View Full Version : hand hold with slower speeds
i always ask myself what slow speed one can effectively hand hold and get decent photos (with normal 50mm lens). i can only 1/30 but from time to time i see that some people claim they can hand hold 1/8? so tel me what you can and maybe share some advices. we also can put some of our available light handheld photos in this topic. that also would be very helpful for other members i think.
reub2000
10-07-2006, 00:56
Can you really handhold at those speeds?
A lot of it depends on the way you photograph something, and the acceptable amount of motion blur. If I tuck in my elbows, 1/50 second isn't that hard. However, if I'm running around trying to get a shot, 1/125 second, or even 1/200 second can be needed.
I’ll risk 1/15 by composing myself and taking 3 or 4 shots as backups I get lucky most times, a leaf or vertical shutter should put less vibration into the body than a horizontal one.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/gallery/4688/U4688I1142773010.SEQ.0.jpg
My results at 1/8s are not good, but it still beats no getting a shot at all. (1/15s is pretty acceptable)
This is what I do when I have to shoot at speeds such 1/8 and 1/15s:
Stand up straight, camera in front of chest, loosen up the shoulders, elbows and wrists, feet slightly apart with one foot ahead of the other, inhale normally, exhale halfway, take the shot, and finish. (phew)
With a wide angle the subject’s movement becomes more of a problem than camera shake is
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/gallery/4688/U4688I1144877366.SEQ.0.jpg
J. Borger
10-07-2006, 01:42
Let's put it this way ... people shooting RF cameras tend to overestimate their handholding capacities. I prefer to stay within the general rule of 1/focal length. Very litle moments/ situations are so unique that i settle for a blurry picture instead of no picture ... blurry/ soft pictures due to camerashake or misfocus end in the trash-can sooner or later .. so make no sense for me !
Epson RD-1. 1/6th, 1/13th
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=33956&cat=500&ppuser=1433
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=28747&cat=500&ppuser=1433
Let's put it this way ... people shooting RF cameras tend to overestimate their handholding capacities. I prefer to stay within the general rule of 1/focal length. Very litle moments/ situations are so unique that i settle for a blurry picture instead of no picture ... blurry/ soft pictures due to camerashake or misfocus end in the trash-can sooner or later .. so make no sense for me !
Some push the envelope, some don’t, maybe
A good trick is to put the camera on a table top tripod and then brace the tripod to your upper torso, shoulder. That'll help you get a couple of shutter speeds slower.
ddutchison
10-07-2006, 09:31
Using the camera strap for extra bracing can help. I carry my camera on my shoulder with the strap adjusted so that it's quite snug when I bring the camera up to my eye.
I generally feel confident about getting sharp pics at 1/60 or above (sharp in this case means "looks good in 8X10"). At 1/30 I still expect the results to be sharp if I've made a special effort to hold the camera steadily and the subject is relatively still. Definitely at 1/30, it's subject movement more than camera movement that results in unsharp pics. At 1/15th I expect unsharp pics but am often surprised, the results can be very good. By 1/8th for me, for sure, the picture won't be sharp, not that that'll stop me from shooting.
I don't usually have the best luck with really slow shutter speeds, but sometimes I get something I like.
Zeiss Ikon with Canon 50/1.2, 1/15s at 1.2, XP2. The lighting was terrible (this was at a concert hall, light on the subject was light being reflected off the stage).
http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/3730/monica1qa4.jpg
I am using a mini soft-release on my R2A and have gotten a couple of very good shots at 1/15s. Still have to try 1/8s and slower...
Spyderman
10-07-2006, 10:09
With a rangefinder and standard lens everyone should be able to handhold 1/30. For SLR 1/60.
Everything longer depends on shutter "kick", camera mass, photographer position (e.g. elbows on table, standing...) and definitely the number of cofee cups the photographer had that day :D
For example Bessa has kick-ier shutter than Canonet, but I doubt I could use slower shutter speed with the Canonet, because it is just so much lighter.
Here is a couple of examples from my gallery:
Bessa R + Jupiter 8 50mm, 1/15 @ f/2, standing
http://static.flickr.com/96/242393095_80b4a6e578.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ondrej_p/242393095/
Bessa R + Jupiter 8, 1/8 or 1/15 @ f/2, sitting
http://static.flickr.com/71/260764624_69ba56694b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ondrej_p/260764624/
Bessa R + Jupiter 8, 1/8 @ f/2, sitting, elbow on table
http://static.flickr.com/109/260102828_8a91566e76.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ondrej_p/260102828/
leica M2 fan
10-07-2006, 11:24
I've had good results with RF cams at 1/15s but not below this. I once did 1/15s with a Nikon 8008 and 50mm lens at night, a purely grab shot that to this day I'm really proud of. :D
leica M2 fan
10-07-2006, 11:26
Those are terrific efforts at handheld shots, I especially like the last one, it is such a good photo !! Thanks for sharing.
