Fast shutter speeds: Tripod necessary?

[mkelpie]

While reading about how to try and improve my landscape photograpy

skills, Ive read statments like use tripod, this is your mantra!

 

So if using shutter speeds nearly capable of stopping a bullet, and

wide(ish) focal lenghts, how can a tripod make a big difference?

 

cheers,

Mark

[jbq]

It'll give you more time to frame your composition and adjust it precisely.

 

If you're really using such fast shutter speeds, you may be using film that is too fast or you may be using your lens too wide open. Sunny 16 with ISO 100 at f/8 is 1/30s, definitely not blazingly fast, actually almost to the point where a tripod will start to make a difference in sharpness. Should you go with ISO 50 like many landscape photographers like to do (velvia...), you'll be in the realm where a tripod definitely makes a difference.

[mkelpie]

Ah ok. that makes perfect sense. Im using a 10D so can use 200 and keep shutter speeds at 125 or over.

 

cheers,

Mark

[kevin conville]

1/125 sec is not fast. I would consider it just OK with a wide lens and very steady

release. The age old ideas of slow film, medium apertures, tripods, mirror lockup,

remote release- all work! For still lifes and landscapes take your time.

[jbq]

Here's what happens when you're tired and try to take pictures: you screw up your exposures. Sunny 16, ISO 100 is 1/500s at f/8 (and not 1/30s).

 

This doesn't change the fact that a tripod would help your composition.

[yakim_peled1]

I use the 1/focal length rule with great success. With a light lens (50/1.8) I can go to 1/30 without a problem.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[steve_barnett2]

Fast may be considered anything over 1/500th sec. If you want to get the most out of your lenes and want critical sharpness, use a tripod for anything longer. If camera movement can make a difference at 1/30th second to sharpness there is no reason to suppose that it can't make a difference at any other speed!

[basscheffers]

If you can use fast shutter speeds for landscapes, you are one or both of the following two things wrong:

<p>

1) You shoot with the lens too far open and thus not giving enough depth of field

<br>

2) You don't get up early enough, or stay out late enough.

<p>

Most of the selling landscapes will be taken in the very early morning, mostly when the sun hasn't even made it over the horizon yet and with a big depth of field. I remember this column in the UK magazine "Practical Photography" where landscaper extrodinair <a href="http://www.davidnoton.com/">David Noton</a> told how he crawled out of his tent in a New Zealand valley with prefect sky and light way too early one morning. Not to lose any time, he set up his camera quickly, focussed, set it to f16 and opened the shutter. Only then did he calculate his exposure: 15 minutes! Later adjusting to 10 minutes because the light was increasing fast.

<p>

I can't say I take pictures that early myself, but usualy I am talking about 1/15-1 second, which does require a tripod.

<p>

So if you are looking to improve your landscapes, not only do you have to buy a tripod, you also have to start using the above mentioned rules. And don't just stick to wide angles for landscapes, more often than not the best images are found when closing in on specific features with a long lens.

<p>

Hope this was usefull!

[lindsay_robb]

Why not do a simple test with your most commonly used film speed? There is an article about this in the August issue of either Photography Monthly or Practical Photography (I can't remember which).

 

Pick something detailed with distinct lines to photograph, such as scrollwork on a building etc. Using each of your lenses or setting your zoom at certain focul lengths, handhold your shots at slow and gradually faster shutter speeds. Use a tripod for a control shot and when you get the slides processed you will be able to tell what your personal handheld limit is for each lens.

 

It's incredibly simple advice but something I never thought of doing! Obviously some people are much better at handheld shots than others and after this test you will know if a tripod is going to improve your photography significantly!

[fotografz]

I would add that not only should you use a stable tripod, but also

a cable release (or self timer) and mirror lock up if available.

 

In a recent shoot where a series of images had to be "pin

registered' to one another in overlays, we found that even slight

pressure on the shutter release at 1/250th showed up as minute

movement. The mirror vibration also showed up.

[phule]

This is slightly off-topic relative to this post, but I have a question.

 

If I'm taking a landscape shot of, say, the Tetons which are several miles away, why do I need to worry about DOF? Why can't I just set the focus on infinity and shoot at whatever aperture I want?

[basscheffers]

If everything in frame is that far away, wide open will give you enough DOF. But most lenses wide open aren't very sharp and with shooting through that much condensation, polution and what else not in the air you will need all the sharpness you can get, so you might want to close the lens down a stop or two anyway! :)

[jbq]

Rob: if you have no foreground, you don't need to worry about DoF. You can set the aperture to whatever value you want, with f/8 being a good rule-of-thumb as most lenses are sharpest around f/8.

[phule]

So if my lens' furthest focusing point is 10 feet to infinity, my only concern with DOF is when trying to capture a foreground element closer than 10 feet and whatever is behind it?

[mkelpie]

Im off to buy a nice heavy tripod tomorrow :)

[william_le]

Sorry guys, I'm confused, above Bas said Wide open with give enough depth of DOF or far landscapes. I thought its the other way around. I thought the aperture closed down (high f stop) is suppose to have everything sharp.

 

Also at the start of the thread, was mentioned to be up early to take landscape photo's....why is that, wouldn't you want the sun out so you can have a small aperture (High f stop).

[basscheffers]

Wide open only gives you enough DOF if everything in the image is at then end of the focus range with no foreground and with the lens focussed to infinity. As this is almost never the case, a small aperture is needed to get the DOF required for landscapes.

 

The reason you want to get up early is because of the very pleasing, soft, warm, light. You do not need a lot of light to be able to use a small aperture, all you need is a long shutter speed, for which you need a tripod.

[william_le]

So what your saying is that, if I focus on Infinity, I should go wide open (low f stop). And then you said for landscape to use small (high f stop. Why can't I use a H f stop and focus on Infinity, wouldn't everything be sharper. I'm sorry I don't understand and sorry Mark for butting in.

[basscheffers]

I was just trying to explain DOF. I do not mean just focussed at infinity, I meant if EVERYTHING in the image IS at infinity. Only then would wide open provide enough DOF and stopping it down doesn't have any influence on it anymore. Although lenses usualy tend to be sharper when stopped down a bit.

[william_le]

Ok, so for example if I was to take a shot off a look out point or of mountains kms away I would focus on Infinity and go wide (low f stop number) or should I be going small (high f stop number). Wouldnt the high f stop number make everything sharp.

[basscheffers]

Well, there isn't anything to make sharper by using more DOF, is there? Just look at the DOF scale on your lens (if it has one), the further away you focus, the greater the DOF becomes at smaller apertures.

 

That said: stopping down a little bit to make the lens itself sharper is always a good idea. But it all you are photographing is a mountain range that is several KMs away, then it will not make any difference in visible DOF in the resulting image wether you shoot at f/4 or f/22.

[william_le]

Ok I'm starting to understand, by you saying stopping down a bit will be sharper, do you mean like a bigger opening as I heard at the highest f stop the lens don't work as good. Also if I use something like f4 isn't the plane of focus very short. what if the mountain are 50 metres in depth. Your help is very appreciated.