Camera Tilt - A Mini-Rant

[c.cloudwalker]

^^^^ :thumbup:

Beautiful post. Manaheim is just having his periods, excuse him :lmao:

I especially like what you said about Picasso. True, his cubism period is not going to appeal to everyone but the man was a great artist. His drawings are quite amazing. Cheers.

 

[manaheim]

Hey, I owe you an apology for being overly snarky. It STARTED as me trying to make a fairly good point, but things at home are a little quirky and it turned into something pretty spectacularly sharp. I actually really DON'T have an issue with you.

I post this here publicly to give myself a slap on the wrist in front of all, but I'll also send you a private note to apologize.

BTW, your last post here was very nicely put.

Sorry again.

 

[javier]

No offense intended Javier, but would you like to tell me just what the tilt does for the shot? Does the tilting make the bustlines on the two young women larger? I mean, I am familiar with your work and the heavy emphasis on top-heavy honies

oK, here is the thing Derrel. First of all when I posted the image I posted, I addressed it to ''pugs'' as a poke of fun since he and I get along well..

I never said it was a good or bad picture..Infact, The truth, is, that it is an image that I would not have ever posted and after I was done, it was ready for the trash bin..No, the fact is you made a bad assumption...Then you assumed that I was out there shooting top heavy honies. Another assumption. Really, your statement is pretty stupid..

Now, I took a brief look at your photos and while you have 1 or maybe 2 that I liked, most I would have never even taken. The same could be said about mine as well...

There is likely more people who hate my street photography than like it, but I shoot for ''me''...I am not trying to sell anything... I am not trying to be the cats meow.

 

[javier]

The human brain expects an horizon line to be horizontal therefore when it is not we look for a reason as to why it was tilted. Which is why most people agree that when one puts the guidelines aside, it should be for a reason.

Now, I do agree that the artist is the ultimate decider of how to create his/her own work. But the viewer ultimately decides whether to buy or not and, will he buy something he does not understand? Not that that really matters.

I've also said before that the artist is not always conscious of why he/she does certain things in certain ways. We get a feeling and just go with it.

That said, I have to agree with Derrel that the tilt doesn't add anything to Javier's image. Or if it does, I just don't see it.

As for Manaheim's image, I don't think it would be as good without the tilt. Without, it would just be another image with skewed perspective due to the angle. The tilt actually adds to the chaos.

That said, I would not hang either image on my wall. You both have done much better. And that is more important. I don't like tilt much but it is not going to keep me from liking an image. I also won't like an image just because it is not tilted.

Cheers.

Agreed. Well said.

 

[Pugs]

Hey, I owe you an apology for being overly snarky. It STARTED as me trying to make a fairly good point, but things at home are a little quirky and it turned into something pretty spectacularly sharp. I actually really DON'T have an issue with you.

I post this here publicly to give myself a slap on the wrist in front of all, but I'll also send you a private note to apologize.

BTW, your last post here was very nicely put.

Sorry again.

I'm holding to backing out of this thread, but I do have to publicly acknowledge and accept Manaheim's apology. It's a very stand-up thing and rare in real life and even rarer online for someone to apologize publicly and privately. It says all sorts of good things about Manaheim's character that he would do so and I absolutely accept the apology. Thank you, Manaheim!

 

[Derrel]

No offense intended Javier, but would you like to tell me just what the tilt does for the shot? Does the tilting make the bustlines on the two young women larger? I mean, I am familiar with your work and the heavy emphasis on top-heavy honies

oK, here is the thing Derrel. First of all when I posted the image I posted, I addressed it to ''pugs'' as a poke of fun since he and I get along well..

I never said it was a good or bad picture..Infact, The truth, is, that it is an image that I would not have ever posted and after I was done, it was ready for the trash bin..No, the fact is you made a bad assumption...Then you assumed that I was out there shooting top heavy honies. Another assumption. Really, your statement is pretty stupid..

Now, I took a brief look at your photos and while you have 1 or maybe 2 that I liked, most I would have never even taken. The same could be said about mine as well...