Spyderman
10-07-2006, 11:55
Leica M2 fan: Thanks ;)
The little girl is my goddaughter. And the photo was just a snapshot.
PS: just noticed the different color tint of every picture in my previous post :D blue, yellow, orange ;!
BrianShaw
10-07-2006, 12:29
Let's put it this way ... people shooting RF cameras tend to overestimate their handholding capacities. I prefer to stay within the general rule of 1/focal length.
It's ironic that this topic comes up... I've been thinking about it lately. I tend to agree with the above quote... but realize that some folks actually can hanhold a slower speeds than this "rule" in a reliable manner. The other day I was having breakfast with on old (75 years old, at least) former boss. He was showing me some pics he took and bragging htat he can handhold a camera at 1/2 sec. When I asked him if he's still faster than a sppeding bullet, can jump over large buildings in a single bound, and is stronger than a freight train he answered 'yes' to all of the questions. I'm sure he's telling the truth... isn't he?
I'm generally not good at handheld when standing as I really only have one good leg. But when sitting (which theoretically should be easier anyway, what with a broader centre of gravity ;) ) I have done a decent job at 1/8s
http://static.flickr.com/63/199898943_a2f6b4fe4e_o.jpg
and 1/4s
http://static.flickr.com/98/255304539_5bd979d0f5_o.jpg
The second one shows grain due to underexposure and limited DOF, of course, but I was pretty surprised by the sharpness. I think the secret was the half pint of Guiness I'd consumed as a calming agent. :D Hey... it was an Irish jam!
It seems like I'm always at 1/8th of a second with my 35/1.8 lens.
A peace rally in Seoul, South Korea, in 2003.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/gallery/2438/U2438I1140580384.SEQ.0.jpg
My youngest daughter at a New Year's party this past Dec. 31. (The kids celebrated at 8 p.m., so we got two New Year's in one night).
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/5759/medium/New_Years_Eve_party_31dec05.jpg
Some pulitzer prize winning photos are the shakiest things on earth so do what you gotta do.
mtscherning
10-07-2006, 18:51
If your shutter speed is slower than the reciprocal of the focal length of your lens, you must use a tripod.
http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm
Good base rule for most people, 40mm lens, use 1/40th or faster
>>If your shutter speed is slower than the reciprocal of the focal length of your lens, you must use a tripod.<<
I'll admit it's a good rule of thumb. But the essence of RF photography is having a small, discrete camera with you when unexpected shots present themselves. Alfred Eisenstaedt shot primarily the Leitz Elmar 35/3.5 and said he had trained himself to use it reliably down to 1/4th of a second. Walls, posts and elbows on tables can all become makeshift tripods or monopods. Just a few days ago I set my camera on a napkin holder at a cafe and used the self timer to eliminate camera shake.
Carry a monopod, strap it to walk around bag, disguise as umbrella if sensitive, use in self defence if attached and outnumbered.
Shoot immediately using best hand held technique, then shoot again braced, pillars & walls seats etc. are your friends at 1/30 and below with normal (focal length) lens. If the pillar is slim wrap an arm around brace camera to pillar. Checklist focus, aparture and speed somewhere in sequence... shots remaining if you are near to 36...
Then set up monopod if you have time. You need to practice both with monopod and/or without one.
Go for shot at risk if you need to, buy a 1.4 in your focal length, be prepared to push whole reel for a winner - two bath etc.
If it is a night shoot and static you need a heavy tripod, a pad with velvet, for auto suppression etc.
Vince is right, unless you have a view camera
Noel
BrianShaw
10-08-2006, 06:25
Carry a monopod, strap it to walk around bag, disguise as umbrella if sensitive, use in self defence if attached and outnumbered.
