Hi James, I've been looking at these two shots for a while now, and the interesting part is that each of them has a different element that catches my attention, but the atmosphere and layout of the photos is more or less identical. In this shot, the gripping element is clearly the lines and shadows in the foreground, not only leading the eye further into the dunes, but also adding a very strong and effective perspective to this image. (to be continued)
Yes Michael, it's all about the sense of scale. If you looked at my shot of the Red Aspen Leaf, you knew the approximate scale because you knew what size an aspen leaf usually is. When I look at the shot of the dune with the brush in the corner, I know the scale because I know about what size the ripples are in general, not just because I saw those particular ripples. It's not so much a factor of seeing through 24mm or 50mm, although if a foreground element is the same size in the frame, the background element with the 24mm will look smaller than the same background element with the 50mm.
James, I don't really understand it either (although I'm not sure if anything in the scene tells me the width of the ripples). Something about both scenes just makes me feel that I'm looking down from a height greater than my own. Here's another idea: it's a 24 mm lens, and I assume it's pointed somewhat downward (although I'm a bit confused about how you would arrange the sensor plane and lens plane on the TS). If we assume that a 50 mm lens sees the world roughly like the eye, then a distance viewed through a 24 mm should look longer than it actually is. Maybe therefore the distance to the ground looks farther than it is. If that's the explanation, we should see something similar whenever a short lens is pointed downward.
Thanks Michael for the additional information. I guess I was a bit more surprised that you had trouble with the scale in the shot with the brush, because the small ripples in the foreground are more distinct, and on all the dunes I've been on, those ripples are about 2 to 4 inches wide. So, there's one way to help determine the scale of a fairly featureless dune field.
James, I think you're right that it's because in looking at the image without having been there, I don't know the scale of the features. I think it's the same with the other photo; I'm not sure looking at the image how large the clump of vegetation is. I'm not saying I feel far above the ground, as if in an airplane; I guess what I'm saying is that I don't feel that I'm standing on the sand. I still have a hard time seeing it differently even though you've explained the scale. However, my reaction may not be typical.
Michael you're right about my choice of lens here to get the DOF. If I remember right, the camera was about 4 ft above the ground. I find interesting that you feel "above & outside of the scene, rather than part of it." I think you might feel that way about this image because you see the height of the ridges to be about the same in the foreground and in the background. Because my brain knows what was really there, I can still see that the ridges in the foreground are less than a foot high, and the ones in the background are probably 50 or more feet high. I'm not sure why you might feel that way in the ither image though.
Thanks for your comment that really had me thinking about this image for a while. I'm curious to know if my reply changes your view of it.
I like both of these very much. I guess you used the tilt-shift lens to get the amazing depth of field. It looks as if both were taken from a fairly high point of view; does this have anything to do with the use of the TS? As a viewer I feel above & outside of the scene, rather than part of it. Is this the effect you were aiming at?
0 
