Using a perspective control lens for wedding photography

Wow i'm sorry if you read any of these winey comment !!!Great job, looks awesome so smart to do that .........

Wonderful - but has nothing to do with a typical or even upper market wedding... sorry. As an ex pro I've shot 100's of weddings and now more than ever clients aren't waiting around or allowing you to set up anything remotely beyond 'snaps', which despite my skills and being really good at delivering such images is one of the reasons I'm keen to have left the industry behind. I've seen some cracking wedding albums recently but frankly most are a CON. Good looking models that know how to stand/pose, use of multi light set ups, extensive use of fast lenses and then masses of photoshop thrown in for good measure. I often wonder what would happen if these so called pro's ever book a REAL wedding what their images would look like. Willing to bet they would be NOTHING like their sample albums.....

Wonderful gear to have for a $10k job for those clients with $100k to spend for the finest.

Meanwhile, a must-have for the $500 / wedding photogs: a lens that optically reduces the subjects' girth, clothing size, dental or dermatological problems, and bad hair. Why can't that old goat (the guy footing the bill?) smile? Well, he probably thinks $500 is way to much.

Sometimes an over-bright flash, complete defocus, and general blow-out is the best "fix."

I want to be positive, these are beautiful images but... this is a fashion shoot not a wedding.

I have used this lens, great fun, but not on a wedding day. Shooting a whole wedding with a couple fast primes, a 35mm and 50mm can produce wonderful results.

Wonderful images ... but, that effect can be achieved easily in post processing those days!

This is not wedding photography. It's bridal photography, staged and all that. No different than a glamor shoot or senior portraits, logistically speaking.

I've been using my 90mm TS-E to shoot portraits since around 2005. Either I'm 8 years ahead of the times or dpreview is 8 years too late. Or maybe it's a combination of the two.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1832778312/photos/2471208/scan810-custom

Here is a scan from a glass plate negative that was shot in Yorkshire England circa 1910.
Personally I think it's a very good example of movements in portraiture.

Those aren't wedding photos. Those are, at best, from a bridal photoshoot (if not a model in wedding gown). and those are the opposite of
a) the dimly-lit church
b) avoid-the-same-posing
c) get-the-registrar-out-of-the-way
d) control-flash or the recpetion looks horrible
e) contant ISO/f/Aperture changes in the ever changing lighting conditions of the dance floor.

Great pic and maybe T/S is a good idea, but he didn't deliver what the title offered.

I found it very interesting , never though to use these lens on people, portraits ,
thank you for sharing.nice pictures ,

PS: for the people commenting the alternative ways would be nice to share the work they have done

In 2008/09 it was a new thing. Now most of the more expensive or more artistic wedding photographers use them. Even in Croatia.

Could achieve the same effect for a lot less money with a lensbaby.

Open Photoshop, mask mode and apply gradients (multiply), exit mode and apply lens blur, done.

To make the shot look like a cool perspective shift shot and not a smartphone "smudge everything to make it look shallow" filter may actually be tough.

But well, like already said where's the wedding part? Setting up and getting great shots 'in time' with a tilt shift during a wedding seems like what's really tough and talking about that, maybe, would have been cool.
And also stuff like this is pretty much saying "less in focus the better" just blow everything except the eyes OOF and wow! You're an amazing photographer for having so little of the subject sharp and recognizable! Still ok, DOF control is a great tool and I shoot shallow often, but oohing and ahhing just at how little is in focus is old

Not bad, but where are the actual wedding photos? And don't tell me those aren't professional models.

Malyons, camera movements and lens design are first year photography subjects. For a high school photography teacher to consider such a trivial article a learning option is quite a frightening prospect. It's like a high school computer teacher getting excited hearing about command line parameters for the first time, or an auto mechanic instructor just figuring out the benefits of a manual shift.

Wow! And by Wow I mean, based on the comments I've read thus far, I will be careful as a new member not to post or write anything that isn't the resolution of Einsteinian and Quantum physics.

If you read the caption, it states that it is an opinion piece he wrote, hence "why it is his favorite" etc. Unfortunately those of us relatively new to things don't have the Encyclopaedia Brittanica of photographic history entrenched in our brains to recall how many of this type of photo we've seen.

I appreciate the info I've gleaned from the article and many of the comments. As a High School Photo teacher (who is still also learning) I am looking for resources of all sorts, and this gives me one more thing to add to the list of learning options.

There is certainly a wealth of opinion to be sorted through...

Good photos made with a good lens.

basically we use perspective control to get things within focus. some very simple tricks can put things out of focus. just raise one side of the plate under the enlarger in the darkroom where you can have much more control than on the site (like the paper can be curved, or you put two cents under the face and focus to the raised place, you cannot do it in camera).

now we can do it more easily and comfortably in the livingroom, and lens makers begin to use "optical bokeh" in their advertisement.

my advice is "do not do anything on the site that you can do later at desk" and the "perspective bokeh" is one.

You mustn't give all those negative comments!
For me as a beginner it's very interesting to learn from the article about those possibilities, that you get by t/s lenses. For me it's a good input. Thanks a lot!
For the so called 'Pro's': I think you're only envious, that you didn't write that article. Sit down and write a good article. Than you'll see: it's not that easy...
Have a nice weekend! Go out and come down taking better photos...
Fujidanny

if you look at the first big vertical picture of this article, you might notice something that always displeased me when i used TS lenses. the tilted focal plane frequently meets something in the background (or the ground here) or elsewhere that should not be sharp. this distracts the viewer. like in this case. that's why i prefer using software to create a sweet spot these days.

amazing... NOT!

