ALWAYS use a tripod, even when shooting "still" scenes and landscapes?

[amanda_b.]

<br>Hi everyone! I have a question, but to start off, I am a

somewhat "newbie." I use a Canon rebel and for the most part, shoot

mainly color neg. film.<br>

 

<br>Basic question - are landscape pictures "better" when taken with

a tripod?<br>

 

<br>I understand using a tripod in low light situtations and/or when

your shutter speed is relatively slow, or camera shake may be a

problem. Like when shooting a time-lapse, macro photography, faraway

zoom, or a waterfall blur.<br>

 

<br>However, this statement, "Afgapan 25 Great for scenery. You're

going to need a tripod anyway to take those Ansel Adams-esque shots,

so you might as well get the finest grain you can." on <a

href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/film#White"> this page </a> got

me to thinking:<br>

 

<br>Why is that? Why use a tripod for landscapes, or images that are

relatively "still?"<br>

 

<br>I'm not referring to if you are zooming in on an animal far away

or something.<br>

 

<br>Does using a tripod always bascially improve the picture? Does

slowing down the shutter speed on a still life (an old house, a barn,

a field, a landscape) improve the picture? Why?<br>

 

<br>Just wondering, I am beginning to do a lot of landscapes and want

to do a series of old house photos, some abandoned, but they will be

like "house portraits" and wanted to know about this.<br>

 

<br>Seems most pros always use a tripod when shooting things I think

wouldn't need one. Why use a tripod when shooting "still" scenes? <br>

 

<br>Thanks in advance!

[ilkka_nissila]

First of all, since the scene is still, you loose nothing by the use of the tripod. What you gain is the ability to get sharp pictures at any shutter speed, which allows you to stop the lens down to small apertures, increasing depth of field. This allows for those scenes where everything from a feet to infinity is in focus. Also, you don't have to stress about getting a sharp picture. Hand-holding is really not a good idea if you want to make large prints of still scenes.

[don_cooper]

It's simple! Without a tripod you can get camera shake, with one it can be eliminated. Also with one you can better frame the photo. Any photo opportunity where you have the time/opportunity/situation where you can use a tripod it makes absolutely no sense not to use one.

[guytal]

It's not about keeping the scenery still, it's about keeping the camera still.<Br>

<Br>

Guy

[richard_cochran]

A still scene is when it's a "no brainer" that you should

use a tripod. You lose nothing by its use, and you gain

complete freedom to choose any aperture, any film

speed, and any filter(s). Furthermore, it allows you

to fine tune the composition, looking carefully at the

sides and corners before taking the shot, secure that

you're getting exactly what you expect.

<p>

If you're shooting handheld, you're always making tradeoffs

between depth of field, film speed, and shutter speed to try

and keep things sharp. In bright sunlight without

a filter, the tradeoffs aren't usually severe, but

they're there. In twilight, fog, and

other conditions where light is less than plentiful, a

tripod is even more beneficial.

[robert_davis2]

With a tripod you can make sure the camera is level. That it's steady.

 

If you're really doing those Adam's like photos then you're using a larger camera. Taking your time checking out the view. Using the movements to make sure the image is the way you want. Thinking about how you want the exposure. It's a fairly slow process not one that benefits from a winder. When you shoot frames per hour FPS doesn't mean much.

 

Getting to your question. A tripod benefits if you intend to take photos that benefit from having the tripod standing still. It's a different process then walking around with a camera and taking photos. Less reaction and more thinking per shot.

 

Both can work. What works for you? Well you'll need to try both and decide. Maybe you'll find one you like better. Maybe you'll find different ones at different times fit you.

[John Crowe]

Yes, it comes down to being able to use the slowest (therefore sharpest) film that you can find and be able to achieve the greatest depth of field. For instance my 17mm lens will put into focus everything from a few inches (I think about 8", I'd have to check), to infinity at f22, with focus set to the hyperfocal distance (whole other discussion). This enables you to have both the flower right in front of your camera and the mountain 25 miles away in perfect focus.

[brian_kennedy]

Amanda, it sounds like you haven't read Philip's thoughts on <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/equipment/tripods/">using a tripod</A> yet.

