Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 18 Oct 2007 (Thursday) 20:08
Search threadPrev/next
POLL: "Do you use a tripod in landscape photography?"
All the time
50
26.3%
Often
76
40%
At times
33
17.4%
Rarely
26
13.7%
Never
5
2.6%

190 voters, 190 votes given (1 choice only choices can be voted per member)). VOTING IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY.
BROWSE ALL POLLS
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Poll- how many landscape photogs regularly use tripods

 
The_Camera_Poser
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
3,012 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2006
     
Oct 23, 2007 16:15 |  #31
bannedPermanent ban

yeah- I'm looking at a manfrotto Pro055- for use with macro photography as well as general use.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Glenn ­ NK
Goldmember
Avatar
4,630 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Victoria, BC
     
Oct 23, 2007 21:33 |  #32

Tim Fitzharris is a superb LS photograhper with 30 books to his credit (he lives in Santa Fe NM). In his book National Audobon Society Guide to Landscape Photography on page 25, he states; "For landscape photographers, a tripod is as important as the camera and lens." The reasons he gives make much sense:

1. A rock steady camera insures the sharpest possible images.

2. It permits exact replication of framing when it is necessary to bracket settings under tricky lighting situations. (he doesn't mention HDR, but this is obvious too).

3. It makes possible the extended shutter speeds needed when shooting at small apertures to maximize DOF.

4. Without a tripod to stabilize the camera for the seconds long exposure needed during twilight, sunrise and sunset, sharp images would not be possible.


Incidentally, he is pictured in the book on page 27 with his Manfrotto 055MF3 with Kirk ballhead BH1.


When did voluptuous become voluminous?

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DrPablo
Goldmember
Avatar
1,568 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2006
Location: North Carolina
     
Oct 23, 2007 22:01 as a reply to  @ Glenn NK's post |  #33

Glenn,

None of those 4 situations is even remotely unique to landscape photography. I don't think a tripod is any more or less necessary for landscape shooting than for anything else.


Canon 5D Mark IV, 24-105L II, 17 TS-E f/4L, MPE 65, Sigma 50 f/1.4, Sigma 85 f/1.4, 100 f/2.8L, 135 f/2L, 70-200 f/4L, 400 L
Film gear: Agfa 8x10, Cambo 4x5, Noblex 150, Hasselblad 500 C/M

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
freaking102
Senior Member
412 posts
Joined Feb 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
     
Oct 24, 2007 00:13 |  #34

DrPablo wrote in post #4180350 (external link)
I don't think a tripod is any more or less necessary for landscape shooting than for anything else.

nonsense




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
T.Hogan
Senior Member
Avatar
309 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2006
Location: North Alabama
     
Oct 24, 2007 00:25 |  #35

Thats like saying, "Yea I got several L's at home but this 50mm 2.5 will work just as good. Take your non-tripod image and enlarge to 30x40 see what camera shake looks like. Then try a tripod. If you want quality mages, you take a little extra time at the set up, if not use a P&S.


7d gripped, canon 10-22. canon 50 1.4, canon 135L, Mamiya equipment.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DrPablo
Goldmember
Avatar
1,568 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2006
Location: North Carolina
     
Oct 24, 2007 06:26 |  #36

freaking102 wrote in post #4180966 (external link)
nonsense

Ok, so which of those 4 situations isn't equally applicable to portraiture, cityscapes, architecture, or macro/product photography?? In fact I think architecture and macro are much more tripod-dependant than landscape, for reasons I can elaborate on.

T.Hogan wrote in post #4181007 (external link)
Thats like saying, "Yea I got several L's at home but this 50mm 2.5 will work just as good. Take your non-tripod image and enlarge to 30x40 see what camera shake looks like. Then try a tripod. If you want quality mages, you take a little extra time at the set up, if not use a P&S.

Wanna show us some 100% crops at 1/500 with and without a tripod to prove your point? I think that the sharpness benefit quickly disappears beyond 1/100 for short lenses and 1/500 for long lenses (up to around 300mm or so).

What's largely missing in this discussion is mirror lock-up. The biggest reason to use a tripod for intermediate length exposures is so you can lock up the mirror. If you're using a tripod for 1/60 or 1/100 exposures but you're not using MLU, you're missing the point.

Of course you can also lock up the mirror when handholding if your'e able to do it without altering the position of the camera. My Hasselblad can be handheld down to 1/30 with a 150mm lens if I lock up the mirror -- but that means I need to compose and hold it in position without a viewfinder before locking up the mirror.


