How do you get the "toy" look?

[chrisdurnin]

<p>Next semester(last at community college before RIT or SFAI), I am

doing an "independent" study photography class and I want to focus

(mostly) on large format obscure photography. I am going to be

borrowing(from school or the camera shop I work at) my large format

gear since I am a poor, starving artist. So...I haven't even really

looked at, or ever used a large format camera...so please excuse me

if the question is obvious.</p>

 

<p>I've been doing a lot of research and photography is my life, but

I want to know how (which swings and tilts etc.) I would use to get

the what I call "toy" look....here are some examples of what I am

talking about....<a

href"http://www.davidburnett.com/fmsetgallery.html?gallery=Olympics%

20-%202004">David Burnett Olympics</a>, <a

href"http://www.davidburnett.com/fmsetgallery.html?gallery=Olympics%

20-%202004">another</a>, <a

href"http://www.marktucker.com/r_miami/source/buoyfence.html>Mark

Tucker</a>, <a

href"http://www.photographsdonotbend.com/artists/esteban/">Esteban

Pastorino Diaz</a></p>

 

<p>All the photos look like toy models. I have some really good

ideas for a project I would like to do incorporating

this "technique", among other "weird" stuff floating around in the

right side of my brain. Any help for a newbie to LF is of course,

very much appreciated. Thanks.</p>

 

<p>-Chris</p>

[chrisdurnin]

HEY!, I href'ed all those pics...hmmm?

 

http://www.davidburnett.com/fmsetgallery.html?gallery=Olympics%20-%202004

 

http://www.davidburnett.com/fmsetgallery.html?gallery=Olympics%20-%202004

 

http://www.marktucker.com/r_miami/source/buoyfence.html

 

http://www.photographsdonotbend.com/artists/esteban/

[chrisdurnin]

okay those first two links are the same, but I'm thinking in particular about the fild hockey picture and the pic with the judges standing at one end of the pool (next pic I believe).....sorry for posting like this

[maury_cohen]

Some are just very shallow Depth of Field achieved by shooting at a large aperture.

Some are shot using either a swing or tilt or both shifting the focus to an unusual plane; again at a large aperture to limit focus to the subject or only a portion of the subject.

[chrisdurnin]

Thanks Maury. I know that I can acheive "some" of looks that I want by opening up the lens, but there's something very different about these particular pics...like they're squished. It literally looks like toys, like a miny model of real life. I've seen "obscure" LF pics, where a large aperture was used to throw most of the picture off, but it still looked fairly normal...just with a lot of the pic out of focus.

 

Also, in the "field hockey" pic on David Burnett's page there has to be at least 40 some odd feet of subject in pretty sharp focus (almost accross the entire field) so I don't know how large the aperture was, but he did something to make it look like you are viewing little toys on a field.

 

-Chris

[stephen hazelton]

Chris, I have seen other photos (on photo.net, no less) where this effect was simply done digitally after the fact. It certainly doesn't look like a DOF issue.

[stephen hazelton]

See this photo, for example:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3802006

[mark_cantrell]

There is an explanation of sorts on Diaz's website? He refers to the "scale model effect". Could that be what you are after? I have never seen this type of effect before, but it is kind of cool. He explains what he does, though not a lot of detail. May be enough to get you started.

Mark

[chrisdurnin]

Yeah Mark, the "scale model effect". I wold like to use this for a project I'm thinking of. Wow, that Canon digi picture actually looks pretty close to this effect. But, I don't have a digital camera, and I know that the three photogs that I posted used LF, and the effect they got is a little cooler, in my opinion...plus the big negs for printing, blah blah blah. Thanks for the responses thus far.

 

-Chris

[ofey_kalakar]

To me those pictures look like they were taken with a wide angle lens with a shallow DOF

with some vgneting. The cannon digi cam shot looks like a pinhole camera shot. Maybe using

a wide angle lens wide open focusing at the center of the scene with a lens hood (or filter

with a wide ring) that results in vignetting might give you a similar result.