Ha... this reminds me of an experience I had photographing in Knareborough Yorkshire many years ago. I was shooting the castle with a TLR and monopod. The monopod seems to have been an object of interest trhoughout the UK. I found that odd... but I digress. On this day the sky was perfect and there were a pair of the most handsome older women Iv'e ever seen sitting on the bench in the foreground of my shot. As I was composing, a child,about 12 years old, stood next to me and shouted to one of the women "Mum, what is this man doing?" She shouted back "he's a photographer, dear; he's photographing the castle." He returned the shout "what is that odd appliance he is using?" She replied "I don't know, but I wouldn't stand too close to him." All the time she maintained an extrordinary pose for me. The photos are magnificent. At the end I nodded and we exchanged distant pleasantries.
Prior to that, however, when entering the ocuntry at Heathrow... the cops gave me the "third degree"... "what is this?; Is it an aerial?; Is it electrical?; Is it a weapon?; If it only has one leg, how does it hold up a camera?
If I'm not tired or just finished exerting myself, 1/8th is generally the slowest speed I can manage while truly handholding (i.e., standing up w/no support whatsoever). I can get down to 1/4th or so if I'm sitting down, leaning against something, etc. & even slower if I rest my elbows on a table or use "found tripods" (like Vince's napkin holders--I like beverage glasses myself) but @ that point subject movement is really the biggest problem. I use the same techniques I was taught for shooting firearms (controlling breathing, stabilizing the body, etc.), but most of it is just practice, practice, practice. You might want to try "dry firing" your camera w/no film in it @ slow shutter speeds. The advantage of doing this w/an RF is that you can see what's happening @ the moment of exposure.
Also, I've read that Cartier-Bresson actually did exercises to strengthen his arms (Leica curls?), & I have to say that my handholding abilities were better when I worked out regularly.
Here's a fairly recent example of a snap I took while sitting down @ my local diner:
http://static.flickr.com/79/226208951_0b3ed78c0c_o.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/226208951/
According to the EXIF data, which you can access from the link, the shutter speed was 1/11th sec.
Here's an old shot that I took @ 1/8th sec., according to my records (I've been keeping exposure notes on a PDA for the past 5 years or so):
http://static.flickr.com/26/37827926_084e21a352_o.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/37827926/
i always ask myself what slow speed one can effectively hand hold and get decent photos (with normal 50mm lens). i can only 1/30 but from time to time i see that some people claim they can hand hold 1/8? so tel me what you can and maybe share some advices. we also can put some of our available light handheld photos in this topic. that also would be very helpful for other members i think.
I'll second what Twigs said, but I'll say that it's necessary to have one's elbows pressed tight against one's torso.
No difference between different kinds of eye-level camera, really. I routinely went down to 1/8 or 1/4 sec. with my Canon manual reflexes, M3 and Canon VT Deluxe. Normal or wide lenses, of course, and only when I was able to stand or sit still, preferably with something to lean against or on which to rest my elbows. In place of the last two, I now have a IIIc and a Canon digicam. Haven't quite got the hang of the IIIc's different size and release location, so shake is a danger at 1/20 sec. and slower. The digicam's optical finder is worthless, so it's a whole different, er, game of balls.
Film dino
10-08-2006, 08:57
This was taken at 1/10th on a IIIc (28 Skopar at 4)- but then I was comfortably seated & the flamenco group wasn't really moving around.
- Now, wait a minute! Think about it! This discussion could soon turn into 'who's the most stupid photographer around'.
If the goal is 'sharp pictures'; mount your camera to a solid tripod! Sure. A lot of soft press photos are seen around. Regularly I see press photos where the photographer has'nt understood how to set his E-TTL (or the Nikon equaliant) right, even on the front pages of the World Press. The pictures are not only very unprofessionally unsharp, they are just laughable. These people of the press can't be taken seriously in this matter, - most of the time.
Take pro portrait photographers, or within advertising: They use tripods 'all the time'. Regardless even if the shutter time is 1/125. Why? They know that that is what it takes to make 'dead sharp' pictures.
Some here claim that they get sharp pictures at 1/8 hand held? - Now, com'on!
Let the ten (at least) next exposures you make be with a tripod. Look up the negs (or files) and you will see what I mean.
but often when taking candids in available light you can't setup a tripod or the subject will be gone. The other day I took a shot at 1/13 (digital) at equiv of ~ 100mm for 35mm, 400 ASA, 2.8 Leica lens. The IS probably helped, but it's a very usable photo, posted in the shallow DOF portrait thread. Probably later in the day with more cups of coffee, it would have been less sharp ...
- Now, wait a minute! Think about it! This discussion could soon turn into 'who's the most stupid photographer around'.