Canon 5D Mark IV, 24-105L II, 17 TS-E f/4L, MPE 65, Sigma 50 f/1.4, Sigma 85 f/1.4, 100 f/2.8L, 135 f/2L, 70-200 f/4L, 400 L
Film gear: Agfa 8x10, Cambo 4x5, Noblex 150, Hasselblad 500 C/M

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
slappy ­ sam
Goldmember
Avatar
1,452 posts
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Near Plymouth, MA
     
Oct 24, 2007 11:10 |  #37

Pablo,

I think we are talking about different things here. First of all, if you are shooting landscapes at 1 in the afternoon on a bright sunny day then I would agree with you, a tripod doesn't matter much (like you said shutter speeds < 1/100 would render it's effects negligible). However, a lot of shots are taken at sunset/sunrise, when the light is best. I know that I cannot pull off a 1/100 shutter speed at these times. Sometimes my shutter speeds are down to 1 second. I'm sure that if I was to shoot at f/3.5 on my 10-22 and max my ISO out at 1600 I could get a few snaps without a tripod fine. I normally shoot between f/8 and f/11 and obviously ISO 100 for landscapes, so this isn't possible. I really need a tripod for my exposures, and if I don't have one I won't even bother trying to take pictures at this time.

Portraiture - A tripod is nice, but you can definetly get away without one. Since your (hopefully) using strobes to light the subject, you should be able to have an adequate shutter speed (1/100 or less) to negate camera shake. Infact I was watching a video yesterday of jacobthephotographer shooting and he wasn't using a tripod, infact he was holding his off camera flash in one hand and camera in the other.

Cityscapes - ? Landscapes at night? I think this is just a form of landscapes in my opinion. Therefore, yes, its landscapes, you need a tripod especially here because its pretty much night shooting.

Architecture - I think you could get away without a tripod because you are probably shooting more middle of the day, but I don't shoot much architecture so I could be totally wrong (therefore I'll agree you need a tripod).

Macro/product - Yes, a tripod is pretty essential here unless your lighting your product with strobes or something.


40D|10-20|17-50|70-200|580ex
FS: XT with 2 OEM batteries

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DrPablo
Goldmember
Avatar
1,568 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2006
Location: North Carolina
     
Oct 24, 2007 11:21 as a reply to  @ slappy sam's post |  #38

Well, I think you get my point.

You need a tripod when the shutter speed is too long for you to handhold. If that's when shooting a landscape in low light, a portrait in low light, or an architectural interior, then the principle is the same either way.

Shooting with tiny apertures (and therefore needing a tripod) is also contextual. Landscape photographers who shoot at f/22 or f/32 with small format cameras are softening their image from diffraction, and that probably abrogates any benefit of putting it on a tripod. There is no benefit of shooting at f/16 or higher unless you really need that for the DOF to cover your subject. With architecture there tends to be closer subjects, so DOF is more of a problem than landscapes.

Plus, on 35mm and especially APS-C, your DOF is so big that you don't need to stop down nearly so much as on larger formats. Don't be fooled by Ansel Adams' f/64 technique -- this was when shooting with 8x10 view cameras. I shoot an 8x10 view camera myself, and the DOF is miniscule compared with 35mm.


Canon 5D Mark IV, 24-105L II, 17 TS-E f/4L, MPE 65, Sigma 50 f/1.4, Sigma 85 f/1.4, 100 f/2.8L, 135 f/2L, 70-200 f/4L, 400 L
Film gear: Agfa 8x10, Cambo 4x5, Noblex 150, Hasselblad 500 C/M

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rob.B
Member
43 posts
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Derby, UK
     
Oct 24, 2007 12:05 |  #39

StewartR wrote in post #4176296 (external link)
Don't forget the First Law Of Tripods:

Sturdy.
Light.
Cheap.

Pick any two.

I'll pick two, light and cheap, what do you want from a tripod, a token or something to assist your photography?


Rob.B
(Canon 20D, 40D, Sigma 18-35 EX, 80-400 EX OS, Tamron 28-300 DiII)

www.rtb2photographic.c​o.uk (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Glenn ­ NK
Goldmember
Avatar
4,630 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Victoria, BC
     
Oct 25, 2007 00:49 |  #40

DrPablo wrote in post #4180350 (external link)
Glenn,

None of those 4 situations is even remotely unique to landscape photography. I don't think a tripod is any more or less necessary for landscape shooting than for anything else.

Fair enough, I agree, but the topic was the use of a tripod on landscape photography.

And I think Fitzharris's points are difficult to refute.


When did voluptuous become voluminous?

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Karl ­ C
Goldmember
1,953 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Apr 2006
Location: Now: N 39°36' 8.2" W 104°53' 58"; prev N 43°4' 33" W 88°13' 23"; home N 34°7' 0" W 118°16' 18"
     
Oct 25, 2007 00:56 |  #41

DrPablo wrote in post #4183039 (external link)
Shooting with tiny apertures (and therefore needing a tripod) is also contextual. Landscape photographers who shoot at f/22 or f/32 with small format cameras are softening their image from diffraction, and that probably abrogates any benefit of putting it on a tripod. There is no benefit of shooting at f/16 or higher unless you really need that for the DOF to cover your subject. With architecture there tends to be closer subjects, so DOF is more of a problem than landscapes.

