My eyes hurt

[David Adolphus]

Any ideas what's going on here? Shot is credited to JOEL SAGET/AFP/Getty Images. It's foreshortened like maybe he's way up on a bridge, but the DOF says otherwise and it really does make my eyes water.

http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/tdf_07_14/tdf14.jpg

[Daniel Buck]

he's using a tilt lens, or a large format camera with tilt movement on the front or rear. Basically, making the lens project it's image at an angle on the sensor/film, instead of being parallel with the sensor/film.

[E. John Thawley III]

Gotta be Photochopped or a perspective control lens.

Either way, I hate it.

[Daniel Buck]

this one's probably not photoshop, it's got a natrual looking 'swirl' to the blur. Not that it matters though, if the effect is not desirable :)

[David Adolphus]

Flashback to film class there. I can't imagine he's schlepping around a 10x12 on Le Tour, and Googling him suggests he's shooting digital. Maybe its a Lensbabies deal.

I hate it, too. Homey don't play that.

Spotted on http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/, by the way, which is a funky mix of good and crappy.

[Bill Jurasz]

Not a Lensbaby. Lensbaby creates a sweet "spot", not a sweet "line". This is either a T/S lens or was PS'd to give a similar result. I didn't like it either.

[STEPHEN HALL]

Am I missing something? I dont really get the 'point' of shots like these - it just makes the subject look like everything is in minature..?

[Daniel Buck]

it's an effect, just like shooting cars wide open, or dragging the shutter on panning shots, or other things you can do with cameras. Though not as common since not all cameras/lenses can do this. Some people like it, some people don't :)

As with most effects, I think it can work well in certain situations, and great images can be had! In others, it doesn't work well in my opinion.

[Kevin Camp]

I know Nikon makes a couple of these PC (perspective control) lenses, Canon probably does too. They get used mostly in shots to eliminate convergence in architectural photography. Makes the building's perspective look correct instead of like they are falling over when shot with wide angle lenses. When used like this it makes things appear as if they were miniatures in a diorama. This shot with just a 17-55 f2.8 would not stand out in the thousands of images just like it. With a tilt-shift effect its gathers attention. Somewhat of a fad for this type of work, but PC lenses are expensive and I guess the owners need some rationalization for owning one. I've seen some panoramic images down this way that are very impressive.

[Vladimir Bace]

tilt shift lenses or PC as you call them are very usefull , not just in arhitecture but in other photography, as you can not only control the perspective but also control your plane of focus, as was done in that shot...

for example.. here I got two cars to be in focus, and I got a very deep focus, but the rest is out of focus...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v723/turbolimac/portfolio/rci207.jpg

once you get used to working with it is is very hard to work with a fixed lens ever again..

[Andrew Thompson]

That shot doesn't do anything for me, but similar shots do.

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm270/VisualEchos/Automotive/Other/135L.jpg

I purchased my 80-200 f/2.8 thinking it'd give me this type of DoF. Unfortunately, I was wrong. What I really needed was the 135 f/2.

[Daniel Buck]

the 80-200 2.8 should give you DOF that's quite close to the 135

[Andrew Thompson]

It's similar, but the background and foreground blur isn't quite as thick, and the DoF transition is smoother so the car doesn't look like a miniature like the car above does. I suppose that's a good thing :).