If the goal is 'sharp pictures'; mount your camera to a solid tripod! Sure. A lot of soft press photos are seen around. Regularly I see press photos where the photographer has'nt understood how to set his E-TTL (or the Nikon equaliant) right, even on the front pages of the World Press. The pictures are not only very unprofessionally unsharp, they are just laughable. These people of the press can't be taken seriously in this matter, - most of the time.
Take pro portrait photographers, or within advertising: They use tripods 'all the time'. Regardless even if the shutter time is 1/125. Why? They know that that is what it takes to make 'dead sharp' pictures.
Some here claim that they get sharp pictures at 1/8 hand held? - Now, com'on!
Let the ten (at least) next exposures you make be with a tripod. Look up the negs (or files) and you will see what I mean.
Regularly I see press photos where the photographer has'nt understood how to set his E-TTL (or the Nikon equaliant) right, even on the front pages of the World Press. The pictures are not only very unprofessionally unsharp, they are just laughable. These people of the press can't be taken seriously in this matter, - most of the time.
Are you saying there are world press photo laureats that should have used a flash instead of shooting available light... so their pictures would be sharper? Thanks for the laugh.
If you go about insulting worldpressphoto winners you better have the gallery to back it up. Let's see it!
- Now, wait a minute! Think about it! This discussion could soon turn into 'who's the most stupid photographer around'.
If the goal is 'sharp pictures'; mount your camera to a solid tripod! Sure. A lot of soft press photos are seen around. Regularly I see press photos where the photographer has'nt understood how to set his E-TTL (or the Nikon equaliant) right, even on the front pages of the World Press. The pictures are not only very unprofessionally unsharp, they are just laughable. These people of the press can't be taken seriously in this matter, - most of the time.
Take pro portrait photographers, or within advertising: They use tripods 'all the time'. Regardless even if the shutter time is 1/125. Why? They know that that is what it takes to make 'dead sharp' pictures.
Some here claim that they get sharp pictures at 1/8 hand held? - Now, com'on!
Let the ten (at least) next exposures you make be with a tripod. Look up the negs (or files) and you will see what I mean.
That’s quite an opinion you have there, unfortunately I don’t share it, 35mm is made for ease and mobility, yes MF makes more sense on a tripod but 35mm is a suck-it-and-see format, image first and the technical qualities second, works for me, sorry
Goodyear
10-09-2006, 07:43
[I]If your shutter speed is slower than the reciprocal of the focal length of your lens, you must use a tripod.
I like the word 'must'.
It depends on what you want, really.
but often when taking candids in available light you can't setup a tripod or the subject will be gone. The other day I took a shot at 1/13 (digital) at equiv of ~ 100mm for 35mm, 400 ASA, 2.8 Leica lens. The IS probably helped, but it's a very usable photo, posted in the shallow DOF portrait thread. Probably later in the day with more cups of coffee, it would have been less sharp ...
- Sure. I do this all the time myself. And pictures I get. Sort of.
But if you have, say a Leica, - imagine, the Leica engineers have foresaken their holidays just so that you can take pictures with optics capable of 350 - 400 line pares per millimetres. Per millimetres! That is technology en par with the Manhattan Project! And here you are flashing the camera about, hand held, like a tourch! They could just as well leave early and equip you with something from mobile phone world with a greasy thumb mark right across the lense.
Why then Leica? Could i suggest Nokia? Or Erichson?
Got a really nice high-end Nokia or other high end camera phone? I'll trade you my FZ3 with Leica lens for it, maybe.
- Sure. I do this all the time myself. And pictures I get. Sort of.
But if you have, say a Leica, - imagine, the Leica engineers have foresaken their holidays just so that you can take pictures with optics capable of 350 - 400 line pares per millimetres. Per millimetres! That is technology en par with the Manhattan Project! And here you are flashing the camera about, hand held, like a tourch! They could just as well leave early and equip you with something from mobile phone world with a geasy thumb mark right across the lense.
Why then Leica? Could i suggest Nokia? Or Erichson?
mc_vancouver
10-09-2006, 07:58
There's a rule of thumb I go by that is the reciprocal of the focal length, meaning about 1/50th for a 50mm lens, etc. But I can reliably hand hold a shot, braced somehow, at least half those speeds. I like a bit of blur, anyway. Now, here's something I would like advice on:
I'm about to start a project using an ND 3.0 filter, which cuts ten stops (it's virtually black when you look through it, like a welder's glass) and a really slow ADOX black and white film at ISO 25. Is there reciprocity failure in b&w film, and if so, can anyone give me any idea how much to compensate? I'm first going to try some tests so I'll probably have the answer when I get the film processed... I will shoot at the light meter recommended speed then try one and two stops of exposure greater. What I'm hoping to do is get virtually empty streets, except for the person or vehicle that is parked, asleep or standing stock still. I'll be shooting with my 50mm lens as it is the only one with a 52mm filter thread, and that's the size of this filter. Should be interesting. I'll definitely get the negs digitized: wish I had a film scanner!!