[gluteal cleft]

A couple of things that stand out to me in making them look like toys are, in no particular order:<br><br>

 

- Some objects look just a little too small or large when compared to other objects. Look at the 'bouyfence', where the ornaments look just a little too large, and the tree branches look just a bit too big in some aspects.<br><br>

- The pictures look too "clean" in some ways, not having the normal "background clutter" that most pictures have. Like the "Edward-Scissorhands" type of neighborhood.<br><br>

- On a related note, aspects of the photograph that would identify with the real world (such as logos on the construction equipment) seem to have been removed.<br><br>

- In the color photographs, vivid colors like you would see on toys are used. Look at the color of the dirt in the "bouyfence" picture, and ask how often you see dirt of those colors.<br><br>

- In a lot of cases, they've made sure not to include too much detail - people who are the subjects are reduced to toy-like forms, and anything except the subject is blurred very heavily.<br><br>

- people are, for the most part, solidly frozen in place, even if the background or scene in general has a really dynamic feel to it.<br><br>

- patterns are used, such as the swimmers standing on the starting blocks - they're all perfectly posed, just like little toy figures.<br><br>

 

While a large aperture can explain the short DOF that's quite common on these, a good number of the examples, especially Mark Tucker's and Esteban Diaz', seem to me to have a good bit of photoshoppery behind them. And to get the "cleanliness" behind some of David Burnett's shots, there might be some as well.<br><br>

 

steve

[shiver_me_timbrrrre]

Try a 'reverse Scheimpflug' technique. Instead of tilting the lens board for great depth of field, tilt it for a very shallow depth of field where you want the plane of focus to be. That is to say, try tilting it the 'wrong' way.

 

The toy effect comes from the shallow plane of selective focus. Close-up macro photography has that very shallow plane of selective focus. When it is done deliberately on large objects like houses, it fools the mind's eye into associating it with macro photography. That explains partly why pictures of the houses look like toys in a diorama.

 

Mr. Mark Tucker's pictures may have been shot on a Canon 1Ds with a 24mm tilt-shift lens. Why don't you ask him? Mr. Tucker used to shoot with the Fuji 680 camera and 'reverse Scheimpflug' for very shallow depth of field was one of his favourite techniques. Another one is to use a very fast lens like an 85 f1.2 at f1.2. But techniques like the one pictures of a fence and buoys can only be done with tilting the 'wrong' way.

 

Mr. David Burnett uses the Holga, converted Polaroid 110B and Speed Graphic among many different cameras. Looking at the vignetting of the lens in the picture and the sharpness in the middle and softness in the corners (women's field hockey picture), I guess it is the combination of the Speed Graphic tilted the 'wrong' way and an old lens which hardly covers the 4x5, is soft in the corners and sharp in the middle and opened up to maximum aperture. As before, the selective depth of field fools the eye into associating it with close-up macro photography which is why the women look like toys.

 

All the pictures by the three photographers you referred to were shot with wide-angle lenses. That coupled with the 'wrong' tilt created the illusion.

 

If you try a macro shot on a diorama with a view-camera without correcting with tilt, swing or shift, you will see the same effect. Now try re-creating the same look on large objects. Select your plane of focus by tilting, swinging or shifting the front standard the 'wrong' way.

[shiver_me_timbrrrre]

The reason why I said Mark Tucker's pictures were shot with the Canon 1Ds was because the picture was copyrighted 2004; Mark sold his Fuji 680 and went digital in the form of a Canon 1Ds in 2003, if I am not wrong. Mark is currently using the Canon 1DsM2 and the Hasselblad H1+Phase One P25 digital back.

[trw]

Also the high angle, giving it the same POV as someone looking at a small model, rather than taking a picture at the same level as the subject.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Mark Tucker also invented something like the "lens baby" lens. He took the lens from one

of those cheap 8x Agfa loupes and mounted it in a semi rigid rubber tube or cone that he

can bend at will. . He then used it first with his Hasselblad and maybe the Fuji. He now

uses it with his digital cameras.

 

David Burnett has been using a Holga or Diana and also some older lenses with an old 4x5

Speed Graphic camera, as part of his kit, to get somethign different than other

photojournalists coverign the same events. For more straightforward work he uses a

Canon EOS 20D.

