Proper tripod technique

[kuma1212]

I recently came across a scenic landscape and there were several photographers there taking photos. I noticed that everyone had oriented their tripod with one leg extended to each side of the lens and the last leg toward themselves (the lens axis bisected the tripod legs), except for me. I always thought the best stability comes with orienting the lens in the same axis as a tripod leg ie away from the photographer. The tripod also doesn't get in the way of where you stand. There are exceptions that I can see, like a macro shot that requires the lens to be between tripod legs in order to get close enough to the subject.

Is there a "correct" technique?

I'm not sure if the tripod orientation matters that much (maybe more so with a long, heavier lens), but any thoughts would be appreciated. I also remember reading a website about tripods and camera support that may have answered this question a few years ago, but in my old age, I can't find it.

[MMX]

If stability is the question, then it doesn´t matter. The only thing that matters is that central column should be vertical.

[SkipD]

The lay of the land and where any off-center weight might be (in your equipment mounted to the tripod) would dictate how I would orient the tripod's legs. Stability is the important thing, and you need to analyze how stable the rig is to determine what is correct for the situation.

If I were working on a hillside, I would normally have a single leg uphill (shortened, of course) and two legs downhill.

If the ground was level and if I needed to move the camera around while mounted to the tripod, I would likely use your idea of having a single leg opposite me and two legs on my side so I wouldn't have to jump over a leg frequently.

[bohdank]

That's the opposite of what the OP said. Third leg towards you, not away.

Personally I think it's like a secret handshake :-)

[Duckhunter250]

I recently came across a scenic landscape and there were several photographers there taking photos. I noticed that everyone had oriented their tripod with one leg extended to each side of the lens and the last leg toward themselves (the lens axis bisected the tripod legs), except for me. I always thought the best stability comes with orienting the lens in the same axis as a tripod leg ie away from the photographer. The tripod also doesn't get in the way of where you stand. There are exceptions that I can see, like a macro shot that requires the lens to be between tripod legs in order to get close enough to the subject.

Is there a "correct" technique?

I'm not sure if the tripod orientation matters that much (maybe more so with a long, heavier lens), but any thoughts would be appreciated. I also remember reading a website about tripods and camera support that may have answered this question a few years ago, but in my old age, I can't find it.

That is what the OP said. I agree

[bohdank]

I recently came across a scenic landscape and there were several photographers there taking photos. I noticed that everyone had oriented their tripod with one leg extended to each side of the lens and the last leg toward themselves (the lens axis bisected the tripod legs), except for me. I always thought the best stability comes with orienting the lens in the same axis as a tripod leg ie away from the photographer. The tripod also doesn't get in the way of where you stand. There are exceptions that I can see, like a macro shot that requires the lens to be between tripod legs in order to get close enough to the subject.

Is there a "correct" technique?

I'm not sure if the tripod orientation matters that much (maybe more so with a long, heavier lens), but any thoughts would be appreciated. I also remember reading a website about tripods and camera support that may have answered this question a few years ago, but in my old age, I can't find it.

Quoting what the OP saw unless I am mistaking the purpose of your post, then I apologize.

[Duckhunter250]

I think he was saying everyone else had their tripod set with a leg toward them and he thought it was best with the 3rd leg away from him which I agreed with. Not that this discussion matters much, I may be wrong too.

[bohdank]

My apologies....

[bps]

I agree with kuma1212. I've always heard that you should have one leg extending out towards the same direction the lens is pointing (assuming you are on level ground) and it makes complete sense. Provided the particular body/lens set-up is front heavy, I'm certain there are measurable advantages on a micro-scale. And yes, micro-scale improvements are sought after. (which is why many folks spend upwards of $1,500 on a good support system)

Bryan

[kuma1212]

Thanks for the responses guys. This was on a bridge with a curb. The curb was for the pedestrian portion of the bridge. I placed 1 leg away from me in the same axis as my lens. This was wedged between the bridge floor and railing. The other 2 legs were on each side of me on the road (so these 2 legs were extended longer). I just wasn't sure if I was maximizing stability since everyone else had 2 tripod legs on the curb and 1 on the road.

