Miniature faking?

[TennesseJones]

There's a particular shot I want to get of a show of mine I'm about to do, inspired by wonderful David Burnetts photographs of the London Olympics.

I believe he used a large format camera with an old aircraft lens (I think this is right) to create what I'm calling in my head (probably in blissful ignorance!) a tilt shift miniaturisation vista.

Now I don't have a large format camera with an aircraft lens. I have an m9 (useless for this) an m6 (ditto) and an nikon f3.

I wondered what the best advice would be to get such a shot. Obviously cost comes into it, and it's not likely to become a style. Just rent some dslr kit? Cheap purchase possibility of other things?

As ever, thanks for any and all suggestions!

 

[f16sunshine]

I have a couple Harblei Super Rotator Russian lenses That I use on my 5Dii every once and a while for this sort of thing.
Did a super Vamped up Time lapse recently for a Burleque performer with the 85mm. It was fun and definitely made more interesting by the technique.
Canon has a 90mm TS that would do the trick as well.
Nothing will be like large format other than large format imo.

On the cheap you can fake it with a P+S. This one is with a Sony RX100. The saturation is a bit over the top sorry. It's the OOC Jpeg and I did not adjust.
Fun to play around with.

Hotel Belevedere, Locarno Switzerland

 

[goamules]

To get the affect you need to be able to do movements. I.E. tilt the lens in different angles to the film plane. Most hand held small format cameras don't do that. But there are adapters like I think Andy is talking about above.

Personally, I'd consider renting a 4x5 camera for a weekend, and learn to do it right.

 

[dogberryjr]

Try this:
http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2012/05/22/fake-a-tilt-shift-effect-in-photoshop-elements/

 

[TXForester]

If you aren't going to spend money on a camera with movements, or an expensive tilt/shift lens for smaller formats, then there three cheap choices.

Fake it in photoshop or similar software, buy one of Lensbaby adapters or you could make your own adapter.

Here's a DIY adapter. http://blog.cow.mooh.org/2009/03/building-tilt-shift-plungercam-lens-for.html

 

[Steve M.]

Those are great shots Andy. I wish I could miniaturize myself and climb right into them.

 

[thegman]

I would imagine there is a tilt/shift lens out there to fit your Nikon. If you don't mind spending a few hundred on some kit, you could likely get a monorail 4x5 to play with.

 

[goamules]

Most people can't tell a photoshoped fake, but I can explain why it's fake in 1 minute. And can tell every time. Same with fake wetplates, instagram, or fake petzval swirl. They fool the consumer grade photo reviewer. Professionals laugh.

 

[TXForester]

Since it's a gimmick, does it matter if it's faked? If the creator and the viewers like it, then big deal if it's faked.

 

[f16sunshine]

Most people can't tell a photoshoped fake, but I can explain why it's fake in 1 minute. And can tell every time. Same with fake wetplates, instagram, or fake petzval swirl. They fool the consumer grade photo reviewer. Professionals laugh.

Sure a trained eye can see a fake but that's not the point.
It's a fake so it's fake.. right? A fake still can be fun, artistic, and or interesting. It might even inspire someone to try making a true TS "miniature" image in the traditional method.
Please lets not start with nose thumbing 😉

 

[Roger Hicks]

Sure a trained eye can see a fake but that's not the point.
It's a fake so it's fake.. right? A fake still can be fun, artistic, and or interesting. It might even inspire someone to try making a true TS "miniature" image in the traditional method.
Please lets not start with nose thumbing 😉

And it can also be vertiginous and near-nauseating, like being drunk. That's how I see most PS fakes: it's nothing to do with a "trained eye" but with the transitions between sharp and soft. Whether the "untrained eye" can immediately spot the difference or not, it's still different: the two side by side would not look the same. This is the real point: what look does the OP actually want?

Suggestions to the OP:

First, I am not familiar with the pictures you mention, and Google didn't enlighten me. Are you after MORE d-o-f (the traditional use for swings and tilts) or LESS (rarely as successful)?

Hire a TS lens or buy a TS bellows (such things exist) or (better still) buy a cheap 4x5 and use it with a roll-film back. Or consider focus stacking. It can be used for more d-o-f: it would be interesting to see if it could be used for reducing it too.

Cheers,

R.

 

[TennesseJones]

Thank you everyone for these kind responses!

Lovely shots Andy!

Roger- here's a link to some of the photographs I was thinking of

http://www.davidburnett.com/gallery.html?gallery=London+2012+/+Olympics#/1

I would rather not use photoshop. Particularly as I don't own photoshop!

