How do you shoot with slow shutter speeds and handheld?

P

parasko

Established
Local time
10:50 PM
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Messages
192
Hi all,

I want to start experimenting with slow shutter speeds handheld for street photography. The type of effect that I'm looking for is similar to the photo at this link:
http://500px.com/photo/283148

I don't know whether or not this pic was handheld but I'm trying to work out how to achieve this effect in daylight/bright sunlight.

I'm assuming I would need a neutral density filter but what shutter speeds are required to achieve this type of effect?
 
Remembering the general rule that the shutter speed should be no less that 1 over the focal length of the lens being used - i.e. if the meter is telling you that you need 1/60th, you need to have a lens no longer than 60mm on the camera to be reasonably assured that you have a chance of an acceptably sharp photo.

Don';t forget, though, that if you're shooting a moving person or object, no amount of hand-holding technique will prevent motion blur of some description. To freeze motion you need a fast shutter speed.
 
This was at least 1/2 second, probably more like 1s - you are best off with a tripod, else you can try a 28mm or 21mm lens and a monopod, or stuff like leaning with the camera against a wall, or a cushion full of sand to pose the camera on. Also. central shutter cameras like Rolleiflex would be good for this, because even the shutter is practically producing no vibrations if you release it with a cable.
As an alternative, you can combine AE with flash, and go for shutter speeds longer than 1/2 second - this is how it looks like:


20095031 by mfogiel, on Flickr


20095030 by mfogiel, on Flickr
 
Just started to experiment with longer exposures too - not in bright sunlight though. As Raid said, 1/8 or 1/4 would be a good starting point for shutter speeds. Depends a bit on the type of motion you're capturing of course (speed and angle). The picture in your link has a rather sharp background, so I'm not sure that one was taken handheld.
 
Long exposures + handheld aren't normally combined unless you want everything blurry. I doubt your example shot was taken handheld unless the shooter was bracing the camera against a fence or some support (more likely tripod). Agree w/mfogiel that it looks like at least a 1/2 sec. exposure.


parasko said:
Hi all,

I want to start experimenting with slow shutter speeds handheld for street photography. The type of effect that I'm looking for is similar to the photo at this link:
http://500px.com/photo/283148

I don't know whether or not this pic was handheld but I'm trying to work out how to achieve this effect in daylight/bright sunlight.

I'm assuming I would need a neutral density filter but what shutter speeds are required to achieve this type of effect?
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for all your comments so far.

I may have given you a link to an inaccurate example of what I'm trying to achieve (but I love the image) and it does look as though the image is not handheld due to the sharp background. A better example is this one: http://www.in-public.com/TrentParke/image/1879

I'm assuming this image would be around a 2 sec exposure?

FWIW I am using a Leica M7 with a 35mm (or at times a 50mm) lens.

Any other advice appreciated.
 
How to hold it? Most of the times as usual, just have to be still.
With RF 1/30 is not a problem at all.
Slower speeds - put your hand straight on something, like wall, place camera on this hand.

Bessa R, handheld for one second, Kentmere 400 @1600.
BR_CS35_K400_Oct_2013627.JPG
 
To hold the camera steady, use the strap bandolier-style and then bring the camera up to your eye. If the strap is adjusted properly, you can hold the camera tight against your face with the strap adding stability. I did this over the weekend with a 135 at 1/15th. But I wanted sharp, and that's what I got. Some of these photos - the guy in the car - look like it was a slow shutter speed with flash.
 
Paul Jenkin said:
Remembering the general rule that the shutter speed should be no less that 1 over the focal length of the lens being used - i.e. if the meter is telling you that you need 1/60th, you need to have a lens no longer than 60mm on the camera to be reasonably assured that you have a chance of an acceptably sharp photo.

Don';t forget, though, that if you're shooting a moving person or object, no amount of hand-holding technique will prevent motion blur of some description. To freeze motion you need a fast shutter speed.
Click to expand...
The trouble us that this "general rule" is so general as to be all but useless. It applies only to 35mm/full frame, and even then, you can often get away with much longer exposures with ultra-wides than with teles: you might well get a sharp shot with a 21mm at 1/8th than with a 200mm and 1/250. Next, some cameras are much easier to hold still than others. Then there's the question of the photographer. A relaxed photographer bracing his elbows on a table or slouching in a doorway can get more sharpness at a given speed than one who's wired on caffeine, has just run 100 yards and is standing in the line of fire with bullets whizzing around him. Finally, there's the question of what's "acceptable".

