Tilt & Shift Fan?

[mackguyver]

I agree 100% with both of you, the look is so unnatural, my brain just knows it's wrong.

However, here's an example, I could never figure why it got printed or displayed, or even why the photographer shot it this way, he certainly knew exactly what he was doing, why he shot that way and what the print would look like.
From the first time I saw this photo, I did not get "IT", I still don't.

Is there any chance that the structure itself is bigger at the top than the bottom? If you look at the building in the background and the windows, they don't look distorted. Either that or maybe I just need some more coffee to wake up this morning...

 

[tolusina]

......Is there any chance that the structure itself is bigger at the top than the bottom? If you look at the building in the background and the windows, they don't look distorted. Either that or maybe I just need some more coffee to wake up this morning...

You are definitely maybe right.
Looking at the photo now, it doesn't look as whack as I thought it did when I first saw it years back.
I just put on screen rulers on the photo, as you pointed out, the building in the back ground is square, also, the light poles are vertical.
The horizontal ruler finds oddness in the lower support part of the tower, it's twisted. Upper slats are low on the left, lower slats are low on the right.
The tower was in San Francisco, many things have always been 'different' there. Maybe it was built that way intentionally, reverse taper on top, corkscrew twist on the bottom?
---
This photo is one of those I haven't been able to un-see. I suppose that makes it memorable and is memorable by itself one of the marks of a good photo?


.

 

[mackguyver]

This photo is one of those I haven't been able to un-see. I suppose that makes it memorable and is memorable by itself one of the marks of a good photo?

I think that you might finally have been able to define "art" for me, seriously. I think that is what separates art from everything else, and having had some bad experiences with the local art scene, it's refreshing to think about it differently. As for the photo, I wonder if it's some kind of water collection/storage structure and that's why it's a slight conical shape.

Also, here's an oldie but goodie about T/S lenses, and a funny quote from it (emphasis mine):
"For those new to camera movements; my opinion is to never correct converging verticals into perfect parallels. It is the best way to make a building look as if it will fall on top of you and one of my long-time pet hates in architectural photography. I almost always leave a little convergence. After all, it is a normal visual phenomenon!"

Focusing the Tilt-Shift Lens

 

[Sporgon]

I agree 100% with both of you, the look is so unnatural, my brain just knows it's wrong.

However, here's an example, I could never figure why it got printed or displayed, or even why the photographer shot it this way, he certainly knew exactly what he was doing, why he shot that way and what the print would look like.
From the first time I saw this photo, I did not get "IT", I still don't.

Is there any chance that the structure itself is bigger at the top than the bottom? If you look at the building in the background and the windows, they don't look distorted. Either that or maybe I just need some more coffee to wake up this morning...

That was my thought when I first saw this picture. I assume this is a large water tower for the glasshouses, and it looks like it may be a form of 'clinker' build; that is where the ascending planks overlap slightly on the outside of those below- so it gets wider as it goes higher. Same thing happens when a boat is 'clinker' built.

 

[tolusina]

.....I think that you might finally have been able to define "art" for me, seriously. I think that is what separates art from everything else, and having had some bad experiences with the local art scene, it's refreshing to think about it differently. As for the photo, I wonder if it's some kind of water collection/storage structure and that's why it's a slight conical shape.....

Delighted to have been of such service,

The artist who created the work above is the one who pretty well defined photography for me, I strive to adhere to his philosophy, doubt I'll ever even begin to approach his skill, knowledge, talent or contacts.

..... I assume this is a large water tower for the glasshouses, and it looks like it may be a form of 'clinker' build; that is where the ascending planks overlap slightly on the outside of those below- so it gets wider as it goes higher. Same thing happens when a boat is 'clinker' built.

Sounds good to me.
Have you got any idea why the base of the tower has a twist to it? I didn't see the twist until today as I dragged a horizontal screen ruler across the photo, looking for irregularities.


.

 

[mackguyver]

The artist who created the work above is the one who pretty well defined photography for me, I strive to adhere to his philosophy, doubt I'll ever even begin to approach his skill, knowledge, talent or contacts.