JUST ANOTHER supposed article with half dozen nice pictures and no real juice to get from! Nothing to learn here, people DID use tilt for this more then 1century ago already!!! Good that he feels like he discovered the wheel! The article is just another one about publicity!!! And even for the canon lens at that! :/

Indeed like someone said: he asn his budy and the store get a few more hundred clicks from all this when i believe most of us would like to ACTUALLY learn something.
A waste of time. :(

What Trevor Dayley do is making the eyes, and nothing else, sharp. Thats it. As far as I can see from the example photos. Thats a nice effect. And he himself says, he likes to get the effect directly on site, and not doing post processing in Photoshop. Why not?

What would be interesting though is to see if the same quality of an effect can be made in post processing. Similar kind of effects can definitely be made in post processing. But ... can you get similar quality?

I'm heavily using the TS-E 90mm for my work since several years. I find it fascinating to discover new ways of taking pictures diretly on-site, not using PS in post pro. Check yourself: http://www.gernotsinger.com/

basically he is throwing the bottom of the image out of focus

blah

For those sneering at his work he starts out saying that this lens is not for everyone.
Frankly his work is very appealing despite the detractors.
As for it being in use for over 100 years that is true insofar as view cameras have been around that long. However the usual use has been to increase DOF and only rarely to decrease it.
The technique is enjoying a fashion these days because of the renewed interest in alt. lenses.Just as Instagram and any number of PS actions give a photographer a look, this effect is another enjoying some fashion at the moment. As fashions/fads go at least it is attractive.

This 'unique' approach has been in use by photographers for over 100 years.

In my opinion the photos look artificial almost like someone applied gassuain blur to the bottom of the dress or other areas which removes details and most brides want to see in their photos and I would like to see in the photos.......

I like the effect that shallow DOD gives even better as if you can get your subject completely in focus you can blur the backdrop out but you don't lose the detail as is lost using a tilt shift lens.

to all those detractors/negators of shallow DoF images shot 'in-camera' on the spot with the mounted lens...

why not just settle for a focus-free, 'infinite' super-high deep DoF everything is in focus, via tiny apertured tiny lensed tiny sensored cellphone cameras (or something smaller than a dSLR), and photoshop all the '3D pop' shallow DoF to your hearts content POST-PROCESSED (ad nauseum)... (blurry tunnel vision lens-baby optional)

happy now?

sdyue

The first B&W is magic. The second is flat and dreary. Strange the same person would showcase both.

Cool but that is a life style shoot, where is the wedding ?
( nice images don't get me wrong )

Very cool indeed.

Lovely pics. Not sure how many times I personally will have the time required on a wedding day to spend that time on a shot, and the look is not a million miles from post-processing, but I do like the idea a lot!

George53 I think you are being a tad tough on many working professionals- the article is after all titled "wedding photography" - a title that to me (as a working pro who only does weddings when I'm asked nicely) tends to mean covering a couples wedding day, rather than a glamorous portrait shoot- which may well not be the same occasion.

Can't wait for the "using fisheye for wedding photography" article.

I forgot to mention that one could use "Lensbaby" and create similar and even more interesting images at that time.

Looks like we have so many arm chair wedding photographers making comments but never-mind, free speech and all that.

Just a few of my comments. Not all the wedding couples in this world want a McDonald's 5 min photographic session. Some like to pay more and leave the photographer to create the magical images, some may like it some may adore them, everyone has a different perspective.

Secondly for a photographer to use a standard lens and then change the image in Photoshop according to the likes of the client meant the couple have not looked at the photographers portfolio and the photographer is probably some amateur who likes to dale in Photoshop because he or she is not creative enough on their feet and they need to plonk their bums on a chair to try and be creative.

These shots look like bridal portrait sessions before the wedding, although the blog talks about using the lens at the wedding.
I find blur in front of or below the subject usually detracts from a conventional portrait. It feels like somethings in the way when the print is viewed.

For dreamy, other-worldly styles I can see a T/S shining. Really high key shots where everything but the bride is blown out should work well. The kind of artistic intent that a lensbaby works with should suit a T/S too.

The B&W shot on the beach with the bride striding out of frame seems to work, while the one below it with the bride squatting really isn't to my taste at all.

If you ask me, that's staged portrait photography (with wedding dresses), not wedding photography.

Better have a "normal" camera to mimick those shots just in case the bride says: "Umm.. I like those background to show, because THAT'S what I want, and it's NOT what YOU want..."

.

I have to say that I like the images very much, but if the selective focus is all you are after, you might do better with creating the effect in post processing (I believe the latest version of PS even has a filter for that)...

Well there are very elaborate weddings with set time for formals where there is a time to use such lens or regular one in slow methodical aproch. On another hand camera and lenses getting better abd better but aparenty in high end weddings the "worst" picture looks the better. There are so many that shot with flare, PP to look like chip 50's slides or out of focus blured shots and people paid upwords of $4500 to $10000 for such "style".
To me it looks like this days starting at high end is easier than low end but since one bride won a court case in USA all wedding photogs be weary.
What was a claim she won? She claim she did not like pictures and asked for $40.000 and yes she did get a $$$$$$$$$$. Market will never be same since any bride can say I don't like it pay me lot of $$$$$$$$ I'm sure that $40K covered a even big wedding cost and who paid for that poor photographer.