To answer the OP, all I'd say is, "Try it". With the lenses you're using, you're likely to need 1/4 second or longer to get real blur. You may also need deliberately to shake the camera during exposure. No matter how you do it, it's a difficult technique to master. Ten or twenty years ago there was something of a fashion for it, and I saw quite a lot of examples at the Rencontres in Arles. Very few were successful, at least as far as I was concerned.

The subway shot almost certainly isn't hand held: a sharp background and moving figures suggest a tripod, a fairly small aperture, and a long exposure.
 
Breathing the right way is also a factor; I learned this when I was sport shooting as a kid:

Take a deep breath, exhale about 1/3 and hold your breath - your body will be relatively still for 5-6 sec.

I am usually able to shoot a 50mm lens at 1/15 to 1/8 and still get relatively sharp photos. Sometimes even work for longer exposure times.
 
mfogiel said:
That last photo is a double exposure.
Take look at the work of this guy "City of shadows" - he is a master of the genre:
http://www.alexeytitarenko.com/
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. Some great images.

I'm not sure if the image in the link I provided is a double exposure. I say that only because the photographer, Trent Parke, was using a Leica M6 for this particular series. Can a double exposure be achieved using this camera? Here is another photo from the same series, though this photo could have been taken with a tripod: http://www.in-public.com/TrentParke/image/1880

Would this photo be a long exposure?
 
You need to experiment, using a tripod.
I tried many speeds out for a flowing stream. If the speed is fast, the image looks very different from when the speed is slow. Usually, 1/15 is a recommended starting point for streams. The posted (first) image looks like a slower speed. The use of a tripod allows you to make the "framing still subjects" sharp, which makes the moving subjects cloudy and ghost like.
 
For the effect in the first photo you posted, I would definitely use a tripod and take many expsoures, layering them in post (or perhaps using darkroom trickery if I had any such skills). I'm not sure that a single exposure could be made to look like that, but then I'm not an expert.

This one that you posted looks like a single long-ish exposure. In bright sun you are right, an ND filter is your friend. As is a nearby fence post, postbox, sign, newspaper box, trash bin, or anything else you can rest your camera on unless you have rock-solid hands.
http://www.in-public.com/TrentParke/image/1880
 
Have you tried asking Mr. Parke about the shot? (http://www.in-public.com/contact ) In my experience, photographers, even famous ones, have been pretty forthcoming about such technical questions, if they can remember the details.

I agree w/NeeZee. For that shot in your post (#8), I think Mr. Parke used a longish exposure, but focused on a dolls head (I think that's what it is) in a shop window, w/enough DoF to capture the details of passersby reflected in the glass.

If you have access to a digital body, even a point & shoot, you can save a lot of money by experimenting w/that to get an idea of how a long of an exposure you need to get the motion effects you want, then transpose those settings to your M7.

This is what a 1/2 sec. exposure looks like inside Grand Central Terminal (camera braced against railing):

2617185481_a0e3986569_o.jpg


parasko said:
Thanks for the link. Some great images.

I'm not sure if the image in the link I provided is a double exposure. I say that only because the photographer, Trent Parke, was using a Leica M6 for this particular series. Can a double exposure be achieved using this camera? Here is another photo from the same series, though this photo could have been taken with a tripod: http://www.in-public.com/TrentParke/image/1880

Would this photo be a long exposure?
Click to expand...
 
If you want very long exposures in bright light a good tip is to get some welder's glass, especially for black and white work (for colour work you will get some very strange colour casts - in which case you might be served by a 10 stop Grad like the Lee Big Stopper).
 
My guess about the first photo of the stairway is that the camera was propped on the railing and shot using a self timer at maybe 1 sec. at f8 or so in a dimly lit area.

Very cool photo. Really like it. Makes me want to try to work out a technique as well.

Just a guess, of course. A tripod would be much more precise, but it might be possible by propping the camera on something. Maybe a beanbag or small sandbag that can be carried in a pocket.

Bright daylight would require a fairly dark ND filter. I have an ND 0.6 filter that allows me to use f1.2 wide open outdoors, but just barely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom