Roger Hicks
Veteran
Tell that to the pressmen of yore.
Also, what we're talking about here is prints of similar sharpness from different sized negatives, in which case, I defy you to find a flaw in my argument.
When it comes to huge enlargements, of course higher shutter speeds (or a tripod) give more quality, up to the point where blur due to camera shake is swamped by other factors. But the simple truth is that if you're shooting 35mm and 6x9cm, and making (let's say) an 8x12 inch/20x30cm enlargement, you can use slower shutter speeds than '1/focal length' with the bigger neg; that, in fact, 1/60 with 105mm (on 6x9) or 45mm (on 35mm) will give roughly equivalent sharpness, other things being equal (which they never are).
In other words, '1/focal length' is only a rule of thumb; it's not especially reliable; and it points towards shorter-than-necessary speeds with wide-angles and longer-than-desirable speeds with longer lenses. To which I'd add, and applies (insofar as it applies at all) to full-frame 35mm only. Or would you prefer to argue that 1/30 with a 30mm lens on half frame can be enlarged to the same size as a picture taken at 1/30 with a 50mm lens with exactly the same loss of sharpness, given the same degree of camera shake in both cases?
EDIT: I'm not saying that 1/10 and 1/5 are OPTIMUM speeds, merely that they often got publishable (i.e. not 'worthless') pics at these speeds. I am however saying that you don't need 1/125 with a 127mm lens -- and I cheerfully agree that a tripod is a better idea, but the OP was talking about HAND-HOLDABLE speeds.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
ottluuk
the indecisive eternity
i think not ,to your think not
yes to the first part; blur comes from angular movements and or inability to keep your aim (meaning unsteady). i could even agree that the angular movements are translated to the linear speed of the image moving across the film, but it is not dependent on the angle of view (field of view/FOV) nor the magnification of the lens which are not one and the same thing. angle of view is a result of format (film size), format does not cause camera shake,
the linear speed of movement is increased the longer the focal length gets, no matter the format..for example if you use a 135mm on 4x5 (standard press camera, of old) you have a wide FOV but if i put a 6x6 mask in the back of the press camera you have significantly reduced its FOV but the actual amount of camera shake (or lack there of due to someones skill at handholding etc etc) has not changed at all, it is the same no matter what format the film is masked to. the linear speed of the image moving across the film doesn't change because the format changes, it changes depending on the distance the optical centre is from the film plain (FL).
magnification is not a factor of the lens, no matter what camera the 135mm lens (or other given lens) is placed on it gives the same magnification, moving it (hypothetically) from the 4x5 press camera to the 6x6 folder may make it appear to be magnified but it is just cropped and the image size is still the same relative size as measured from the film plain to the subject…any actual magnification comes later in the printing stage
the angle of view/FOV is determined by the format, a particular lens will be built to cover an angle of view/FOV but so long as it doesnt distort the image (i.e as a fish would as an extreme example) then the lens can be moved to smaller format and it will function just the same only the image is cropped
thats basically what i was saying as well, but the reason it happens is because of FL ;distance from film plain to optical centre, as it increases the linear speed of movement increases,
as i mentioned to oftheheard, that would mean you could happily use 1/50 on a SLR with a 300mm lens, a 300mm lens is 'normal' on 8x10.. in effect using your theory, you could shoot any lens on an 35mm SLR at 1/50 because they are all normal FL on some format.
all other things being equal, as FL increases, it increases linear movement of the image on the film plain or camera shake appearing.
You are, of course, correct if we assume that the final prints are enlarged by the same factor for each format. But this is largely academic. A 10x (linear) enlargement of a 35mm negative gives you a 24x36cm print. An equivalent enlargement of a 6x9 neg gives you about 56x82cm (exact frame sizes vary).
Now, how many of us regularly print our casual hand-held photos 30 inches wide or more? I salute those who can afford to do so as well as find decent display space for their large-format work.
There are various reasons to use the larger formats even if you never make humongous prints (smoother tonal gradations, negatives are easier to view and handle, contact prints).
