Tripods are useless?

Henry Peach wrote:

Lightpuller wrote: I was wondering how many of you actually use your tripods? I read here:
www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-killed-my-tripod.htm

This is one of the articles that is commonly cited when people are going on about Ken Rockwell being a goof.

If you don't need or want to use a tripod then don't. You are correct, with today's excellent high ISO quality it is very possible to hand hold in low light, or to use very high shutter speeds in bright light. I definitely shoot hand held in many situations where I would have brought out the tripod in the past. A tripod is a simple tool: it holds a camera. Simple tools rarely become obsolete. Most photographers don't use tripods most of the time, but that's been true for over 50 years now.

In my own work I can usually see a sharpness difference between hand held shots, even at fast shutter speeds, and shots taken using a tripod, MLU, and cable release. Particularly with longer, larger lenses. People can't tell the difference between my 20"x30" prints from my 20D and my 5DII. They ask me what lens I used. I used all my lenses. The tripod is the secret. If I know I want a large, maximum sharply detailed print, like for my landscape photography, I try to use a tripod, because for me it tends to increase image quality somewhat. I can do very well without it, but if it's reasonable to carry and use I know it adds a bit.

When I shot film I used my tripod at every wedding. Now I only use it to hold my light (it's more stable in wind than a light stand). In that situation mobility and speed is an advantage, and the tripod slows me down. When I go out to shoot landscapes I operate much in the same way I did when I was shooting 4x5 film. I carry the tripod, and since I'm carrying 1/4th the camera gear (compared to 4x5), it still seems like less to haul The tripod slows me down, but in this situation I find that to be an advantage. I like being able to walk away from the camera to look at the scene.

I wholeheartedly agree with that. To me this is more of the digital is so good you do not need the old stuff from when there was only film garbage. But here is the thing since when did photography become a speed race? And this is more to the point because the common complaints I see are about, it slows you down, they are heavy, and because of technology I do not need it. Good foundations never go out of style, if anything those with them will always make superior images over the speed shooters. If all you want are snapshots then good for you, that is you option. But your generalizations much like KRs are pure tripe. He does it to get attention and sadly it works. It seems you are choosing that tact as well from a couple of your posts which I have seen. But sadly there are too many young shooters who hold this view of not needing.
Well hell you know High ISO means you no longer need fast quality glass either. If you own it I can say you just have it to be a gear whore, or a hipster. You do not need shallow depths of field ever, because quite frankly you can Photoshop it in. Sadly thee is a consensus among some that this is true as well. Why should camera lenses even have adjustable apertures, they are too confusing, and the new camera are so smart they can make the photo right without them. Next will be cameras that totally decide your composition, and every other aspect for you, so it begs the question why even bother with it. That would be your natural conclusion as the technology advances.

Is this thread topic for real? If you're shooting in low light, or anything that will require sharpness when slower shutter speeds getting used, a tripod is your best friend.

I don't think it is for real, at least not til you get to the posts by Rob, Kelly, Henry, etc. who seem to be trying to be helpful and respond appropriately. I think this thread's just another attempt to have fun at board users' expense.

icepics wrote: I don't think it is for real, at least not til you get to the posts by Rob, Kelly, Henry, etc. who seem to be trying to be helpful and respond appropriately. I think this thread's just another attempt to have fun at board users' expense.

I think you underestimate the power of the internet.

effron wrote: You should sell your tripod. They DO suck. I use one whenever I have the chance to set it up, and I carry one where ever I go.... however I'm stuck in the past. You don't need it if you're okay with limited photography....
Wish we could do stuff like this hand held......

Yes, you are right. I did say I use tripod sometimes for landscapes. If I wanted a shot like yours I would use a tripod.

Henry Peach wrote:

Lightpuller wrote: I was wondering how many of you actually use your tripods? I read here:
www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-killed-my-tripod.htm

This is one of the articles that is commonly cited when people are going on about Ken Rockwell being a goof.