I've used a tripod maybe twice in my life. I own a pretty nice one too. Flash? I've used one once or twice. Don't even own one anymore. Tripod and flash is too much crap to lug around, especially when I just want to carry one lens, one camera, and go. Personally, if I only worried about ultimate sharpness I wouldn't shoot with a 40 year old lens wide open at f/1.2. I sure as hell wouldn't shoot it at 1/8-1/15s either. These aren't sharp pictures, they're usable pictures. Sometimes, thats all that matters. Besides, when I'm shooting at such slow speeds, I'm usually in bars, or some band is playing, etc. Tripods and flash don't go over too well in those environments.
If I wanted to lug out a camera and take pictures of mountains and clouds and deer I would use a tripod, but thats not my style (no offense to anyone who likes those types of photos).
I'm not attacking the "use a tripod" people, but we all know what we were taught in Introduction to B&W Photography. I don't believe we need that info rehashed to us. However, most of us, I believe, have realized what we like and the type of photographs we want to take. If that means not using a tripod or flash, then whats the harm in that?
Goodyear
10-09-2006, 08:19
- Sure. I do this all the time myself. And pictures I get. Sort of.
But if you have, say a Leica, - imagine, the Leica engineers have foresaken their holidays just so that you can take pictures with optics capable of 350 - 400 line pares per millimetres. Per millimetres! That is technology en par with the Manhattan Project! And here you are flashing the camera about, hand held, like a tourch! They could just as well leave early and equip you with something from mobile phone world with a greasy thumb mark right across the lense.
Why then Leica? Could i suggest Nokia? Or Erichson?
Umm. Because there is a whole lot more to a good/successful/whatever image than sharpness. Or resolution. And there is a lot more to Leica/Canon/Nikon/whoever than the resolving power of their lenses.
BrianShaw
10-09-2006, 08:20
... These aren't sharp pictures, they're usable pictures. Sometimes, thats all that matters. ...
Now you're talking! The need determines the image quality requirements and the equipment.
Are you saying there are world press photo laureats that should have used a flash instead of shooting available light... so their pictures would be sharper? Thanks for the laugh.
If you go about insulting worldpressphoto winners you better have the gallery to back it up. Let's see it!
What I am seeing and saying is that many press photographers obviously don't kow how to put their E-TTL flash into the right mode. This is something I see in the press daily. What you get is a combination of available light, but very unsharp and a flash firing. No. This is obviously not the 'laurets', although I am not particularly impressed with the average press photographer. If you lay them as a standard, you don't need much of a camera. - Accept for that I am not that much into 'b&W people photography'.
You find some of my pictures here: http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bruker/dittnavn/index.cgi?brukernavn=tju
- Æhum! Most of them taken hand held, unfortunately...
But I see it myself! Whenever I do use a tripod it is obvious at 100% in PS. You should try it too.
Attached you will find a (hand held) photo of a camera on a tripod. Thanks to a low blow up rate and several kicks on 'sharpen' it is hardly noticable...
Press/news photographers are nearly always seeking different images than advertizing photographers, portraitists or serious hobbyists. They are trying to get a moment, and to be in the right place at the right time. Their ability to get the photo fast and sent to the desk fast is preferred over any technical excellence. As in any profession, there are some who are better than others, with many varieties of competencies and individuality.
For some people, rangefinder photography is about having access to 400lpm lenses. But really, for most of us, it's about a small camera that can be carried anywhere and used anytime. I side with Kyle. My goal is technically "usable" and "acceptable" photos that capture a unique moment, not photos with just technical excellence.
Spyderman
10-09-2006, 09:01
Please, read the thought in my signature. I don't remember where I found it, but I believe, that for most of us that is the point. And that is the reason why we are here, and not at another forum (starting "photo", then ther is a "dot" and ending with "net" :D ). We are looking for candid photographs. Not posed.
What I'm trying to say is that sharpness sometimes isn't that much important.
The concept that all images need "sharpness" is something that, while present in the past, is more prevalent now due to digital cameras.