Besides, in discussing a vintage folder, you are likely to find that lens quality does not allow as much enlargement on these old 6x9-s as you could get away with a modern 35mm system, especially wide open.
I'm sorry if I caused confusion before.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Chippy,
We must be reading the question different ways.
With any luck, the OP may be able to extract the answer from our responses, depending on which way he meant it.
Cheers,
R.
We must be reading the question different ways.
With any luck, the OP may be able to extract the answer from our responses, depending on which way he meant it.
Cheers,
R.
xwhatsit
Well-known
I'll regularly go 1/15 with a normal-lensed 35mm camera. But with my 6x9 folder (Agfa Record III) I don't dare go that low.
I think the answer is that I tend to use a folder in different ways. After seeing the first roll off the folder, I was so blown away with the resolution and quality it seemed a complete waste of time to throw much of that away by using a slow shutter speed and getting potential blur in there. Different subject matter of course too.
Also, while I think I can hold a folder at least as well as a well-proportioned 35mm camera such as my Lynx 1000, releasing the shutter is a different story! The Record III has a fancy (for the time) double-exposure protected release; you have to wind it a bit before it'll let you release the shutter again. This, along with the long lever linkage to the shutter at the end of the 105mm lens, seems to cause a fairly notchy shutter release. When I'm shooting below 1/250, I use the Synchro Compur's release lever which is exposed and easily accessible. A lot smoother.
1/100 is about the limit for me. 1/50 if I absolutely have to, but with 8 shots a roll and knowing the potential quality I don't feel good about it.
I think the answer is that I tend to use a folder in different ways. After seeing the first roll off the folder, I was so blown away with the resolution and quality it seemed a complete waste of time to throw much of that away by using a slow shutter speed and getting potential blur in there. Different subject matter of course too.
Also, while I think I can hold a folder at least as well as a well-proportioned 35mm camera such as my Lynx 1000, releasing the shutter is a different story! The Record III has a fancy (for the time) double-exposure protected release; you have to wind it a bit before it'll let you release the shutter again. This, along with the long lever linkage to the shutter at the end of the 105mm lens, seems to cause a fairly notchy shutter release. When I'm shooting below 1/250, I use the Synchro Compur's release lever which is exposed and easily accessible. A lot smoother.
1/100 is about the limit for me. 1/50 if I absolutely have to, but with 8 shots a roll and knowing the potential quality I don't feel good about it.
RichL
Well-known
I too use the 524/16. Seeings how the next slowest shutter speed is 1/10 sec, 1/25 will be your minimum shooting speed unless your arms are as steady as a tripod.
When I shoot, the camera sits on my left palm with the index finger lightly touching the take-up knob and the other three in front of the body while my thumb and a couple of fingers of my right hand actually hold the camera. The camera touches my nose and I use the second finger for the release button. I do the firearms bit of 'the inhale, exhale and release the trigger while exhaling' bit to fire the shutter.
When I shoot, the camera sits on my left palm with the index finger lightly touching the take-up knob and the other three in front of the body while my thumb and a couple of fingers of my right hand actually hold the camera. The camera touches my nose and I use the second finger for the release button. I do the firearms bit of 'the inhale, exhale and release the trigger while exhaling' bit to fire the shutter.
joeswe
Well-known
I think we all agree that when it comes to camera shake, a lot depends on individual factors like your ability to hold the camera steady and the type of gear you use. IMO, Chippy is dead on about the theory behind (field of view is irrelevant here and all other factors being equal, the amount of blur resulting from camera shake depends entirely on the focal length, or to be more precise, on the magnification ratio of the lens, which itself depends on the focal length and subject distance). So in theory (again all other factors being equal), our 105mm 6x9 folder needs faster shutter speeds to be safe from camera shake when compared to a 35mm camera with a 50 mm lens.