There is likely more people who hate my street photography than like it, but I shoot for ''me''...I am not trying to sell anything... I am not trying to be the cats meow.

it looks to me like my assumption was actually correct--the photo is not a good picture. You, yourself, said it's a trash bin picture. And yet, you published it here, ostensibly as a "poke at Pugs". Not a very good maneuver in a discussion, "poking" instead of making a valid point. I have seen your street photography,and have noticed that the vast majority of your shutter clicks come whenever there is a busty young female under 30 prominently in the picture. Lots and lots of them, all alike. "Candids" is the term most people call them these days. They used to be called "girl-watcher" pictures.
As c.cloudwalker stated, he would not hang your picture,nor manaheim's picture on his wall. Neither would I, not even for a day, hence my comment that those tilted pictures were not "good pictures".

I honstly call 'em like I see 'em, and if The Pact's own author wishes to rail against an honest critical point, and if somebody wants to publish a picture in support of a point of view, but then later says it was done just to "poke" at somebody...well, obviously then the author of The Pact and the person publishing shots just to "poke" at others are being quite...what is the word...disingenuous, perhaps?

I have studied photography and art; those who do not understand Picasso, impressionism, cubism, dada, post modernism,etc,etc. do not strike me as people who are really "into" art, artistry, or the arts in general. There's an old expression that attempts to justify ignorance about art: "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like." People who spout off such sayings are typically ignorant of all the fine arts, and they enjoy kitschy, facile, easily-accessible popular culture junk that masquerades as art. Those that profess that opera is crap, classical music sucks, cubism was just a bunch of crap, claim that Mondrian was a failed crossword puzzle writer, and so on....those are the type of folks that seem to really rail against those who have an actual background in art of any type. The same type of people who badmouth PBS and watch Survivor seem to love to tell us how tilting a photo makes it "more artistic"; and in this case, I am not addressing either Javier or manaheim, but another, very young shooter who made an impassioned plea that "tilting" wedding photos makes the compositions "more artistic." Sigh...

My point was, if .003 degrees of tilt makes a photo better, then MORE tilt, like 30 degrees would therefore make the resultant photo better, and also that tilting a street photo substantially does not make it a "good photo" to use my own words. And now it seems that the street photo shooter's owner admits that the photo was destined for the trash bin-- he himself admitted that the photo was not even good enough to keep. So, I have to ask myself, if that was so, then WHY even bother publishing it as an example in the midst of a serious discussion?

 

[javier]

No offense intended Javier, but would you like to tell me just what the tilt does for the shot? Does the tilting make the bustlines on the two young women larger? I mean, I am familiar with your work and the heavy emphasis on top-heavy honies

oK, here is the thing Derrel. First of all when I posted the image I posted, I addressed it to ''pugs'' as a poke of fun since he and I get along well..

I never said it was a good or bad picture..Infact, The truth, is, that it is an image that I would not have ever posted and after I was done, it was ready for the trash bin..No, the fact is you made a bad assumption...Then you assumed that I was out there shooting top heavy honies. Another assumption. Really, your statement is pretty stupid..

Now, I took a brief look at your photos and while you have 1 or maybe 2 that I liked, most I would have never even taken. The same could be said about mine as well...

There is likely more people who hate my street photography than like it, but I shoot for ''me''...I am not trying to sell anything... I am not trying to be the cats meow.

it looks to me like my assumption was actually correct--the photo is not a good picture. You, yourself, said it's a trash bin picture. And yet, you published it here, ostensibly as a "poke at Pugs". Not a very good maneuver in a discussion, "poking" instead of making a valid point. I have seen your street photography,and have noticed that the vast majority of your shutter clicks come whenever there is a busty young female under 30 prominently in the picture. Lots and lots of them, all alike. "Candids" is the term most people call them these days. They used to be called "girl-watcher" pictures.
As c.cloudwalker stated, he would not hang your picture,nor manaheim's picture on his wall. Neither would I, not even for a day, hence my comment that those tilted pictures were not "good pictures".

I honstly call 'em like I see 'em, and if The Pact's own author wishes to rail against an honest critical point, and if somebody wants to publish a picture in support of a point of view, but then later says it was done just to "poke" at somebody...well, obviously then the author of The Pact and the person publishing shots just to "poke" at others are being quite...what is the word...disingenuous, perhaps?