Ansel is one of the greats for sure! My wife bought several of his books for me last year as gifts and I'm astounded by his eye (even at a very young age) and his ability to take some of the simplest scenes and make them masterpieces. His work has so much more depth than the commonly seen photos from Yosemite and the like and this is a great example of that.

Sounds good to me.
Have you got any idea why the base of the tower has a twist to it? I didn't see the twist until today as I dragged a horizontal screen ruler across the photo, looking for irregularities.

Are you talking about the bottom left of the frame where the greenhouse structure's foundation isn't straight across? If so, I think that's actually sloping down the hill, not twisting.

 

[tolusina]

....Are you talking about the bottom left of the frame where the greenhouse structure's foundation isn't straight across? If so, I think that's actually sloping down the hill, not twisting....

No, nope. I see the slope downhill to the left, that's not the twisty bit I'm seeing.
The water tower itself, the top, water reservoir is an inverted, truncated cone.
The faces of the base below are trapezoidal.
On the camera facing side of the base, the horizontal slats slope downward slightly to the left at the top, they are horizontal in the middle, they slope downward to the right at the bottom. It makes the camera facing side appear to have a twist.
Looking at the side facing right, I'm not at all sure there's a twist there though there might be. All the horizontals on that side look like they'd converge in the distance if they were extended.

Can you see the twist?

.

 

[mackguyver]

....Are you talking about the bottom left of the frame where the greenhouse structure's foundation isn't straight across? If so, I think that's actually sloping down the hill, not twisting....

No, nope. I see the slope downhill to the left, that's not the twisty bit I'm seeing.
The water tower itself, the top, water reservoir is an inverted, truncated cone.
The faces of the base below are trapezoidal.
On the camera facing side of the base, the horizontal slats slope downward slightly to the left at the top, they are horizontal in the middle, they slope downward to the right at the bottom. It makes the camera facing side appear to have a twist.
Looking at the side facing right, I'm not at all sure there's a twist there though there might be. All the horizontals on that side look like they'd converge in the distance if they were extended.

Can you see the twist?

.

Okay, I saw that, too, and fear we're headed down a path to madness that ends with us traveling to S.F. to looks for the building . I looked long and hard at it (again) and the width of the side panel of the base appears to be uniform and given the camera position, I think the slats are following the correct perspective in terms of converging to the vanishing point. Note the slat that aligns with the lower edge of the roof of the greenhouse on the bottom right and slats that match the angle of the roof line at the top of the greenhouse as well.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Time & Sales?

Love me my deep-book.

Gets my arbitrage on!

;D

Hint: S isn't actually an acronym, it is a phonetic.

 

[dgatwood]

Okay, I saw that, too, and fear we're headed down a path to madness that ends with us traveling to S.F. to looks for the building . I looked long and hard at it (again) and the width of the side panel of the base appears to be uniform and given the camera position, I think the slats are following the correct perspective in terms of converging to the vanishing point. Note the slat that aligns with the lower edge of the roof of the greenhouse on the bottom right and slats that match the angle of the roof line at the top of the greenhouse as well.

If that's the water tower I'm thinking of, it's on one of the roads out to one of the public beaches south of Santa Cruz. Strangest looking thing you ever saw. But it might not be. I'd imagine there are lots of water towers like that, and I honestly don't recall whether the one I'm thinking of is attached to a building or not.

 

[tolusina]

....If that's the water tower I'm thinking of, it's on one of the roads out to one of the public beaches south of Santa Cruz. .....

No, the photo above is an Ansel Adams, shot in 1960 in San Francisco.

But I'm thinking I recall the tower you mention south of Santa Cruz, I seem to recall there are 2 to 4 of them in a row, maybe a quarter mile between them.
I just google map cruised the area, thinking west of Watsonville on Beach Street, west of San Andreas, but I couldn't find them in satellite view.
--- a little later---
Kept google map cruising, found pedestals, no towers.
Paste;
2326 W. Beach St., Watsonville, CA
into google maps street view, there's one pedestal there, another down the road at 2488.

If you can think where towers are out that way, it's your turn. I sorta do and sorta don't remember towers now that I've found pedestals.

Awful color cast, not my photo......

.