hand hold with slower speeds

[Spyderman]

Please, read the thought in my signature. I don't remember where I found it, but I believe, that for most of us that is the point. And that is the reason why we are here, and not at another forum (starting "photo", then ther is a "dot" and ending with "net" 😀 ). We are looking for candid photographs. Not posed.
What I'm trying to say is that sharpness sometimes isn't that much important.

 

[dcsang]

The concept that all images need "sharpness" is something that, while present in the past, is more prevalent now due to digital cameras.

There have been many examples where, again due to the prevalence of digital, people tend to feel the need to criticize negatively the motion blur in a photo. Digital cameras are cheap (P&S), allow everyone to experiment and allow everyone to become a "photographer". Sadly, 9/10 of the digital P&S stuff out there lacks the ability to produce the "feel" that one gets from a slow shutter speed because they lack the manual control. Sharpness to the digital P&S user is often also due to the size of the lens itself. It's hard NOT to have everything be sharp in a photo when the lens is no bigger than a dime in circumferance.

I would also state that motion blur in a photo due to movement of people or vehicles is not the same as motion blur due to not being able to retain a steady hand. I have photos that are taken in extremely dim places with fast film and a steady hand (1/4 of a second is the slowest I can retain as long as I am leaning on something and using my elbows as a "tripod") and the blurred image, to me, suggests life in action.

If I want to shoot still life or portaiture then I will gladly up my shutter speed but I'm more apt to lean to the baroque side of things than not.

Dave

 

[mc_vancouver]

Dave, what's your "lens from outer space?"

 

[ampguy]

Good points

Good points

but digital p&s with manual control can also work well. Attached is one of my favorite shots with a Canon A60 P&S (but with manual override). No photoshop or cropping.

The concept that all images need "sharpness" is something that, while present in the past, is more prevalent now due to digital cameras.

There have been many examples where, again due to the prevalence of digital, people tend to feel the need to criticize negatively the motion blur in a photo. Digital cameras are cheap (P&S), allow everyone to experiment and allow everyone to become a "photographer". Sadly, 9/10 of the digital P&S stuff out there lacks the ability to produce the "feel" that one gets from a slow shutter speed because they lack the manual control. Sharpness to the digital P&S user is often also due to the size of the lens itself. It's hard NOT to have everything be sharp in a photo when the lens is no bigger than a dime in circumferance.

I would also state that motion blur in a photo due to movement of people or vehicles is not the same as motion blur due to not being able to retain a steady hand. I have photos that are taken in extremely dim places with fast film and a steady hand (1/4 of a second is the slowest I can retain as long as I am leaning on something and using my elbows as a "tripod") and the blurred image, to me, suggests life in action.

If I want to shoot still life or portaiture then I will gladly up my shutter speed but I'm more apt to lean to the baroque side of things than not.

Dave

 

[dmr]

This is a very long but very interesting thread.

I think the only real answer is "It depends!"

Yes, there's that rule of thumb of 1 over the focal length, but as has been demonstrated (and observed by myself as well) there are many exceptions, so it's really more of a suggestion than a rule.

As for me, with a rangefinder, I can always do it at 1/60, usually seem to be able to do it at 1/30, sometimes do it at 1/15, and haven't really tried it slower than that.

 

[dcsang]

Dave, what's your "lens from outer space?"

hehe..

"Jupiter 8" 😀

Dave

 

[Olsen]

The concept that all images need "sharpness" is something that, while present in the past, is more prevalent now due to digital cameras.

There have been many examples where, again due to the prevalence of digital, people tend to feel the need to criticize negatively the motion blur in a photo. Digital cameras are cheap (P&S), allow everyone to experiment and allow everyone to become a "photographer". Sadly, 9/10 of the digital P&S stuff out there lacks the ability to produce the "feel" that one gets from a slow shutter speed because they lack the manual control. Sharpness to the digital P&S user is often also due to the size of the lens itself. It's hard NOT to have everything be sharp in a photo when the lens is no bigger than a dime in circumferance.

I would also state that motion blur in a photo due to movement of people or vehicles is not the same as motion blur due to not being able to retain a steady hand. I have photos that are taken in extremely dim places with fast film and a steady hand (1/4 of a second is the slowest I can retain as long as I am leaning on something and using my elbows as a "tripod") and the blurred image, to me, suggests life in action.