I also used mirror lock up and 2sec timer, but didn't use any kind of weight or sand bag, so I could have done more to add stability.

Thanks again.

[ed rader]

Thanks for the responses guys. This was on a bridge with a curb. The curb was for the pedestrian portion of the bridge. I placed 1 leg away from me in the same axis as my lens. This was wedged between the bridge floor and railing. The other 2 legs were on each side of me on the road (so these 2 legs were extended longer). I just wasn't sure if I was maximizing stability since everyone else had 2 tripod legs on the curb and 1 on the road.

I also used mirror lock up and 2sec timer, but didn't use any kind of weight or sand bag, so I could have done more to add stability.

Thanks again.

sounds like they were trying to get their tripods closer to the edge, which is a case where i would do the same thing. if all else is equal tho i set my tripod up with one leg in front.

ed rader

[kuma1212]

that's a good thought Ed. I didn't notice the difference in camera distance from the railing. I should've taken a pic...it would've been much easier to explain.

[kuma1212]

This is the scene I was capturing. Taken at Zion National Park in Utah. I think a polarizer would have helped make the sky a little more blue, and also allow me to brighten the foreground a little. Straight from camera, I didn't have a chance to edit yet.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2768/4431954197_f5618557e1_b.jpg

[bps]

Yep, it sounds like they were trying to get closer. This could provide better framing for a wide-angle lens, and it gives the the appearance of being less intrusive on the roadway.

Bryan

[Mark II]

If the center column is perfectly vertical (it should be) and the legs are spread out evenly, I cant see where it would matter short of getting closer next to something. Essentially, all legs lead to one so the stability is near the same ... unless on a hillside.

Personally, I like being in between the rear legs. Chances of kicking the legs are reduced in half. Nothing chaps me off more than getting set up for a shot and then kick it out of position.:rolleyes:

[bps]

How funny Kuma! You posted your picture while I was typing my post, so I hadn't seen it yet. At any rate, while I was typing out my post and trying to visualize the scene you described, this exact spot came to mind only because a year and a half ago, I was there too and remember being faced with the exact same situation. I was the first one to set-up on the bridge for the sunset shot and I ended up putting two legs out in front and one on the road. The bridge is narrow and I wanted to remain less intrusive. All bridges vibrate when people walk on them and cars drive across them, but this bridge seemed exceptionally vulnerable.

You can imagine my surprise after thinking about this bridge, and then submitting my post only to see a picture of the same place I was imagining...

Small world, huh? :lol:

Bryan

[kuma1212]

Wow what a coincidence! Yeah that bridge had palpable vibrations when people would walk by and especially with any cars that would drive by. And you're right, it was fairly narrow. A car taking too tight a turn could've easily taken a few photographers and tripods out. It was my first trip taking my tripod (it's fairly heavy) but I should definitely bring it more often (and save up for some carbon fiber :) ).

[argyle]

This is the scene I was capturing. Taken at Zion National Park in Utah. I think a polarizer would have helped make the sky a little more blue, and also allow me to brighten the foreground a little. Straight from camera, I didn't have a chance to edit yet.

I know that spot well. :D I tried to get as close as possible to the railing, and out of the road as much as possible...the tour buses cause a lot of vibrations on the bridge. This meant placing two legs against the rail, with me straddling the third leg. Tripod positioning also depends on the number of fellow shooters in the area, and sometimes you need to make adjustments so that tripod legs don't get intertwined. And if they do, that you don't ruffle the feathers of other shooters. When things are that tight, I'll generally ask the person next to me if squeezing in is okay (same goes for Oxbow Bend in the Tetons...sometimes close to 50 or more shooters in close proximity).

Here's a shot that was processed to mimic an oil painting, later printed on canvas, from virtually the same spot:

http://www.northlakephotography.com/Landscapes/Zion-National-Park/ZP0183RGB1280/227510712_sXpkB-XL.jpg

[EmmaRose]

I would put the third leg away from me just because i wouldnt want to fall over it.

[Wilt]

Oh boy, do we have a new subject for measurebation test?! :lol: