http://www.time.com/time/photogaller...030683,00.html
Printable View
I don't get it. I can go on Flickr and in 3 seconds find someone who takes better pictures than that guy. Did Time actually PAY for those photos?
I never understood the point of tilt-shift photography. To me, it always looks more like tilt-s**t photography, but hey, I'm no expert.
Amazing, someone found a way to sell blurry photos! Marketing coup!
Wow....that's probably the worst professional photography I've ever seen. And it's rather pointless, at best.
i think it looks amazing:D
I so do not get those photos.
So now Detroit is smaller because of 10 slightly blurry photos?
I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the only reason TIME exists is to make every other media outlet look better by comparison.
Ok this is the first I've heard of this type of photography so I didn't get it by looking at the Time piece either. I tried googling the term though and found this:
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008...t-photography/
Now these pictures are really neat. They make the Time photos just look like bad photography/
After looking at those examples, then taking another look at the Detroit photos by TIME, I can see what the photographer was trying to do, but he/she just isn't very good at it. The good examples make things look like a clay model world or the Neighborhood of Make-Believe from Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood.Quote:
Originally Posted by gencinjay
I agree completely. The method used doesn't really translate when your perspective is below the focus subject. The above referenced pics are great, I particularily like this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by gencinjay
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/38/12...9b287b.jpg?v=0
I agree with the posters above. Tilt-shift photography can create dramatic results, but needs to be done properly. [[It also requires an expensive lens.) Perhaps this photographer has done better elsewhere, but if I had known he was trying to use this technique, I may not have realized it.
Here are a couple of videos about the technique. The first one is a do-it-yourself rig but to me it looks like it only tilts. The second shows a store-bought lens.
It seems like it would be easier and more reliable to use post processing to get the same effect.
It was a good idea for Time to buy a house, do business out of it, then sale it. I think that some of these abandoned homes that are in areas sited for demolition could be used as small offices for businesses such as real estate companies, insurance companies, etc. I could see some of the homes on Mt Elliot between Gratiot and Kercheval being used for businesses.The empty lots could be used as parking lots for the employees. Every house in areas slighted for demolition dont have to be renovated but some of the victorians, bungalows, and shot gun homes that were built around the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century could be used as such.
wish they would have hired me. if thats what they were looking for it would have been the easiest afternoon of shooting in my entire life.
Then the city could come in and shut em all down with zoning and code violationsQuote:
Originally Posted by stasu1213
Quote:
Originally Posted by cman710
An expensive lens, or the use of the blur tool in photoshop.
AIW had taken some neat ones of Windsor http://www.internationalmetropolis.com/?p=684
Those ones from TIME are garbage.
Those photos fucking suck. I could go into why, but I won't.
cool video of the technique shot in milwaukee during blizzard
see 1:34 mark
http://vimeo.com/3209208
I dont think they were as bad as some people on here are making them sound
The history of photography is full of trends, some good, some questionable...Anybody remember those silly Cokin Filters that would put a dark band on the sky?.....
I agree that Southen could have done a much nicer job.
Anyway, the tilt shift thing can be cool, but it's getting really tiring, like HDR.
I thought the one of the train depot was the worst one...until I saw the photo of the castle. FAIL.
This whole project was obviously a last ditch effort by a dying media publication to rile up hits on the web. Well, it didn't work far as I'm concerned. Granted, I only read maybe 10% of that sloff, but what I did read was garbage. Pure garbage. Let's face it - there's really not much to see or write about here, other than the fact that Detroit is dying on the proverbial vine. Who were these people anyways? Oh, I get it... helo-drop some true-grit journalist's, buy a "house in the middle of the City" and record your findings over a one-year period. How provocative.
One year later - report your findings, say goodbye, wrap it all up and punctuate the whole travesty by bloggin a bunch of really, really crappy pictures. TIME sucks.