There have been many examples where, again due to the prevalence of digital, people tend to feel the need to criticize negatively the motion blur in a photo. Digital cameras are cheap (P&S), allow everyone to experiment and allow everyone to become a "photographer". Sadly, 9/10 of the digital P&S stuff out there lacks the ability to produce the "feel" that one gets from a slow shutter speed because they lack the manual control. Sharpness to the digital P&S user is often also due to the size of the lens itself. It's hard NOT to have everything be sharp in a photo when the lens is no bigger than a dime in circumferance.
I would also state that motion blur in a photo due to movement of people or vehicles is not the same as motion blur due to not being able to retain a steady hand. I have photos that are taken in extremely dim places with fast film and a steady hand (1/4 of a second is the slowest I can retain as long as I am leaning on something and using my elbows as a "tripod") and the blurred image, to me, suggests life in action.
If I want to shoot still life or portaiture then I will gladly up my shutter speed but I'm more apt to lean to the baroque side of things than not.
Dave
mc_vancouver
10-09-2006, 09:48
Dave, what's your "lens from outer space?"
but digital p&s with manual control can also work well. Attached is one of my favorite shots with a Canon A60 P&S (but with manual override). No photoshop or cropping.
The concept that all images need "sharpness" is something that, while present in the past, is more prevalent now due to digital cameras.
There have been many examples where, again due to the prevalence of digital, people tend to feel the need to criticize negatively the motion blur in a photo. Digital cameras are cheap (P&S), allow everyone to experiment and allow everyone to become a "photographer". Sadly, 9/10 of the digital P&S stuff out there lacks the ability to produce the "feel" that one gets from a slow shutter speed because they lack the manual control. Sharpness to the digital P&S user is often also due to the size of the lens itself. It's hard NOT to have everything be sharp in a photo when the lens is no bigger than a dime in circumferance.
I would also state that motion blur in a photo due to movement of people or vehicles is not the same as motion blur due to not being able to retain a steady hand. I have photos that are taken in extremely dim places with fast film and a steady hand (1/4 of a second is the slowest I can retain as long as I am leaning on something and using my elbows as a "tripod") and the blurred image, to me, suggests life in action.
If I want to shoot still life or portaiture then I will gladly up my shutter speed but I'm more apt to lean to the baroque side of things than not.
Dave
This is a very long but very interesting thread.
I think the only real answer is "It depends!"
Yes, there's that rule of thumb of 1 over the focal length, but as has been demonstrated (and observed by myself as well) there are many exceptions, so it's really more of a suggestion than a rule.
As for me, with a rangefinder, I can always do it at 1/60, usually seem to be able to do it at 1/30, sometimes do it at 1/15, and haven't really tried it slower than that.
Dave, what's your "lens from outer space?"
hehe..
"Jupiter 8" :D
Dave
The concept that all images need "sharpness" is something that, while present in the past, is more prevalent now due to digital cameras.
There have been many examples where, again due to the prevalence of digital, people tend to feel the need to criticize negatively the motion blur in a photo. Digital cameras are cheap (P&S), allow everyone to experiment and allow everyone to become a "photographer". Sadly, 9/10 of the digital P&S stuff out there lacks the ability to produce the "feel" that one gets from a slow shutter speed because they lack the manual control. Sharpness to the digital P&S user is often also due to the size of the lens itself. It's hard NOT to have everything be sharp in a photo when the lens is no bigger than a dime in circumferance.
I would also state that motion blur in a photo due to movement of people or vehicles is not the same as motion blur due to not being able to retain a steady hand. I have photos that are taken in extremely dim places with fast film and a steady hand (1/4 of a second is the slowest I can retain as long as I am leaning on something and using my elbows as a "tripod") and the blurred image, to me, suggests life in action.
If I want to shoot still life or portaiture then I will gladly up my shutter speed but I'm more apt to lean to the baroque side of things than not.
Dave
- Sure. Blur, if it is a shaky hand or movement in the picture can be an 'artistic expression'. But that was not the point here. We were discussing how sharp pictures we could take hand held. - My suggestion; take ten (or more) exposures with a tripod and compare....
My suggestion; take ten (or more) exposures with a tripod and compare....
If the scene photographed have live people within, at slow shutter speeds both approaches would result in a good amount of subject blur. Maybe a bit less handheld, since it allows for easier panning in unexpected directions.
If the scene photographed have live people within, at slow shutter speeds both approaches would result in a good amount of subject blur. Maybe a bit less handheld, since it allows for easier panning in unexpected directions.
