Really cool photo. (And pretty, pretty shoes!) I thought at first they were some sort of ornament/earrings type of thing. I guess it's the blurring that makes it so difficult to judge the size of them?
oooh! (adds app) I've been using Photo360, which has a tilt-shift feature.
Like so:
I believe (and this is a slightly fuzzy memory) that the reason tilt-shift reduces the apparent size of the object in focus is that we are used to looking at things with a greater depth-of-field. By artificially blurring parts of the picture, we make them look like they are out of the depth of field, and we process whatever in the center as Really Tiny. I bet Wikipedia explains it better. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilt-shift_photography Well, no, not really.
Anyway, it's a neat way to give cameraphone pictures some depth-of-field blurring, since they are normally set to have everything in focus, all the time, and that is not always the best way to take pictures.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
no subject
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
Like so:
I believe (and this is a slightly fuzzy memory) that the reason tilt-shift reduces the apparent size of the object in focus is that we are used to looking at things with a greater depth-of-field. By artificially blurring parts of the picture, we make them look like they are out of the depth of field, and we process whatever in the center as Really Tiny. I bet Wikipedia explains it better. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilt-shift_photography
Well, no, not really.
Anyway, it's a neat way to give cameraphone pictures some depth-of-field blurring, since they are normally set to have everything in focus, all the time, and that is not always the best way to take pictures.
(no subject)