Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Really? Is that the general reasoning behind why tilt-shift works?
When we look at something really close I'm pretty sure that we do see that same soft focus effect, we just don't notice it because our brain fills in the gaps, when our eyes dart all around as do they refocus so everything always looks in focus, but in reality very little in our field of vision is in focus outside the narrow forward cone.
I think that's why this works, because it's reproducing the soft out of focus signals that our brain gets from the eyes but builds over when it makes the actual image that we see.
I'll do a search on a blog on cognitive psychology that I read.
|
I don't know, I'm just holding up my fingers in front of my face, and it seems like there has to be about a foot between the fingers for there to be any blurring; and even then it's fairly subtle. With miniature photography, you'll frequently have a photo where the focus is set to a foot away, and anything closer than 10 or further than 14 inches away is completely blurred.
As well, when we're looking at miniatures, the result is that every thing that is out of focus is essentially seen twice, as a result of the different paths of our eyes. Miniature and tilt-shift photography doesn't have any of this duplication of out-of-focus objects. The lens effect seems to me to be just too different from how our eyes work.
I'm really curious about this; let me know if you find out anything more.
Edit: thanks for posting that other discussion. Although it looks like people are fairly split about whether it's mimicking effects of human vision or just camera lenses. I can't wait until I have a kid. I'm going to run so many little experiments like this on them.