- Sure, but that is an exception. What I am suggesting is that you/we take a few exposures with a tripod and just observe the effect. You'll be amazed.....
I looked up your blog. You have some fine pictures from Bergen, where I am born. I am fifth generation 'bergenser', but live in Oslo.
- Sure, but that is an exception. What I am suggesting is that you/we take a few exposures with a tripod and just observe the effect. You'll be amazed.....
Well, the effect of tripod on reduction of camera shake is well known to most people here :) However for the type of work commanding a tripod, a 13x18 to me feels more suitable. Even with an old East German Tessar it surpasses best 35mm systems with a fair margin in amount of detail captured, but it is a poor tool for photography on the street, which happens to be my major interest.
I looked up your blog. You have some fine pictures from Bergen, where I am born. I am fifth generation 'bergenser', but live in Oslo.
Thanks.. Bergen is an infinitely photogenic city and I enjoy every moment here. Even the light is great at the times it gets through :)
- Sure. Blur, if it is a shaky hand or movement in the picture can be an 'artistic expression'. But that was not the point here. We were discussing how sharp pictures we could take hand held. - My suggestion; take ten (or more) exposures with a tripod and compare....
If the discussion is to centre around how sharp the photos can be when taken hand held then what would be the point of using a tripod since using a tripod is hardly "hand held".
There are many reasons why one cannot use a tripod. I suggest anyone in New York City to go into Grand Central Station and try setting up a tripod and see how fast they are asked to remove it.
Tripods, for landscapes etc, are fine but I would not recommend them for every different method of shooting.
Dave
The guy who is my avatar taught me to gas weld among other things. He was an alcoholic who who shook but it gave him the advantage of welding bead few could match.
If one follows the logic of this thread, has a ranger finder, and can't successfully squeeze off 1/4 of second he must be either a professional or an alcoholic.
The guy who is my avatar taught me to gas weld among other things. He was an alcoholic who who shook but it gave him the advantage of welding bead few could match.
If one follows the logic of this thread, has a range finder, and can't successfully squeeze off 1/4 of second he must be either a professional or an alcoholic.
Well, the effect of tripod on reduction of camera shake is well known to most people here :) However for the type of work commanding a tripod, a 13x18 to me feels more suitable. Even with an old East German Tessar it surpasses best 35mm systems with a fair margin in amount of detail captured, but it is a poor tool for photography on the street, which happens to be my major interest.
Sure. I use tripods a lot - uh, every now and then, with both my Hasselblad and different 35 sytems. It works wonders on all. 'the easy availability of 100% in Phtoshop' has made us all optical experts. It is revealing both to own technique as well as the performance of the optics we are using.
Thanks.. Bergen is an infinitely photogenic city and I enjoy every moment here. Even the light is great at the times it gets through :)
- Yea, photogenic is the word for it. Oslo is far more dull. - But you have had a fine summer this year, havn't you..?
- Sure. Blur, if it is a shaky hand or movement in the picture can be an 'artistic expression'. But that was not the point here. We were discussing how sharp pictures we could take hand held. - My suggestion; take ten (or more) exposures with a tripod and compare....
Actually, we weren't discussing how sharp we could be with handheld technique. If you read the original post, it asks how slow members could handhold for decent photos.
Now ... decent is a subjective term, and we could all disagree as to what is decent or not. So members posting examples of handheld shots at 1/15, 1/11, 1/8, etc., is a good thing, because one can make one's own judgment about whether the result is "decent".
BTW, I agree that for ultimate sharpness and to fully exploit good lenses, a tripod is the best choice. While not suited to street photography, it would be interesting to have a thread to post "tripod-on-the-street" photos.
Also, the motion blur with flash is often a deliberate technique that many photographers use to convey both motion and a moment in time. It may not make for "decent" photos in the opinion of some, but used well I often like it.
There is something of a challenge in making a long exposure hand held, and the miracle of available light is often immensely rewarding. I do use tripods, but what if I do not have one with me, what if the moment is unlikely to last, what if I am lazy? An 8" by 10" print is enough to satisfy me, generally, and 16" by 20" is attained differently.
I do not think it proper to call those people liars who claim to have taken sharp hand help pictures at 1/8 sec. Judge not by your own abilities before passing wind, er, judgment.
[edit] hand held
Actually, we weren't discussing how sharp we could be with handheld technique. If you read the original post, it asks how slow members could handhold for decent photos.