I would recommend the OP to do two things: First, do a field test and find out for yourself how slower shutter speeds will affect picture quality with your individual gear and abilities. Second, for the time being or as a rule of thumb: if you are using a folder with a sharp lens like a Tessar or a Solinar and would like to obtain results that justify using the bigger format in the first place, keep the shutters speeds up high when shooting hand held. By high I mean at least 1/100, better faster (see below).
Below you see a series of shots I took hand held with the self timer of my Agfa Record III (Solinar f4.5/105 lens).The optimum aperture for this lens is at f11 or maybe even at f16. However, if you look at the crops below which were taken from the central area of the picture, you will see that while image quality improves slightly from f5.6 to f8, it starts to deteriorate noticeably at f11 - the aperture where the lens is expected to give its best performance. The cause of this unpleasant surprise is blur from camera shake - at 1/100s. Of course, you won't notice if you see the whole picture on a computer screen or as a small paper print, but that's probably not what you are shooting 6x9s for... To be fair, I have to add that the 1/100 s on my Record measures 1/70 second effectively. But I suspect that is the case for most folder shutters that haven't been serviced recently. So, one more reason to keep the shutter speeds high. Remember, this is just an individual example, YMMV. Shoot a test roll or two and find out what works with your folder and what not!
John
komplett von eames68 auf Flickr
I would recommend the OP to do two things: First, do a field test and find out for yourself how slower shutter speeds will affect picture quality with your individual gear and abilities. Second, for the time being or as a rule of thumb: if you are using a folder with a sharp lens like a Tessar or a Solinar and would like to obtain results that justify using the bigger format in the first place, keep the shutters speeds up high when shooting hand held. By high I mean at least 1/100, better faster (see below).
Below you see a series of shots I took hand held with the self timer of my Agfa Record III (Solinar f4.5/105 lens).The optimum aperture for this lens is at f11 or maybe even at f16. However, if you look at the crops below which were taken from the central area of the picture, you will see that while image quality improves slightly from f5.6 to f8, it starts to deteriorate noticeably at f11 - the aperture where the lens is expected to give its best performance. The cause of this unpleasant surprise is blur from camera shake - at 1/100s. Of course, you won't notice if you see the whole picture on a computer screen or as a small paper print, but that's probably not what you are shooting 6x9s for... To be fair, I have to add that the 1/100 s on my Record measures 1/70 second effectively. But I suspect that is the case for most folder shutters that haven't been serviced recently. So, one more reason to keep the shutter speeds high. Remember, this is just an individual example, YMMV. Shoot a test roll or two and find out what works with your folder and what not!
John
komplett von eames68 auf Flickr
graywolf
Well-known
Even with film, we get pixel peeping!
Now here is the question, can you tell the difference between those three images in 8x10 prints at normal viewing distance (no putting your nose against the prints)?
With a slower shutter speed, you are always going to have some motion blur, does than mean you should never use anything less than 1/500 second? No, it means you need to test and check out what happens with prints at normal viewing distances.
Normal viewing distance is usually about ten inches with prints 8x10 and smaller, and farther away with larger prints. That is why DOF tables assume an 8x10 print at 10 inches.
One of the points that no one seems to have mentioned is inertia. The heavier the camera the more inertia, the lower the shutter speed you can use until the weight gets to be so much that you are straining to hold the camera.
There are a lot of things that determine how slow you can handhold. Not many of them have anything to do with the camera.
1. Are you tired, excited, worried, etc. All of those mean you have to use a higher shutter speed.
2. How steady are you in normal conditions? When you are feeling relaxed. When it is cold out. When it is hot out.
3. Do you know how to hold the camera for the very steadiest shot? The digital snapshooter's arm length way is the very worst. With your supporting hands arm locked against another part of your body is about the best.
(Above) A photo from my website showing about the steadiest way of holding a Speed Graphic. Note that the camera is supported by the leg, the forearm, and the hand; that is about as steady as using a monopod.
In the end, the only two things determine how slow you can go. Your technique, and your health. Only testing will tell you what those numbers are in any given condition. Experience will refine them. Theory is for us dorks who like to run things around in our heads. Practical application is for those of us who want to take photos.
