Photogrouch rant
Nov. 15th, 2011 01:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
snousleOK, can we agree that fake tilt-shift has been done enough already?
Creating an actual synthetic aperture, through camera motion or optical tricks, to genuinely compress the depth of field and make everything look small and toy-like, is a delighful technique that actually adds information to an image by communicating depth in a new way.
Manually blurring nearer and more-distant objects in a careful and thoughtful fashion is a reasonable, if time-consuming approximation of the real thing that can be used to good effect. Sometimes.
But merely blurring the entire top and entire bottom of the image, regardless of what is there and without regard to the actual distance from the camera to the objects in question, looks cheap and ridiculous. I mean, look at this piece of crap:
Don't make the Baby Jesus cry, m'kay?
Creating an actual synthetic aperture, through camera motion or optical tricks, to genuinely compress the depth of field and make everything look small and toy-like, is a delighful technique that actually adds information to an image by communicating depth in a new way.
Manually blurring nearer and more-distant objects in a careful and thoughtful fashion is a reasonable, if time-consuming approximation of the real thing that can be used to good effect. Sometimes.
But merely blurring the entire top and entire bottom of the image, regardless of what is there and without regard to the actual distance from the camera to the objects in question, looks cheap and ridiculous. I mean, look at this piece of crap:
Don't make the Baby Jesus cry, m'kay?
