Bushwalk Australia

When I went to Lady Lake on Saturday, I found myself carrying my tripod before long.

Here's why.

I took this photo...


Didn't look too bad, until I zoomed in...
Here's a 100% crop of part of the photo.


What went wrong?
I was using f2.8 to achieve a narrow depth of field. I had the ISO bumped to 400 to get a bit more light in so the shutter would be fast enough.
Of habit, I press the shutter down half way to lock the focus, check the subject is composed the way I want, then take the photo by pressing the shutter all the way down.
Two things went wrong with this photo. There is motion blur - even though the shutter speed was 1/80 second (a minimum for 60mm zoom, but should be able to get away with it), there was enough motion to create blur;
The distance between the camera and the subject had changed between the time I locked the photo, and the time I pressed the shutter all the way in. Due to the narrow depth of field ( f2.8 ), this caused the subject to be slightly out of focus.

A faster shutter may have helped with the motion blur, but that would have required a higher ISO being that the lens is already wide open. A greater depth of field may have helped with the out-of focus, but that would have required a smaller aperture (f stop) which would have decreased shutter speed.

What did I do to fix it?

Get the tripod out and take it again...



Then find myself carrying the tripod for the rest of the day, in my normal fashion.
Note to self - don't be lazy...

I rekon its just that dodgy lens of yours giving your varied results....

Before anyone (else) picks me up on it, you can't have a 100% crop...
They are crops at native resolution... 100% resolution of the camera, cropped...
Making sense?

tasadam wrote:Note to self - don't be lazy...

Great post Adam. I have made the same note more than once. Now all that is necessary is to not be too lazy to read your notes.

Don't be too lazy to: Carry tripod. Zoom in and check photo after every shot. Retake photo if necessary.

walkinTas wrote:

tasadam wrote:Note to self - don't be lazy...

...Don't be too lazy to: Zoom in and check photo after every shot.

Aren't we spoilt with digital photography...
Remember when we were out there with film, how much care we spent time on getting everything just right to take the photo... Then anxiously wait for the film to be developed before we could check our results?

It's all just so easy these days, yet still we find ourselves getting lazy.
Something I have been trying to do of late is to take the time to get it right - if it's worth taking, I might as well spend the time to get it as best I can so I try to take it properly... Unless it's a snap for the purposes of experiment, a record, etc.
How successful? Well, um, Now I find myself too lazy / busy to go thru my results properly to do a sort.
Then there's post processing - who has time for that? Or am I just too darn lazy...

tasadam wrote:

walkinTas wrote:Something I have been trying to do of late is to take the time to get it right - if it's worth taking, I might as well spend the time to get it as best I can so I try to take it properly...

I find I take my best photos on days when I go out with the expressed purpose of taking photos. I take a lot more time over every shot. When I go walking with others I walk past too many great shots and hurry all the others. There is nothing more disappointing than to get home and realise that you nearly got a good photo and a bit more care was all that was needed.

Then there's post processing - who has time for that? Or am I just too darn lazy...

Nope, you've just discovered one of the seldom admitted downsides of digital imaging. Here's something that explains the real deal with RAW files:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm

There's no doubt that digital technology offers marvellous benefits in many areas but digital camera users (and today that's 99% of people taking pictures) tend to be so convinced that this new technology is superior in every way that they will not even entertain any suggestion that it may actually not be so.

The photography forums of the world are littered with endless digital vs. film debates. If it was so clear-cut the debates would have been over long ago, but they're not. What is happening is that the finer points are beginning to emerge, and they are not always in favour of digital.

Actually these same photography forums also show a resurgence of interest in film. And new films are being released, Kodak released Ektar 100 in 135 format late last year, and just 2 months ago they released it in 120 format as well in response to demand from photographers.

But getting back to the topic, definitely agree, a good tripod is essential for good landscape photography and even more so for good macro photography. I devote ~1.5kg to this essential item in my pack.

BTW congrats on a great set of photos in 2007 short list. I came across them the other night, some excellent work there, well done.

lexharris wrote:The photography forums of the world are littered with endless digital vs. film debates. If it was so clear-cut the debates would have been over long ago, but they're not. What is happening is that the finer points are beginning to emerge, and they are not always in favour of digital.