[pdoyle]

A lot of what I would say on this has been said by others, but I'll just add my own perspective. The first tripod I got was a cheap one, in every sense. It was such a pain to use that I just didn't use it very often. When I looked at the detail on my shots, it was obvious that I wasn't getting the sharpness I wanted; plus, I was using too-fast film, too-wide aperture, etc. to keep the shutter speed manageable. Since I got a decent tripod, I've been amazed at how much easier it is to take the time to frame my shots just right; to some extent it forces you to slow down a little and think through what you're doing. I would also add, though, that you probably shouldn't walk around with your camera already mounted on the tripod while you're looking for interesting angles and scenes. Once you've found the shot you want, *then* bring in the tripod and fine-tune the composition.

[joseph_smith3]

Like the others above, it dramatically improves the image's composition or framing and it allows you to fine tune the exposure to make the image even better. Joe Smith

[louis tsai]

It also alows you to choose one composition, leave the camera on the tripod, stand back and have a good think about it.

 

Using a tripod for still objects is always the 100% method of getting a good shot without any vibration, movements, etc

[hans_beckert]

Never use a tripod. Never.

 

If you cannot hand-hold the camera at slow shutter speeds, that is. I can.

[stephen hazelton]

If you're shooting at fairly high shutter speeds, and making 4x6 prints, you probably won't be able to tell the difference whether you use a tripod or not. Don't expect a dramatic improvement in your pictures, unless you're seeing problems now.

 

You'll notice that a lot of great landscapes are done near sunset or near dawn, when light is poor. Or when overcast. A lot of people will have various filters on the lens, which will rob a stop or two or more. And, if you're going to want the highest quality you can get, you'll be shooting a slower-speed film (Velvia, for example). That's where the tripod will come in. But if you're shooting mountains at noon with 400 speed, you can shoot around f/11 and 1/1000 second, and you'll probably gain little by using the tripod.

 

I've got a reasonably decent tripod, and a lot of times, I'll figure, "I've got it, I'm not in a hurry, it can't hurt and might help", and I think that's the philosophy of a lot of people.

 

If you can find it, peruse "Mountain Light" by Galen Rowell. Excellent pictures, interesting reading, and you can see why people use tripods when you read what went into his shots.

[dirk_van_der_merwe1]

There is a lot of good technical reasons to use a tripod, but for me the most important is that it forces you to think more about your photograph than what you would taking hand held pictures.

[marshall]

There are just some shots you can't get without a tripod...

[steve_thompson]

99% plus of my shots are done using a tripod. The reason is I get sharper images. Also, most of the time I use a cable release. Mirror lock up if helpful when shutter speeds are from 1/30 second to 1/4 second. Not to say I don't use mirror lock up when shutter speeds are outside that self imposed range.

 

Except when working wildlife with a long lens I ALWAYS compose handheld to find a good composition. When I find it then I grab the tripod and set it up. Then I frequently change to the opposite format i.e. vertical or horizontal. After that I look for another composition or angle and start the process over.

[frank uhlig]

I completely disagree with all the tri-potters above.

 

For Anselesque pictures, originally taken with a LF camera (not a Rebel) I would suggest a tripod, however, and a black cloth of old etc .. to get everything just right. But with any 35 mm camera trying to attempt LF detail by using 25 ISO film and rocksteady tripods is totally in vain. The information density of 35mm film is about 1/50 th of that of 8 by 10 plates. Nobody can tell you otherwise.

 

Having compromised twice (by going directly to 35 mm) (rather than only to 6 by 9 cm, i.e., MF) you will have to live with that initial decision and its consequent loss of detail, no matter what film you use ....

 

So, by all means, use 100 ISO, better yet 400 ISO film. Fetishism of sharpness, grain etc are just that, read the comments of the earlier posters, note their obsessiveness, trying to reach the Ansel holy grail with totally inadequate equipment to do so ... is plain foolishness.

 

Enjoy your 35 mm camera, learn to compose. Cartier Bresson never used a tripod, Brassai, I doubt, too ... They took many still scenes of major artistic value/impact with 35mm cameras ... and grainy film. Major pieces of ART.

 

OR get into LF gear and enjoy that. But not the other without the one.

 

I believe Phnetters generally place way, way, way too much emphasis on "sharpness, grain" etc, and do not realize that much of mankind's painted art is rather "unrealistic, unsharp", yet impacts us all emotionally.

 

Composition rules over flashiness of image, the sharpness of it, ...

Techno-fetishism does not make art. Just look at the general displayed quality of images around here. Many sharpness freaks without emotion = vacuous endeavors, sorry artists .... Zero impact; misplaced efforts ...