Now here is the question, can you tell the difference between those three images in 8x10 prints at normal viewing distance (no putting your nose against the prints)?
With a slower shutter speed, you are always going to have some motion blur, does than mean you should never use anything less than 1/500 second? No, it means you need to test and check out what happens with prints at normal viewing distances.
Normal viewing distance is usually about ten inches with prints 8x10 and smaller, and farther away with larger prints. That is why DOF tables assume an 8x10 print at 10 inches.
One of the points that no one seems to have mentioned is inertia. The heavier the camera the more inertia, the lower the shutter speed you can use until the weight gets to be so much that you are straining to hold the camera.
There are a lot of things that determine how slow you can handhold. Not many of them have anything to do with the camera.
1. Are you tired, excited, worried, etc. All of those mean you have to use a higher shutter speed.
2. How steady are you in normal conditions? When you are feeling relaxed. When it is cold out. When it is hot out.
3. Do you know how to hold the camera for the very steadiest shot? The digital snapshooter's arm length way is the very worst. With your supporting hands arm locked against another part of your body is about the best.
(Above) A photo from my website showing about the steadiest way of holding a Speed Graphic. Note that the camera is supported by the leg, the forearm, and the hand; that is about as steady as using a monopod.
In the end, the only two things determine how slow you can go. Your technique, and your health. Only testing will tell you what those numbers are in any given condition. Experience will refine them. Theory is for us dorks who like to run things around in our heads. Practical application is for those of us who want to take photos.
Last edited:
bensyverson
Well-known
The heavier a camera is, the more inertia it has. So a 4x5 press camera or a Mamiya RZ67 will be less affected by photographer-induced shake, simply because it takes more force to move it. Thus, small movements in your hand are absorbed and eliminated.
In contrast, a featherweight digital compact is plagued with camera shake, because every micro movement of your hand is translated to camera motion.
People focus too much on mirror slap, leaf shutters, and other extremely minor factors in camera shake. The #1 factor by far is camera weight.
The #2 factor is shutter release resistance. The XA has such a sensitive shutter that you basically put your finger on the release and think about taking a picture, and it does. In contrast, some mechanical cameras have releases with substantial resistance and long travel. Well, guess what: the more motion and force you have to exert on the camera in order to trip the shutter, the more blur you will get.
In contrast, a featherweight digital compact is plagued with camera shake, because every micro movement of your hand is translated to camera motion.
People focus too much on mirror slap, leaf shutters, and other extremely minor factors in camera shake. The #1 factor by far is camera weight.
The #2 factor is shutter release resistance. The XA has such a sensitive shutter that you basically put your finger on the release and think about taking a picture, and it does. In contrast, some mechanical cameras have releases with substantial resistance and long travel. Well, guess what: the more motion and force you have to exert on the camera in order to trip the shutter, the more blur you will get.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Unless, of course, you are already shaking from the strain of supporting the damn' thing. There's an optimum weight. Too light, and it moves. Too heavy, and it moves.
Cheers,
R.
bensyverson
Well-known
Nah. I agree that handholding something that's too heavy will make YOU shake, but the thing you're holding will remain stable. If you hold a 50 pound dumbbell in one hand for a few minutes, your arm might start to shake like a leaf, but the weight itself will not vibrate much at all.
graywolf
Well-known
That is quite a sentence, BTW. I personally find that I can hand hold about a stop slower when I am wearing my Stetson 25 (from whenever it was a Stetson dress hat better than anything they sell now cost $25), like you describe the vintage enthusiasts liking, but because I have cut off all that hair I have less inertia, so it comes out a wash.
urs0polar
Member
I have a short cable release that I use with my Bessa RF that allows me to get down to very low shutter speeds while hand holding. The trigger thing ont he Bessas demands a much much higher shutter speed. I've gotten acceptable shots at 1/2 a second; of course they are a little blurred upon pixel peeping, but due to the fact of no sharp movement (i.e. mirror slap), the shake sometimes isn't that bad and can add to certain images -- I mean, it's an old timey look with the lens anyway. In addition, enlarging less means you have more leeway.