Actually these same photography forums also show a resurgence of interest in film. And new films are being released, Kodak released Ektar 100 in 135 format late last year, and just 2 months ago they released it in 120 format as well in response to demand from photographers.

I can't remember any of these debates in recent times at the half dozen or so photo sites I occasionally visit . A couple of years ago, it was rife. (maybe I visit the wrong places)

Mostly, people seem to have a respect for both mediums, and because of the relative rarity it's getting to the stage that people are becoming somewhat in awe of film users. For sure, there are benefits and disadvantages associated with either. In the end, it's up to the user to squeeze the best result out of their chosen medium and there is just as much tinker room with film as there is with digital (probably more with film if you include digital transfer and manipulation of the film images). I think it's true to say that the tinkering is more accessible with digital because it is mostly performed on the user's computer while film requires specialised and expensive equipment and access to darkrooms etc and the knowledge to be able to use it.

It doesn't matter the method or medium, it's about the result.

My Canon shots are better than that...

I carry my tripod everywhere, and use it nowhere. It never ceases to amaze me the difference it makes with shots though. I find it difficult to focus in many macro-shooting positions using a tripod though- maybe an anglefinder would help.

photohiker wrote:I can't remember any of these debates in recent times at the half dozen or so photo sites I occasionally visit . A couple of years ago, it was rife. (maybe I visit the wrong places)

Not a debate, but an interesting read nonetheless:
http://photo.net/learn/film/open-letter-to-film-users/

photohiker wrote:Mostly, people seem to have a respect for both mediums, and because of the relative rarity it's getting to the stage that people are becoming somewhat in awe of film users. For sure, there are benefits and disadvantages associated with either. In the end, it's up to the user to squeeze the best result out of their chosen medium and there is just as much tinker room with film as there is with digital (probably more with film if you include digital transfer and manipulation of the film images). I think it's true to say that the tinkering is more accessible with digital because it is mostly performed on the user's computer while film requires specialised and expensive equipment and access to darkrooms etc and the knowledge to be able to use it.
It doesn't matter the method or medium, it's about the result.

Agree 100%. Hybrid workflow (film + scan) works well for me.

To add to the original tripod topic, I find also that mirror lockup helps a great deal, most particularly with macro. Sure, tripods can be awkward with macro. I carried an angle finder for a while but found it too much of a pain to use.

the_camera_poser wrote:My Canon shots are better than that...

That debate is over, remember...

YAWN...... well, you know, I use the AI Servo mode on my Canon to track macro subjects when shooting handheld. I'm just suggesting that maybe if your camera had a more....uh....field-orientated pedigree, it might work a bit better for you.

On a serious note- have you seen that new line of heavy-duty tripods from Gorilla Pod? They'll hold a pro SLR and a decent telephoto- might really be the thing for macro work, especially if you use an off-camera bracket. I forget their name- it's not the SLR model- it's above that. B+H have them.

One of the reps that comes into work is also the Rep for one of the many Gorilla pod ripoffs (which are all from the same facotry...china...dont you love it ) anyway I got to see one of those SLR Zoom Gorilla pods last week when he was in store (he knows I love camera gear...and the thing that amazed me was their size. The "little" balls that make up the legs were easily golf ball sized. The small and compact nature of the gorilla pod is almost negated in those things!

For me, the possible advantage of the gorilla pod isn't the weight- it's the ability to get it positioned to allow a huge range of angles of view. especially for macro work.

Content removed by poster

These are the two I was thinking of- one is rated for 6.6 lbs and the other 11 lbs.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5 ... xible.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/4 ... ripod.html

The big one weighs 500g, without a head, so it's still less than a tripod.

Expensive though.

tasadam wrote:Aren't we spoilt with digital photography...
Remember when we were out there with film, how much care we spent time on getting everything just right to take the photo... Then anxiously wait for the film to be developed before we could check our results?.

I've been going back through some of my old slides lately. From way back in the dark ages before my first digital.

I was a better photographer then.