 

You take this advice though as you like it! And be careful with your shooting mechanism, your triggering of the shutter, learn to contain shutter shake by supporting the lens barrel and camera in the palm of your left hand, etc etc. Camera technique is important; equipment is not, in my experience of some 50 years.

[amanda_b.]

Thank you.

 

I understand how using a tripod improves the ability to judge your picture composition and also the general sharpness of your picture. Also, the more I use one, the more comfortable I will be and better able to try things out on my camera, since I don't have to worry about camera shake or even holding the camera.

 

Also, I know the magic hour outside is dusk and dawn, or when the light is low, and therefore even more reason for a tripod!

 

You guys I guess have pointed out the obivous to me!

[amanda_b.]

Frank -

 

I agree with you too. I have not been unhappy with the sharpness, or lack there of, with my prints, even ones I've gotten enlarged. I hand-hold and always support the lens with my left hand. I try to be as still as humanely possible.

 

I started this "concern" about using a tripod when I decided to start this "serious" project of photographing old homes around my area. this is my own personal make-myself-happy project, something that excites me, and I felt I wasn't doing something "right" just snapping the pictures, I felt I needed to be more serious in my endeavor, perhaps simply by setting the camera on a tripod, using slower film , and really studying the compostion.

 

Also, I honestly didn't understand why you would use a tripod in some situtations, like when taking a pic of a mountain range in bright sun, yet I would see it happen (like when I visited the Tetons and the Smokey Mountains). Maybe these people were using VERY slow slide film, or were slowing the shutter speed for some reason, or their cameras were large-format and I just didn't notice. I know in one case it was.

 

Of course the bigger and heavier the camera, the more sense it makes to simply do anything to just not have to HOLD the camera, much less everything else a tripod lets you do.

 

I'm not really wanting to know what is better, I wanted to know why people who use a tripod in bright light and with fast shutter speeds do. I see both sides.

[ilkka_nissila]

There are many reasons to use a tripod even with 35 mm equipment. 35 mm allows greater versatility than the larger formats at a lower cost. That's why people use it. If you have all the money and time in the world, please by all means shoot 4x5". I use 35mm, and think that using a tripod is a great relief ... if I'm not pressed for time by another person, I prefer to use a tripod whenever it is possible. If I wanted a blur-effect shot, I could hand-hold that but I can't see much value in those.

[robert_davis2]

35mm is only really cheaper when it comes to film costs and processing costs. Assuming you don't do your own processing. Considering most people shoot less frames with larger formats the difference in cost for film balances out a little.

[ilkka_nissila]

I don't mind the cost of processing or the film itself for larger formats, I'm talking about the cost of the gear itself. A 120 film scanner costs twice as much as a 35 mm film scanner. Lenses are also very expensive new. A medium format camera body with a spot meter is spectacularly expensive. Of course, you don't need such a large variety of lenses for 120 as you need for 35 mm since the image quality allows for some cropping. But still, as lenses are 2-3 times more expensive than for 35mm, a MF system is certainly not cheaper. And a medium format camera can't be used to advantage for certain subjects, such as people candids, wildlife, available light photography, sports, etc. so you still need the 35 mm (or digital) system to do these things. And medium format has no affordable digital future as far as I can see.

[phyrpowr]

Amanda,

 

When I got my first IS lens, I noticed how much sharper the shots were even when I knew I'd been shooting at above 1/125 sec. Handshake enters into it more than you realize.

 

I'm a confirmed walk-and-shooter, don't care for tripods, and can handhold at fairly slow speeds, a talent developed from target rifle days, but my new mantra is: if it won't run away, use the tripod

[markci]

*** Also, I honestly didn't understand why you would use a tripod in some situtations, like when taking a pic of a mountain range in bright sun ...***

 

Because, make no mistake about it, your photos will be sharper if you do. Shake does not magically go away once you reach the (faily bogus anyway) 1/focal length rule. It gets less, but if you want to make it go away, use a tripod.

 

You may not care if your photos are sharp enough to make big enlargements. But some people do. That's why they use a tripod.

[rolpahof leikonblad]

"Also, I honestly didn't understand why you would use a tripod in some situtations, like when taking a pic of a mountain range in bright sun ..."

 

In bright sunlit situation, I always hand-hold my camera. It's more flexible. The burden of using a tripod discourages me from trying more compositions and different positions and angles.

For other situations, I always use a tripod, especially for stitched panorama picture.