If I want to shoot still life or portaiture then I will gladly up my shutter speed but I'm more apt to lean to the baroque side of things than not.

Dave

- Sure. Blur, if it is a shaky hand or movement in the picture can be an 'artistic expression'. But that was not the point here. We were discussing how sharp pictures we could take hand held. - My suggestion; take ten (or more) exposures with a tripod and compare....

 

[varjag]

My suggestion; take ten (or more) exposures with a tripod and compare....

If the scene photographed have live people within, at slow shutter speeds both approaches would result in a good amount of subject blur. Maybe a bit less handheld, since it allows for easier panning in unexpected directions.

 

[Olsen]

If the scene photographed have live people within, at slow shutter speeds both approaches would result in a good amount of subject blur. Maybe a bit less handheld, since it allows for easier panning in unexpected directions.

- Sure, but that is an exception. What I am suggesting is that you/we take a few exposures with a tripod and just observe the effect. You'll be amazed.....

I looked up your blog. You have some fine pictures from Bergen, where I am born. I am fifth generation 'bergenser', but live in Oslo.

 

[varjag]

- Sure, but that is an exception. What I am suggesting is that you/we take a few exposures with a tripod and just observe the effect. You'll be amazed.....

Well, the effect of tripod on reduction of camera shake is well known to most people here 🙂 However for the type of work commanding a tripod, a 13x18 to me feels more suitable. Even with an old East German Tessar it surpasses best 35mm systems with a fair margin in amount of detail captured, but it is a poor tool for photography on the street, which happens to be my major interest.

I looked up your blog. You have some fine pictures from Bergen, where I am born. I am fifth generation 'bergenser', but live in Oslo.

Thanks.. Bergen is an infinitely photogenic city and I enjoy every moment here. Even the light is great at the times it gets through 🙂

 

[dcsang]

- Sure. Blur, if it is a shaky hand or movement in the picture can be an 'artistic expression'. But that was not the point here. We were discussing how sharp pictures we could take hand held. - My suggestion; take ten (or more) exposures with a tripod and compare....

If the discussion is to centre around how sharp the photos can be when taken hand held then what would be the point of using a tripod since using a tripod is hardly "hand held".

There are many reasons why one cannot use a tripod. I suggest anyone in New York City to go into Grand Central Station and try setting up a tripod and see how fast they are asked to remove it.

Tripods, for landscapes etc, are fine but I would not recommend them for every different method of shooting.

Dave

 

[Oh Two]

Alcoholic shakes

Alcoholic shakes

The guy who is my avatar taught me to gas weld among other things. He was an alcoholic who who shook but it gave him the advantage of welding bead few could match.

If one follows the logic of this thread, has a ranger finder, and can't successfully squeeze off 1/4 of second he must be either a professional or an alcoholic.

 

[Oh Two]

Alcoholic shakes

Alcoholic shakes

The guy who is my avatar taught me to gas weld among other things. He was an alcoholic who who shook but it gave him the advantage of welding bead few could match.

If one follows the logic of this thread, has a range finder, and can't successfully squeeze off 1/4 of second he must be either a professional or an alcoholic.

 

[Olsen]

Well, the effect of tripod on reduction of camera shake is well known to most people here 🙂 However for the type of work commanding a tripod, a 13x18 to me feels more suitable. Even with an old East German Tessar it surpasses best 35mm systems with a fair margin in amount of detail captured, but it is a poor tool for photography on the street, which happens to be my major interest.

Sure. I use tripods a lot - uh, every now and then, with both my Hasselblad and different 35 sytems. It works wonders on all. 'the easy availability of 100% in Phtoshop' has made us all optical experts. It is revealing both to own technique as well as the performance of the optics we are using.

Thanks.. Bergen is an infinitely photogenic city and I enjoy every moment here. Even the light is great at the times it gets through 🙂

- Yea, photogenic is the word for it. Oslo is far more dull. - But you have had a fine summer this year, havn't you..?

 

[Trius]

- Sure. Blur, if it is a shaky hand or movement in the picture can be an 'artistic expression'. But that was not the point here. We were discussing how sharp pictures we could take hand held. - My suggestion; take ten (or more) exposures with a tripod and compare....

Actually, we weren't discussing how sharp we could be with handheld technique. If you read the original post, it asks how slow members could handhold for decent photos.

