Sharpness Shooting

[lynnb]

If I want sharpness hand-held I try to use 1/500 or faster where possible. For tripod work it depends on how quickly the image is moving across the focus plane - if at all. In recent years I've been interested more in image quality rather than sharpness - sometimes sharpness is not all that important. Also, higher resolution images require higher shutter speeds to look sharp. Lower resolution, and grain, can effectively lower the bar for acceptable sharpness.

 

[Murchu]

Interesting thoughts. For some reason, my mind never thought of raising the shutter speed higher than the inverse of the focal length, ie more than 1/60th second for a 50mm lens etc.

As someone who shoots mostly in available light, I've collected all sorts of tips and tricks to handhold better over the years, although these days am probably out of practice. Mainly I would focus on pulling my elbows tight against my ribs, steady my breathing, gently pressing the shutter on an exhaled breath. If possible, and going really low, which is an 1/8th of a second or less to me, I will try and locate any possible source of support, be that to lean against something, or if I really strike gold, find something to rest the camera on and trip the shutter with the self timer, just as if it were on a tripod.

If the shot is really critical, I'm handholding, and the camera will allow it, I will try to increase my odds of a sharper shot, by putting the camera in burst mode, where by taking three shots in succession I hope the middle one may turn out best.

Any sort of camera support is the best though, and whether resting the camera on something, or mounting it on a tripod, I will always use the self timer mode to trip the shutter. Also on one of my nikon dslrs, there's a mode whereby the camera will raise the mirror automatically a split second before making the exposure, the theory being that by doing so, you are reducing/ eliminating any vibration from the mirror during the exposure. I'm not sure if this has much of an effect, but when on a tripod, I will select it, as it can't hurt.

I hate tripods though, and unless what I am really shooting calls for it, I will either handhold, or try get away with a less cumbersome form of support. Something I bought a long time ago, was a bean bag that has a tripod screw for it to connect to your camera, and have gotten some use out of over the years.

Lastly, the single biggest difference to shooting in terms of sharpness and handholding, has been image stabilisation. As an available light shooter, who tends to shoot static subjects more frequently, image stabilisation has been a game changer. My main dslr lens has it, and I simply cease to worry about shutter speed when using it, until I get down to 1/15th of a second. At 1/15th and 1/8th of a second, I then consider all the above handholding tricks to supplement the image stabilisation.

 

[Murchu]

This might upset some folks, but I got many more blurred shots with the Zeiss Ikon at 1/15 than I get with the M4. Could be dozen other factors, including self-fulfilling prophecy, but there you have it.

Shutter in the Ikon perhaps ? Honourable mentions going to difference in weight and grip also perhaps..

 

[williams473]

I rarely shoot using a tripod when out shooting and actually enjoy blurred action in some of my work, although tack sharp stop action certainly has a place if the scene/image warrants it. But I still consider a blurred image "sharp" if when printing I can see clearly defined grain in the focus finder - that is, the focus was good but the shutter speed selection created a blurred subject.

That said, when I do want conventionally sharp images (in terms of focus or stop-action) for me the tripod is a neccesity because I usually also desire great depth of field, which means I can't use the larger apertures to obtain a high shutter speed. So my aperture set at f16-32 and the shutter speeds being slower, a tripod and cable release are a must. However, I still end up with blurred elements because I am never in a studio and usually outdoors, so the long shutter speeds mean that any movement within the frame (wind-blown branches for example) will be blurred as the move with the longer exposure. Like anything, as long as I am aware of this it becomes a creative choice...

 

[fast14riot]

For me, my sharpest images of comparable shutter speed/iso/lens combo is from my Miranda F due to its front shutter release. By squeezing the camera I am not inducing torque and shake. This feature alone makes the camera worthwhile to me. Also, controlled breathing, stance, squeeze, follow through and support when needed really helps. Training for competitive pistol shooting has helped too.


-Xander

 

[peterm1]

I often find its a bit if a trade off when shooting in natural light. For sharpness I will want to stop down to f5.6 or f8 but then I need to keep the shutter speed up as well and there are times when the ambient lighting just does not allow it. This is one disadvantage of shooting with an M8 with its poor ISO capabilities. With other more capable sensors on say my Nikon D700 or even a Sony NEX I am often comfortable cranking the ISO up to 1600 or even 3200 before the digital noise will begin to detract much from the outcome.

 

[grandallj]

Maybe we've moved on from this thread in general, but this comment really grabbed me. I imagine it's easier to get away with the faster film and avoid graininess when using MF rather than 35mm, but has anyone worked on or tested Rob-F's theory?

I've been puzzling over the tradeoff between the greater inherent sharpness of slower films, vs. the advantage of higher shutter speeds afforded by faster films. It seems to me that a sharp fast film like Ilford Delta 400 at, say, 1/500 second, is better than 1/125 second with Delta 100 or T-Max 100. I haven't tested it scientifically, but I believe the reduced camera movement blur at the higher speed outweighs the greater resolution potential of the slower film. Has anyone experimented with this?

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

For me, my sharpest images of comparable shutter speed/iso/lens combo is from my Miranda F due to its front shutter release. By squeezing the camera I am not inducing torque and shake. This feature alone makes the camera worthwhile to me.

My first camera was a Pentacon FM, which was fitted with the trademark 45 degree release that later appeared on the Praktica range. Looking at some of my negatives from that period, I find that they are surprisingly sharp, given the not very high quality lenses I was working with.

Until the electronic releases came along, the one thing that the Contax D and its descendants had over everything else, in my opinion, was that 45 degree release, which I think was worth a good two stops and sometimes three.

 

[Kevcaster]

I try every trick I can as I have shaky hands. One of those is to relax my grip on the camera body to the point where it is simply supported and then press the shutter with an almost zen like application - perfectly straight with the effort located between the button and the first engaged finger muscle. This has become a habit and is easier to do than to write. I get away with it.
It works with all my cameras including the F2's which seem to have a lot of stored energy in the mirror box, I learned that this energy is mainly released on the return so I ignore it.
Kevin