I don't use a hat like Tom, but I'm in agreement with him and Roger in all other respects Just try to breathe out slowly (holding the breath causes shake), put even pressure on the shutter release letting the shot surprise you (like shooting a rifle), and try to brace everything as securely as possible.
One thing we used to do back when I was on a rifle team was to get set up and aimed, then close your eyes and relax. When you open your eyes again, if you are still pointed at the target, then you are in business and not trying to "force" the position. Similar strategies are applicable to hand-held vintage 120 rangefinder photography ...
I don't use a hat like Tom, but I'm in agreement with him and Roger in all other respects
Just try to breathe out slowly (holding the breath causes shake), put even pressure on the shutter release letting the shot surprise you (like shooting a rifle), and try to brace everything as securely as possible.One thing we used to do back when I was on a rifle team was to get set up and aimed, then close your eyes and relax. When you open your eyes again, if you are still pointed at the target, then you are in business and not trying to "force" the position. Similar strategies are applicable to hand-held vintage 120 rangefinder photography ...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I have a short cable release that I use with my Bessa RF that allows me to get down to very low shutter speeds while hand holding. The trigger thing ont he Bessas demands a much much higher shutter speed. I've gotten acceptable shots at 1/2 a second; of course they are a little blurred upon pixel peeping, but due to the fact of no sharp movement (i.e. mirror slap), the shake sometimes isn't that bad and can add to certain images -- I mean, it's an old timey look with the lens anyway. In addition, enlarging less means you have more leeway.
I don't use a hat like Tom, but I'm in agreement with him and Roger in all other respects
One thing we used to do back when I was on a rifle team was to get set up and aimed, then close your eyes and relax. When you open your eyes again, if you are still pointed at the target, then you are in business and not trying to "force" the position. Similar strategies are applicable to hand-held vintage 120 rangefinder photography ...
THAT'S elegant, and entirely logical. Thanks.
Cheers,
R.
graywolf
Well-known
I guess I would like to add one thing, sometimes a blurred photo is better than no photo. Don't get so worried about sharpness that you miss the shot.
bensyverson
Well-known
In my experience, the head is more important than the legs. If you ignore the head, then the heavier the camera, the less vibration. Think of it this way: do you vibrate more when you sit on a normal chair versus a heavy chair? No.
If you put the point and shoot on the tripod, the tripod + camera combo has very little mass, so any tiny force is readily translated into motion. If you put the 4x5 on the tripod, that mass means it takes more force to result in motion. However, the big "BUT" is that your head has to be strong enough to absorb camera vibration. A ballhead is basically a lever with a clamp at the fulcrum, which is the absolute worst place for it. Force applied to the camera is actually multiplied when it reaches the ballhead. If it's near its limits, a tap on the camera will cause the ballhead to flex and rebound, resulting in vibration.
Tripod legs themselves are naturally very stable. The more mass, the better, obviously—three steel I-Beams welded together would be the perfect tripod. However, short of that, you actually want lower rigidity (tensile strength) so that the legs can absorb vibration. Aluminum legs have high rigidity and low mass, which is a bad combo. Tapping one leg means that energy is readily transferred to the other legs and the head. On the other hand, carbon fiber legs have low rigidity, so when you tap one leg, a lot of that energy is converted to localized motion, and less makes it to the head.
But honestly, that difference is absolutely minor compared to the difference between a solid head and a flimsy one.
urs0polar
Member
off-topic, but I suppose that's why my linhof profi-III ballhead is quite wiggly with the sinar p2 8x10 on it.... I would have thought it would be more stable given the hugeness of the profi-III (and the mass of the 8x10)... and here I thought I was done buying gear for a bit (I am, I am .... I am?); that Sinar leveling head is looking better and better.