[shiver_me_timbrrrre]

You may also want to look at Mr. Keith Carter's works. There is one in the online gallery at www.photoeye.com .

 

Mr. Frank Van Riper on Photography column at Camera.Works in www.washingtonpost.com has some writings on Mr. David Burnett and his techniques with the Holga and the Speed Graphic.

[ellis_vener_photography]

It is also worth pointing out that there is a tension in the work of Tucker and Burnett. That

tension results from the ambiguity in the visual quality of the images against the

directness of both

photographers very clear eyed vision. Doing this kind of thing well is a lot harder than it

looks.

[shiver_me_timbrrrre]

I am sure not even Mark and David got there on their first tries but it sure did not stop them.

 

It is the techique that is discussed here. As for whether it is as 'easy as it looks' or not, Chris has a whole lifetime ahead of him to find out...as do I and presumably you, Ellis.

 

Surely, it not being easy should not dissuade the young man. Nor was it ever assumed that it was easy at any time by me.

 

That is somewhat akin to telling anyone who is picking up a camera for the first time, 'here's how you press the button but it (photography) is not as easy as it looks'. We know that; it's stating the obvious.

[chrisdurnin]

Thanks a lot for the responses guys. I love Keith Carter's work, and a lot of my work shares some of his dark "strangeness" if you will. And like Burnett, I have been using a lot of Diana and Holga stuff to push my vision, and try to get what I'm seeing in my head. Aside from my pinhole, Holga, Diana stuff I saw some of these "toy" esque scenes and knew that I would like to start trying some of this stuff. I really want to use LF to do more of my obscure stuff (similar to Carter).

 

Also, on a side note...I was trying to make my own lensbaby the other day, but I'm confused about people giving recomendations to use an 8x or 10x loupe....wouldn't that only work if you were photographing something an inch or two away from your camera?? I hollowed out a body cap and stuck a 10x loupe up close to the mirror (Nikon35mm...my RB67 wont work for this) and it worked great to get that Plungercam look...but only with really macro stuff!!!(1 inch away at the most) Now, Tucker did use a medium format 3x loupe, not an 8x loupe, but I can't find a 35mm 3x loupe anywhere(do they make those?). Any suggestions for helping me make a lensbaby would be cool. Thanks again.

 

PS- I'm not going to "just fork over the 100 bucks for a lensbaby" yet because I am really poor. Thanks.

 

-Chris

[stephen hazelton]

If you look at Mark Tucker's shot, "Burial Flag", it's a straight-on shot of a surface parallel to the film, but the center is in focus (including near and far items) while the sides are out of focus. That could be a lens rotated to the side, but I still think a lot of it is just digital manipulation. If you're using PS anyway, that's almost certainly the easiest way to get those effects. "Birds in Field" shows this as well.

[chrisdurnin]

Well I think I figured out how to make the lensbaby. I took one of the lenses out of the 8x loupe and now it works pretty good. I superglued the loupe to the inside of an old bag I had from a box of paper, and glued the end of the bag fragment to the hollowed out body cap. It seems to work really good. In the meantime, I emailed Mark Tucker and he replied......

 

"you need a 4x loupe. nothing stronger. or else, yes, it won't focus.

i used one from medium format, larger than normal."

 

So....I don't know. Mine seems to work great after taking one of the lenses out of the loupe. Does that turn a 8x loupe into a 4x loupe?? Anyway, I'll run a test roll and see how the pics come out. It I can find a digi cam, I'll post some pics of the lensfoebaby for people who want to "make" one.

 

-Chris

[michael gordon httpwww]

With respect to Burnett and Esteban, it looks like simple axis tilt (not base tilt) was used to get the effect.

[leicaglow]

Besides those techniques mentioned, there's been a lot of interest in a similar look created by Lensbabies (www.lensbabies.com has a pretty good gallery).

[steven_dowell]

Are you guys serious? Many (not all) of the shots ARE toys. If not, I'll eat my hat. There is another guy who dies this, but I can't remember his name. Levinthal maybe...

I recently saw some of his stuff at the Museum of Fine Arts Houston. They were done with the polaroid 20x24 camera. Very cool.

Steve

[lb-]

better start eating that hat.