I have studied photography and art; those who do not understand Picasso, impressionism, cubism, dada, post modernism,etc,etc. do not strike me as people who are really "into" art, artistry, or the arts in general. There's an old expression that attempts to justify ignorance about art: "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like." People who spout off such sayings are typically ignorant of all the fine arts, and they enjoy kitschy, facile, easily-accessible popular culture junk that masquerades as art. Those that profess that opera is crap, classical music sucks, cubism was just a bunch of crap, claim that Mondrian was a failed crossword puzzle writer, and so on....those are the type of folks that seem to really rail against those who have an actual background in art of any type. The same type of people who badmouth PBS and watch Survivor seem to love to tell us how tilting a photo makes it "more artistic"; and in this case, I am not addressing either Javier or manaheim, but another, very young shooter who made an impassioned plea that "tilting" wedding photos makes the compositions "more artistic." Sigh...

My point was, if .003 degrees of tilt makes a photo better, then MORE tilt, like 30 degrees would therefore make the resultant photo better, and also that tilting a street photo substantially does not make it a "good photo" to use my own words. And now it seems that the street photo shooter's owner admits that the photo was destined for the trash bin-- he himself admitted that the photo was not even good enough to keep. So, I have to ask myself, if that was so, then WHY even bother publishing it as an example in the midst of a serious discussion?

You really don't get it do you? Well, I am not going to bother explaining it to you. Continue to believe that indeed you are the cats meow.

 

[Joves]

Well I like the top heavy hunnies. Even if they are tilted. Better if they were topless, then I wouldnt even notice the tilt at all.

 

[manaheim]

My point was, if .003 degrees of tilt makes a photo better, then MORE tilt, like 30 degrees would therefore make the resultant photo better, and also that tilting a street photo substantially does not make it a "good photo" to use my own words.

If a dish happens to need a pinch of salt to make it "just so", then a pinch of salt is exactly what is needed. Thirty pounds of salt probably wouldn't make it "that much more just so". It's not a matter of "turn it up to 11!!!", it's a matter of doing what's right for that photo.

If your superior training and study in art tells you that my artistic choices are "poor", so be it. Who knows, someday I may even change my mind and agree with you, but in the meantime I see elements of our world that are not always in nice tight little squared-off boxes, and so that's how I'll show them.

Such as this...

And this...

BTW, I think that pretty much completes my entire repitoire of "angled" images.

 

[Derrel]

You really don't get it do you? Well, I am not going to bother explaining it to you. Continue to believe that indeed you are the cats meow.

Sorry Javier, all I was trying to point out is that the tilt you added to your photo did not make it a "good photo". I'm not judging myself or calling myself as you put it, "the cat's meow". All I am saying is I have seen your street photos, and a high preponderance of them are girl-shots. I'm not touting my abilities as a shooter, nor trying to advance myself. I commented on *your* posted photo, one which you said was a "trash bin" shot. Sorry, but no, I'm not taking the bait you keep putting out there. Tilt away!

 

[themedicine]

So I can't believe this thread is still going, but since it is a discussion I guess I'll add my $0.02. I have to agree that in certain circumstances camera tilt can dramatically improve a photo. Sometimes, it can kill it. I have seen plenty of photos where all I can do is say to myself, "this is crooked" or, "the horizon isn't straight." But when it works, I don't even think anything about it. I just see tilt as a tool for a photographer to use to show or emphasize a perspective or point of view. I mean, the whole world isn't either a landscape or portrait sized box, so why should I have to work within those constraints? Well, I shouldn't, and neither should anyone else.
And I don't see where bringing up fine arts and the understanding of them is anything different.
I am not trying to compare say, the Dada movement to camera tilt, but those artists did use junk, in a literal sense, to make a statement about the art world in general. Basically that the art world was too pretentious to begin with but as long as it made it into a gallery, it was accepted as art. So what did they do, they said "F it" and put a bunch of ready-mades in the gallery as basically a huge middle finger to the entire art world. That being said, who's to tell anyone what they are allowed to do with a camera so long as the image is striking and beautiful?
/mini rant.

OH and I love that 1st shot above manaheim!

 

[manaheim]

OH and I love that 1st shot above manaheim!

Thanks. Nicely said, btw. (the other bits... not the compliment on my shot...hahah) I seriously need to go to bed.

 

[themedicine]

hahaha, Yea yea...