I haven't been able to work out if there's a tilt-shift that will work on a Nikon F3. Maybe that's the best option.

And again picking up on Roger's comment:

What would be a cheap 4x5 that I could use roll film back with? (That's medium format film isn't it? I have a stash of that frozen which could do with being used..)

Many thanks again!

 

[DominikDUK]

David Burnett used a Speed Graphic and Kodak Aerial lens for his pictures
http://petapixel.com/2013/02/08/david-burnetts-speed-graphic-photos-of-the-london-2012-olympics/

You can mimic the look with a swing and tilt lens on your F3 but the look will be a bit different 4x5 vs 35mm. The Speed graphic can often be found very cheap at least in the US and old aerial lenses are also cheap though the Kodak lens is also a bit radioactive. The Speed graphic is also probably the cheapest way to get an LF camera with cheap Rollfilm back.
Good luck

 

[TennesseJones]

Thanks so much for this.

I enjoy the phrase 'a bit radioactive'....

David Burnett used a Speed Graphic and Kodak Aerial lens for his pictures
http://petapixel.com/2013/02/08/david-burnetts-speed-graphic-photos-of-the-london-2012-olympics/

You can mimic the look with a swing and tilt lens on your F3 but the look will be a bit different 4x5 vs 35mm. The Speed graphic can often be found very cheap at least in the US and old aerial lenses are also cheap though the Kodak lens is also a bit radioactive. The Speed graphic is also probably the cheapest way to get an LF camera with cheap Rollfilm back.
Good luck

 

[Sparrow]

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . .

And again picking up on Roger's comment:

What would be a cheap 4x5 that I could use roll film back with? (That's medium format film isn't it? I have a stash of that frozen which could do with being used..) . . .

Where are you? 'Cos different 4x5s are cheaper or more expensive in different countries. Any 4x5 with an International back will do: one where the ground-glass can be unclipped. See http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps large.html Your 120 film can be used in an enormous range of backs: look for 6x9cm.

Looking at those pics -- which were indeed the ones Google produced -- I'm not sure he did use movements. I think he just shot at wide apertures. If it was an Aero Ektar (the most obvious candidate for a radioactive aerial camera lens) on a Speed Graphic I don't think the front standard would be up to it, and beside, the shots look hand-held. Using movements on a hand-held camera is Hell's own job.

Cheers,

R.

 

[DominikDUK]

I believe he used different techniques but Roger is right he mostly just shot wide open and the lens signature did the rest. The riders and the tennis court pictures look like he used some front tilt but just a very slight amount of it. Roger is also right regarding the lens weight it is around 1.5 to 2kg and doesnt mount into a shutter so you have to use the built in focal plane shutter of the Graflex. On the plus side it is very fast for a LF lens f2.5 and it also helps reduce overpopulation if you keep it near your privates for an extended time 🙂
If you want the look use lf film not rollfilm. It is a huge jump from 6x9cm to 4x5in but well worth it imo.

 

[John E Earley]

I used a tilt/adapter Nikon-to-Nex for this shot.



http://www.rainbowimaging.biz/shop/product.php?id_product=626

 

[doolittle]

I would rather not use photoshop. Particularly as I don't own photoshop!

There are a few stand alone products that will let you fake it. For recent OSX there is focus2

I haven't been able to work out if there's a tilt-shift that will work on a Nikon F3. Maybe that's the best option.

There isn't a huge selection of them. On the used market you can get the Nikkor-PC lenses, but they only have shift, and not tilt, so no good for your purpose.

Rokinon have a reasonably priced (compared to Nikkor one at least) 24mm T/S, which has a manual aperture ring, so will work on F3.

 

[goamules]

Yeah, now that I know the OP is trying to emulate Burnett shots, disregard what I said about movements being the method. Burnett's speed graphics have very minimal movements, and he probably doesn't have time to even think about using them, shooting hand held action shots. What he has is a very fast lens. You can replicate a lot of that with the fastest lens you can get on a full frame or even micro 4/3ds. Say a Canon LTM 50mm 0.95, or Angenieux Cmount 35mm 0.95 respectively.

"Fast" lenses vary according to format size. While a Aero Ektar may not seem fast, compared to 35mm lenses, it is very much so. With large format, anything faster than about F3 is considered a "speed lens." I can't think of the formula right now, but a F2.8 lens on 4x5 is about like an F1.0 on 35mm. There are still differences, but not many.