Now ... decent is a subjective term, and we could all disagree as to what is decent or not. So members posting examples of handheld shots at 1/15, 1/11, 1/8, etc., is a good thing, because one can make one's own judgment about whether the result is "decent".

BTW, I agree that for ultimate sharpness and to fully exploit good lenses, a tripod is the best choice. While not suited to street photography, it would be interesting to have a thread to post "tripod-on-the-street" photos.

Also, the motion blur with flash is often a deliberate technique that many photographers use to convey both motion and a moment in time. It may not make for "decent" photos in the opinion of some, but used well I often like it.

 

[payasam]

There is something of a challenge in making a long exposure hand held, and the miracle of available light is often immensely rewarding. I do use tripods, but what if I do not have one with me, what if the moment is unlikely to last, what if I am lazy? An 8" by 10" print is enough to satisfy me, generally, and 16" by 20" is attained differently.

I do not think it proper to call those people liars who claim to have taken sharp hand help pictures at 1/8 sec. Judge not by your own abilities before passing wind, er, judgment.

[edit] hand held

 

[Olsen]

Actually, we weren't discussing how sharp we could be with handheld technique. If you read the original post, it asks how slow members could handhold for decent photos.

Now ... decent is a subjective term, and we could all disagree as to what is decent or not. So members posting examples of handheld shots at 1/15, 1/11, 1/8, etc., is a good thing, because one can make one's own judgment about whether the result is "decent".

BTW, I agree that for ultimate sharpness and to fully exploit good lenses, a tripod is the best choice. While not suited to street photography, it would be interesting to have a thread to post "tripod-on-the-street" photos.

Also, the motion blur with flash is often a deliberate technique that many photographers use to convey both motion and a moment in time. It may not make for "decent" photos in the opinion of some, but used well I often like it.

- This is very well put.

But if all the press pictures we see today that are combos of very unsharp motives with added flash is a artistic expression is something I doubt. Strongly!

Regardless, I will always judge a picture first by it's craftmanship. Of that, 'sharpness' is an important component. If it isn't sharp, - the unsharpness must have a meaning and come together in a high quality context. Otherwise I will judge it as 'bull' and a suspect it as a cover for not managing the basics of photography. Now that 'automatic computers' calculates the exact exposure combination for us the only thing we have to do - even hardly that when using AF, is to focus.... and keep the camera steady.

I shoot a lot. Since 1.January this year I have accumulated 34,1 GB of 1Ds II files. Add to that 20 - 30 analogue films so far this year of both 35 and 120 format. So I have to sort out a lot. I have no room for keeping it all. I keep less that 70% of the total I shoot. Sometimes nothing. - Sure, I have some bad days....

The first criteria I use; 'is it sharp?' - Then I mean at 100% in PS. That means that I would in some cases keep negs or files taken at 1/30 - but not many. Possibly a few - one or two per year - with clearly visible blur will be kept because it has a better meaning in the scene, - or other facets of the picture makes it worth while keeping. They better be good. Visible blur or unsharpness will mean failure in 99,9% of the cases for me.

 

[varjag]

But, you have to realise that opposite opinion has just as much ground: a pefrectly executed, razor sharp, but dull shot is a failure.

To many here success of a photograph has not much to do with sharpness; there are great sharp photos, there are great unsharp photos, and there are poor photos regardless of execution. I know that with the light I have, the subjects am interested to and the DOF required there will be inevitalbe amount of unsharpness compared to ideal tripod exposure of a static subject. This is however the least of the worries; stealing with camera God's private moments, even in suboptimal circumstances, is so much more rewarding than resolution-chart photography 🙂

 

[VinceC]

Given the choice between tripod and flash, I'll take flash, where I have a lot of control over the light and can balance it with ambient to help freeze the action while preserving the ambient character of the scene.

Don't overlook the fact that there's a fairly popular technique that combines slow shutter speed with flash. You freeze the details for a moment while also showing motion and ambient light. Slow-sync flash is one of photography's best ways to depict motion. Rear-curtain/closing-curtain flash sync makes it even better, but isn't essential.

Verjag is right. Total tripod sharpness is really just one of many photographic styles, and a lot of people don't care for it, or at least consider it uninspired in many circumstances. There's much more to photography than passport photos and postcard scenes.

 

[BrianShaw]

But, you have to realise that opposite opinion has just as much ground: a perfectly executed, razor sharp, but dull shot is a failure.

You mean like some avatars?? 🙄 😀