Now ... decent is a subjective term, and we could all disagree as to what is decent or not. So members posting examples of handheld shots at 1/15, 1/11, 1/8, etc., is a good thing, because one can make one's own judgment about whether the result is "decent".
BTW, I agree that for ultimate sharpness and to fully exploit good lenses, a tripod is the best choice. While not suited to street photography, it would be interesting to have a thread to post "tripod-on-the-street" photos.
Also, the motion blur with flash is often a deliberate technique that many photographers use to convey both motion and a moment in time. It may not make for "decent" photos in the opinion of some, but used well I often like it.
- This is very well put.
But if all the press pictures we see today that are combos of very unsharp motives with added flash is a artistic expression is something I doubt. Strongly!
Regardless, I will always judge a picture first by it's craftmanship. Of that, 'sharpness' is an important component. If it isn't sharp, - the unsharpness must have a meaning and come together in a high quality context. Otherwise I will judge it as 'bull' and a suspect it as a cover for not managing the basics of photography. Now that 'automatic computers' calculates the exact exposure combination for us the only thing we have to do - even hardly that when using AF, is to focus.... and keep the camera steady.
I shoot a lot. Since 1.January this year I have accumulated 34,1 GB of 1Ds II files. Add to that 20 - 30 analogue films so far this year of both 35 and 120 format. So I have to sort out a lot. I have no room for keeping it all. I keep less that 70% of the total I shoot. Sometimes nothing. - Sure, I have some bad days....
The first criteria I use; 'is it sharp?' - Then I mean at 100% in PS. That means that I would in some cases keep negs or files taken at 1/30 - but not many. Possibly a few - one or two per year - with clearly visible blur will be kept because it has a better meaning in the scene, - or other facets of the picture makes it worth while keeping. They better be good. Visible blur or unsharpness will mean failure in 99,9% of the cases for me.
But, you have to realise that opposite opinion has just as much ground: a pefrectly executed, razor sharp, but dull shot is a failure.
To many here success of a photograph has not much to do with sharpness; there are great sharp photos, there are great unsharp photos, and there are poor photos regardless of execution. I know that with the light I have, the subjects am interested to and the DOF required there will be inevitalbe amount of unsharpness compared to ideal tripod exposure of a static subject. This is however the least of the worries; stealing with camera God's private moments, even in suboptimal circumstances, is so much more rewarding than resolution-chart photography :)
Given the choice between tripod and flash, I'll take flash, where I have a lot of control over the light and can balance it with ambient to help freeze the action while preserving the ambient character of the scene.
Don't overlook the fact that there's a fairly popular technique that combines slow shutter speed with flash. You freeze the details for a moment while also showing motion and ambient light. Slow-sync flash is one of photography's best ways to depict motion. Rear-curtain/closing-curtain flash sync makes it even better, but isn't essential.
Verjag is right. Total tripod sharpness is really just one of many photographic styles, and a lot of people don't care for it, or at least consider it uninspired in many circumstances. There's much more to photography than passport photos and postcard scenes.
BrianShaw
10-10-2006, 07:00
But, you have to realise that opposite opinion has just as much ground: a perfectly executed, razor sharp, but dull shot is a failure.
You mean like some avatars?? :rolleyes: :D
You mean like some avatars?? :rolleyes: :D
If you like. Mine is not sharp though :)
BrianShaw
10-10-2006, 07:49
If you like. Mine is not sharp though :)
I like yours Eugene... more sharpness would ruin it!
eddie con
10-10-2006, 14:15
using cron 35/2 at 1/15s, f2 or 2.8. fuji superia 400. shooting raucous boys in low light was challenging but i had a subject focus that was fixed and helped to steady the boys as well - the small birthday cake.
So, the conclusion is ... sharpness is often (usually?) good but is not everything, and most everyone here is a decent person, and handholding at a relatively slow shutter speed and getting a decent photo is fun. Cool!
Seems like a good summary to me, Earl.
George Bonanno
10-10-2006, 21:52
http://www.2x2l.com/lin_08_12.jpg
Very rewarding shots can be gotten handheld at long exposures. I could not imagine having to setup a tripod or altered the light in order to take a truly instantaneous snapshot. This pic was made at 1 second wide open. I had no other choice. Fortunately, I interpreted (guessed) the light appropriately.
Scanned from a print. Leica IIIf with borrowed 28mm Hektor lens using VIOOH finder with attached TUVOO.
Neither "sharp" nor "decent" has an absolute meaning. If, say, two or six photographers agree that a picture is all right, then there is a reasonable chance that it is indeed all right.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.