Why do people tilt camera to be "artsy"?

I like the effect sometimes. Totally depends on the photo.

Orson Welles. I mean that as a serious answer.

I think it can look good. It isn’t necessarily done “to be artsy”. Maybe they simply prefer it that way. It could be annoying if they did it for every photo, but it can look good for certain photos. I know I’ve done it before.

If you tilt the camera just to be artsy, then the composition looks contrived.

Tilting the camera is to be done when attempting to elicit a certain feel. Usually that tilted camera effect is meant to represent a sense of disorientation, unease or tension.

My film major bro-in-law once told me that such shots are meant to tell the viewer that things are not as they seem.

No idea. My cousin is a photographer and tells me how much she likes that style. I can’t stand it. She took some pictures of my siblings and I for our parents’ anniversary last year, and half of them were tilted like that. Didn’t like any of them….

oh my god, my friend does that ALL THE TIME and it drives me nuts…nuts, I tell you

Because they want to be Robert Smith. But with a mustache

When it’s done all the time it’s weird. But I like it for dramatic effect on occasion.

It is “Artsy” because it is an attempt to show the world from a different point of view.

They think it looks good. A lot of times the term artsy is used as a condescending way to say that you have no idea how good my artistic skills are.

Sometimes this works for a photo. Sometimes it doesn’t. I don’t tend to do it, but I don’t take the kind of photos where it would look good either.

Check out how Mantegna did it with paint.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mantegna_Andrea_Dead_Christ.jpg

That’s a tilt?

Front to back? In any case, it is a startling and successful demonstration of dramatic foreshortening.

I think the tilt being talked about is a horizontal one. I LIKE that painting, though.

Good. It is one of the most famous paintings ever done, due the spectacular foreshortening, which isn’t as easy as it looks (I am told.)

I do it because I can never hold the camera level.

I reckon because they like the effect. What other reason could there be?

I think you answered your own question.

@gailcalled I don’t mean tilt on that dimension. I mean a rotation around the lens that is extreme almost 45 degrees. (That’s a great painting though and I would need a photo or a live subject to foreshorten that much)

@pdworkin Can you elaborate?

@The_Compassionate_Heretic, @ubersiren (and others) I am not talking about photos where the end purpose is art. Photos like this: http://www.webvivah.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/wedding-reception.jpg except rotated ~40 degrees. I could see the angle if it was say a street photography or something where unrest, or confusion was a theme.

@theichibun I didn’t mean to be condescending, I take rather artsy photos from time to time. These generally seem more like standard family photos way off angle too far to be accidental, I have seen whole sets of photos like this.

@MrItty gives a perfect example. The occasion did not call for such an effect.

I tilt mine sideways to get a better shot as far as getting everyone/thing in the picture. Otherwise it stays level. It annoys me to have to tilt my head to look at a picture!

@ShanEnri The same thing bugs me. I have tilted to get more people in a dance club, the effect seemed appropriate there especially because of the chaotic atmosphere.

To be artsy.

It elicits an uneasy reaction with the right subject and post-processing, but if it’s just for no reason, then like you, I have no idea. Why do people not fix tilted horizons? Why do people take pictures with no visual interest and call it art?

Exactly.

That would be somewhat unusual for wedding photos. Photographers are artists so some are going to inevitably do this sort of thing.

It has something to do with breaking the traditional rules of photography. Artists have always adhered to that rebel spirit, and being different, that’s one of the usual reasons artists are usually motivated at, to see, think and do things differently. It’s part and parcel of being defined as an artist to break yourself away from the norm so that you’re work will get noticed, your message delivered, your expression felt. In short, it’s an attempt on individuality.
However, sometimes, supposed artists or art enthusiasts overdo these sort of things and we end up with everyone/a lot of people doing the same “unusual” effects all of a sudden. Thus, purpose defeated. Hmm, probably a good example would be the commercialization of Lomography—toy cameras, vintage cameras, faded, cross processed colors, blurred and unfocused shots and angles, and light leaks and fringes.

Conventional wisdom dictates that the horizon be level from our angle of view. In reality, we almost never see the horizon this way. Our heads are constantly in motion as we walk, are tilted when we rest, and frequently tip from side to side. So by being unconventional, artists who employ this device are getting us to take notice of the myriad of viewpoints we usually ignore. Is that art? It sure is.

@simpleD: Some of those photos require Dramamine, however.

It’s good when you’re shooting a simple video of one person speaking for a relatively long while. It adds drama to an otherwise dull video. You see this in use a lot on television and movies when there is one person being interviewed.

@dpworkin Orson Wells! Good call. I don’t recall exactly the movie but he did use camera angle to good effect. He was careful and specific about it though, to emphasize what was going on.

When the tilt is done properly it’s aligning the frame with something important in the picture or framing the action in a way that brings it out in a specific way.

But so often, when the tilt is annoying, it’s usually because the tilt is all that’s going on.
I mean, if the subject is that boring turn it off, eh?