Plus, on 35mm and especially APS-C, your DOF is so big that you don't need to stop down nearly so much as on larger formats. Don't be fooled by Ansel Adams' f/64 technique -- this was when shooting with 8x10 view cameras. I shoot an 8x10 view camera myself, and the DOF is miniscule compared with 35mm.

In "Understanding Exposure", Bryan Anderson is routinely shooting at f22.

Not that I'm a proponent of that aperture since shooting that slow tends to highlight a dusty sensor. ;)


Gear: Kodak Brownie and homemade pin-hole cameras. Burlap sack for a bag.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DrPablo
Goldmember
Avatar
1,568 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2006
Location: North Carolina
     
Oct 25, 2007 08:18 |  #42

Glenn, I wasn't refuting the points. I was just pointing out that they're generic -- they don't make the case that a tripod is uniquely essential to landscape shooting. Anyway, we're on the same page.

Karl, whatever Bryan Anderson is doing, shooting at f/22 will soften his image from diffraction. He's way past the diffraction limit at f/22. Which is fine if you need it for depth of field. But if you're standing on the edge of the Grand Canyon, 99.999% of your subject is at infinity, you have a 20mm lens, and your closest essential subject is 20 feet away, then you could shoot at f/2.8 and get everything in focus.

If you're shooting larger formats, then diffraction still happens. My Schneider 500mm f/12 convertible symmar that I use on my 8x10 is still diffraction limited at f/8 or f/11. But there is so much excess resolution and so little enlargement (usually none) from 8x10 that I can shoot at f/128 and you would never see any loss of resolution. Not so with 35mm or even with medium format.

The point is to stop down aperture until you hit the DOF you need and stop there.


Canon 5D Mark IV, 24-105L II, 17 TS-E f/4L, MPE 65, Sigma 50 f/1.4, Sigma 85 f/1.4, 100 f/2.8L, 135 f/2L, 70-200 f/4L, 400 L
Film gear: Agfa 8x10, Cambo 4x5, Noblex 150, Hasselblad 500 C/M

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gary88
Goldmember
Avatar
4,010 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 325
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
     
Oct 25, 2007 12:57 as a reply to  @ DrPablo's post |  #43

I don't use my tripod that much, though I really should. If I want to do an HDR or an exposure time over 1/4", then of course I bust out the tripod.


www.garyhebdingjr.com (external link)|Flickr  (external link)IGear List|Alamy | (external link)Instagram: @garyhebding

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Glenn ­ NK
Goldmember
Avatar
4,630 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Victoria, BC
     
Oct 26, 2007 00:13 |  #44

DrPablo wrote in post #4188535 (external link)
Glenn, I wasn't refuting the points. I was just pointing out that they're generic -- they don't make the case that a tripod is uniquely essential to landscape shooting. Anyway, we're on the same page.

Karl, whatever Bryan Anderson is doing, shooting at f/22 will soften his image from diffraction. He's way past the diffraction limit at f/22. Which is fine if you need it for depth of field. But if you're standing on the edge of the Grand Canyon, 99.999% of your subject is at infinity, you have a 20mm lens, and your closest essential subject is 20 feet away, then you could shoot at f/2.8 and get everything in focus.

If you're shooting larger formats, then diffraction still happens. My Schneider 500mm f/12 convertible symmar that I use on my 8x10 is still diffraction limited at f/8 or f/11. But there is so much excess resolution and so little enlargement (usually none) from 8x10 that I can shoot at f/128 and you would never see any loss of resolution. Not so with 35mm or even with medium format.

The point is to stop down aperture until you hit the DOF you need and stop there.

Right, the points are not uniquely essential to landscapes - in fact, I use a tripod virtually all the time with flower closeups, while I occasionally "cheat" and don't use one for landscapes.

My comments on f/22 probably shouldn't be aired on a polite forum.;)

Perhaps a good reference as to what f/stop range to use is given in the lens tests on photozone.de. They do carefully controlled tests to determine the MTF values, so I suspect that the results will reflect diffraction limits.

Invariably, most lenses (they test on a 1.6 crop Canon) are "at their very best" from f/4 to f/8. My own 100 macro is tack sharp up to f/8, but at f/16 it's fallen off quite a bit. I can't believe that the centre resolution of this lens imitates Patsy Kline at f/32 ("falls to pieces":lol:); I'm sure it's due to diffraction.

http://www.photozone.d​e …es/canon_100_28​/index.htm (external link)


When did voluptuous become voluminous?

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ K.
Goldmember
Avatar
1,852 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Connecticut
     
Oct 26, 2007 00:23 |  #45

Any serious landscape photographer take 100% of his shots with a tripod. John Shaw never shoots without one. The timecathers use a tripod 100% of the time. They do phenomenal work: http://www.timecatcher​.com/ (external link)


Please proceed, Governor.
Visit Me at Flickr ~ http://www.flickr.com/​photos/tomkaz/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,897 views & 0 likes for this thread
Poll- how many landscape photogs regularly use tripods
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is dsdcth
843 guests, 313 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.