique and over-using (in my opinion) because that is all they see. They see an INCREDIBLE photograph and note the tilted horizon line and that's all. They don't see the leading lines. They don't see the deepening levels of foreground, middleground, and background. They don't see the shallow or deep depth of field. They don't see the emotion. They don't see the tonal range. They don't see the perfect exposure. They don't see... Or at least they don't consciously see these things; they don't understand that ALL of these things are contributing to how powerful the photograph truly is. They do, however, note the tilted horizon because it stands out, even to an untrained eye. So, in an attempt to emulate the style/feel/power of that photograph, they start tilting their cameras.

Emulation is good! It's how we learn. Babies learn to talk by trying to emulate the sounds that people around them make. By trying to mimic a technique, we can master it and put it in our toolbag. But we NEED other things in that toolbag or the imitation is shallow and trite.

So, my rant about tilting was a little tongue-in-cheek, maybe a little poorly written in that it didn't convey everything I meant, but it was cathartic.

Go ahead and tilt your camera! Just make sure that you're using the right tool for the job.

 

[bennielou]

I hear your pain Pugs. LOL.

It's a gimmick. You can put it in there with the "fade", "aged", "selective", "textured" category. A new disturbing trend is the completely out of focus photo. I kid you not. People are doing this on purpose. Even big time commercial shooters.

But just like Jesus in the Brandy Glass or the B&G smiling down onto the wedding ceremony photos are a thing of the past, these gimmicks too will pass. Unfortunately only to be replaced with other gimmicks.

Now I'm not saying I haven't done these same gimmicks for clients in the past because they asked for it, but I did so with great grimacing.

Anyhoo, if you blink for a moment, it will be gone.

 

[javier]

Personally, I am a huge fan of the tilt. I believe it really enhances ''some'' street images. I do it often and purposeful. I believe a part of the question is; How much tilt is too much? A very subtle tilt looks like a mistake or bad technique. Now having said that, I find the tilt to be attractive only in street images. But this is me.

 

[xintax]

Hahaha! I sometimes use tilts when I see a lot of lines in the picture... I hate parallels... I also do tilts when I'm in an awkward position (taking pictures of animals on my head or one leg on the ground, one leg on the wall situations)... or, like MuleWings... when I am drunk and the camera strap is wound up on my neck and/or wrist... heehee...

But I do agree that there has to be some degree of propriety to tilting... Will try to lessen the use... Hahaha!!!

 

[rufus5150]

I hate parallels...

Not one to burst bubbles, but even if you tilt, the lines within the frame are still parallel

 

[Antithesis]

As the original poster, I was venting (a little tongue-in-cheek) about how tilting seems to be a "trend" of sorts and for some photographers has become a "rule" in and of itself. As I've stated before, there is a time and place for this technique and, like any photographic technique, it really is another tool in the toolbox to be used when it fits the composition or the feel of the photo.

My beef is that it seems like the assumption is that "breaking rules" (like the level horizon line, or the "rule" of thirds, or rule of negative space, or creating lines and shapes, or...) auto-magically makes a photo more artistic. I've been accused of dumping on other people's "style", but that's not my intent. I'm merely pointing out that in my opinion, using a single technique to be "different" is not necessarily a "style".

By the same token, rigidly following the "rules" is not a style either. The "rules" or in my opinion more accurately, the guidelines, is something like learning to ride a bicycle with both feet on the pedals and both hands on the handlebars before learning to ride no handed, or to do wheelies, or to stand up on the pedals, or...

The thing is that while it's difficult to do a wheelie without knowing how to keep a bike upright in the first place, it is far more simple to pick up a camera and tilt it. So what we get are people who might not understand composition latching on to a VERY popular technique and over-using (in my opinion) because that is all they see. They see an INCREDIBLE photograph and note the tilted horizon line and that's all. They don't see the leading lines. They don't see the deepening levels of foreground, middleground, and background. They don't see the shallow or deep depth of field. They don't see the emotion. They don't see the tonal range. They don't see the perfect exposure. They don't see... Or at least they don't consciously see these things; they don't understand that ALL of these things are contributing to how powerful the photograph truly is. They do, however, note the tilted horizon because it stands out, even to an untrained eye. So, in an attempt to emulate the style/feel/power of that photograph, they start tilting their cameras.

Emulation is good! It's how we learn. Babies learn to talk by trying to emulate the sounds that people around them make. By trying to mimic a technique, we can master it and put it in our toolbag. But we NEED other things in that toolbag or the imitation is shallow and trite.

So, my rant about tilting was a little tongue-in-cheek, maybe a little poorly written in that it didn't convey everything I meant, but it was cathartic.

Go ahead and tilt your camera! Just make sure that you're using the right tool for the job.

I also agree that you shouldn't simply break the "rules" or "guidelines" just to be different. It's a matter of intention, however questionable that intention is. Like, with out of focus photos.

For example, I was in a photography class and the TA gave a big presentation on one of his favorite photographers and displayed an entire series from the guy that were all out of focus. Out of the 20 or so images he displayed, about half of them were just out of focus pictures of the horizon in the dead center of the image, in black and white. They looked almost exactly the same, with some very subtle differences in tone.

I stood up and decided to question the quality of the photos. I got the response that the images "were intended to look that way". I understood that they were supposed to be out of focus, and I responded that if I did that, they would be just considered erroneous and completely disregarded. I still don't understand or appreciate photography like that, regardless of intention. I actually got a small round of applause from the teacher for being the only person that criticized the "artwork", while all the other art students were busy searching for some sort of meaning in photographs where there really was none. I understand that the photos may have been intended to be that way, but it certainly doesn't create anything compelling (for me anyways).

I don't know where I was going with that other than the fact that we are all of different opinions, and sometimes it's necessary to go against the grain. I happen to think a tilted photo can add something to certain photos of certain subjects. For example: some architecture, people photography or motorsports, to name a few.

 

[DennyCrane]

I blame the Facey Space social networking site generation and all the crappy phone camera pictures posted there. And yes, I am being serious.

 

[bennielou]

As the original poster, I was venting (a little tongue-in-cheek) about how tilting seems to be a "trend" of sorts and for some photographers has become a "rule" in and of itself. As I've stated before, there is a time and place for this technique and, like any photographic technique, it really is another tool in the toolbox to be used when it fits the composition or the feel of the photo.

My beef is that it seems like the assumption is that "breaking rules" (like the level horizon line, or the "rule" of thirds, or rule of negative space, or creating lines and shapes, or...) auto-magically makes a photo more artistic. I've been accused of dumping on other people's "style", but that's not my intent. I'm merely pointing out that in my opinion, using a single technique to be "different" is not necessarily a "style".

By the same token, rigidly following the "rules" is not a style either. The "rules" or in my opinion more accurately, the guidelines, is something like learning to ride a bicycle with both feet on the pedals and both hands on the handlebars before learning to ride no handed, or to do wheelies, or to stand up on the pedals, or...

The thing is that while it's difficult to do a wheelie without knowing how to keep a bike upright in the first place, it is far more simple to pick up a camera and tilt it. So what we get are people who might not understand composition latching on to a VERY popular technique and over-using (in my opinion) because that is all they see. They see an INCREDIBLE photograph and note the tilted horizon line and that's all. They don't see the leading lines. They don't see the deepening levels of foreground, middleground, and background. They don't see the shallow or deep depth of field. They don't see the emotion. They don't see the tonal range. They don't see the perfect exposure. They don't see... Or at least they don't consciously see these things; they don't understand that ALL of these things are contributing to how powerful the photograph truly is. They do, however, note the tilted horizon because it stands out, even to an untrained eye. So, in an attempt to emulate the style/feel/power of that photograph, they start tilting their cameras.

Emulation is good! It's how we learn. Babies learn to talk by trying to emulate the sounds that people around them make. By trying to mimic a technique, we can master it and put it in our toolbag. But we NEED other things in that toolbag or the imitation is shallow and trite.

So, my rant about tilting was a little tongue-in-cheek, maybe a little poorly written in that it didn't convey everything I meant, but it was cathartic.

Go ahead and tilt your camera! Just make sure that you're using the right tool for the job.

I also agree that you shouldn't simply break the "rules" or "guidelines" just to be different. It's a matter of intention, however questionable that intention is. Like, with out of focus photos.

For example, I was in a photography class and the TA gave a big presentation on one of his favorite photographers and displayed an entire series from the guy that were all out of focus. Out of the 20 or so images he displayed, about half of them were just out of focus pictures of the horizon in the dead center of the image, in black and white. They looked almost exactly the same, with some very subtle differences in tone.

I stood up and decided to question the quality of the photos. I got the response that the images "were intended to look that way". I understood that they were supposed to be out of focus, and I responded that if I did that, they would be just considered erroneous and completely disregarded. I still don't understand or appreciate photography like that, regardless of intention. I actually got a small round of applause from the teacher for being the only person that criticized the "artwork", while all the other art students were busy searching for some sort of meaning in photographs where there really was none. I understand that the photos may have been intended to be that way, but it certainly doesn't create anything compelling (for me anyways).

I don't know where I was going with that other than the fact that we are all of different opinions, and sometimes it's necessary to go against the grain. I happen to think a tilted photo can add something to certain photos of certain subjects. For example: some architecture, people photography or motorsports, to name a few.

Your posts are well thought out and I agree with you on many aspects.

However, would you not agree that some photogs see something new, and use it to the enth? IE: Tilt, Tilt Shift, Textures, Cross process...etc

(And by the way, tilt and tilt shift are two way differnt techs as far as I know).

Anyhoo, I knew this one girl who was a really artistic kind of gal who could have made a ton of money in wedding photography. She had an outstanding eye.
But every single shot she took was a tilt shot, and every outdoor shot was not only tilted, but also had a sunburst. Every. Single. One.
Next thing I know, she is getting sued left and right by wedding clients. She finally filed for bankrupsy and moved out of state.

I think the lesson here is a neat thing goes a long way. Use gimmicks sparingly.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

I hate parallels...

Not one to burst bubbles, but even if you tilt, the lines within the frame are still parallel

:thumbup: That was my first thought.

I also agree that you shouldn't simply break the "rules" or "guidelines" just to be different. It's a matter of intention, however questionable that intention is. Like, with out of focus photos.

For example, I was in a photography class and the TA gave a big presentation on one of his favorite photographers and displayed an entire series from the guy that were all out of focus. Out of the 20 or so images he displayed, about half of them were just out of focus pictures of the horizon in the dead center of the image, in black and white. They looked almost exactly the same, with some very subtle differences in tone.

I stood up and decided to question the quality of the photos. I got the response that the images "were intended to look that way". I understood that they were supposed to be out of focus, and I responded that if I did that, they would be just considered erroneous and completely disregarded. I still don't understand or appreciate photography like that, regardless of intention. I actually got a small round of applause from the teacher for being the only person that criticized the "artwork", while all the other art students were busy searching for some sort of meaning in photographs where there really was none. I understand that the photos may have been intended to be that way, but it certainly doesn't create anything compelling (for me anyways).

I don't know where I was going with that other than the fact that we are all of different opinions, and sometimes it's necessary to go against the grain. I happen to think a tilted photo can add something to certain photos of certain subjects. For example: some architecture, people photography or motorsports, to name a few.

Well I don't know if I'm responsible for starting a movement but seeing more people use the word guidelines makes me happy. And call me an anarchist if you will but I have a problem with rules anyway

That said, it is a lovely story. However, your professor may have applauded more for your thinking for yourself than for your thinking what was shown was crap. This is the biggest dilemma of the art world. What is crap? What is hype? What is truly artistic? Plenty of people hate some of my favorite artists such as Jackson Pollock. Plenty of people hated some of the work I've shown, some calling it what they left in their darkroom trash

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

 

[djacobox372]

Out of 180 degrees of possible tilt, there is only a 0.5% chance that the ideal composition will be one that is not tilted.

The question should be: why so little camera tilt?