If you don't need or want to use a tripod then don't. You are correct, with today's excellent high ISO quality it is very possible to hand hold in low light, or to use very high shutter speeds in bright light. I definitely shoot hand held in many situations where I would have brought out the tripod in the past. A tripod is a simple tool: it holds a camera. Simple tools rarely become obsolete. Most photographers don't use tripods most of the time, but that's been true for over 50 years now.

In my own work I can usually see a sharpness difference between hand held shots, even at fast shutter speeds, and shots taken using a tripod, MLU, and cable release. Particularly with longer, larger lenses. People can't tell the difference between my 20"x30" prints from my 20D and my 5DII. They ask me what lens I used. I used all my lenses. The tripod is the secret. If I know I want a large, maximum sharply detailed print, like for my landscape photography, I try to use a tripod, because for me it tends to increase image quality somewhat. I can do very well without it, but if it's reasonable to carry and use I know it adds a bit.

When I shot film I used my tripod at every wedding. Now I only use it to hold my light (it's more stable in wind than a light stand). In that situation mobility and speed is an advantage, and the tripod slows me down. When I go out to shoot landscapes I operate much in the same way I did when I was shooting 4x5 film. I carry the tripod, and since I'm carrying 1/4th the camera gear (compared to 4x5), it still seems like less to haul The tripod slows me down, but in this situation I find that to be an advantage. I like being able to walk away from the camera to look at the scene.

I whole heartedly agree, tripods were essential when shooting film. These days not so much.

icepics wrote: I don't think it is for real, at least not til you get to the posts by Rob, Kelly, Henry, etc. who seem to be trying to be helpful and respond appropriately. I think this thread's just another attempt to have fun at board users' expense.

Please stay on topic and stop pretending to be a troll, accusing me of not being serious. I have put forth my well thought out opinions and I'm having a discussion with others. We're all here to learn and if you can't take things seriously I suggest you take a break and have a cup of tea or something.

The majority of my 35mm SLR photography was without a tripod. Even without any IS or ISO 12000 film.

Kelly

KCook wrote: The majority of my 35mm SLR photography was without a tripod. Even without any IS or ISO 12000 film.

Kelly

That's because film photographers aren't usually that good.

Check out Karl Wertanen and his film photography if you are thinking film is not that good. Karls work on Ektar 100 in medium format is fantastic. Many of us worked with film for many years and the only thing I see about digital is that I don't have to wait for my results to come back from the lab. I still work in the ISO/ASA range that I always worked with in film. As I said I shoot sports and some landscape work and use a monopod and tripod regularly in my work.

Shot with ISO 1250 F 4.0 @ 1/400th sec on a monopod with a 300mm prime lens.

Rob pix4u2 wrote: Check out Karl Wertanen and his film photography if you are thinking film is not that good. Karls work on Ektar 100 in medium format is fantastic. Many of us worked with film for many years and the only thing I see about digital is that I don't have to wait for my results to come back from the lab. I still work in the ISO/ASA range that I always worked with in film. As I said I shoot sports and some landscape work and use a monopod and tripod regularly in my work.

Shot with ISO 1250 F 4.0 @ 1/400th sec on a monopod with a 300mm prime lens.

I was joking about the film photographers not being good. Seems a shame to me that some of them hold onto the past when digital has really taken over in leaps and bounds.

I think you should stop thinking in terms of film and start to understand how much better digital is. For example, did you know you can change your ISO levels all the time? You don't need to keep it at one ISO . Also, digital has more dynamic range than film, less noise, more colours the list goes on.

Nice 100% crop, though at 1/400 you shouldn't need a monopod.

I think that those of us who have an appreciation for the qualities that film brought to our art have a different perspective, that's all. I love the things that digital has done for my photography, I love doing my own post work on my laptop. I love the instant feedback but I do miss some of the lower speed high saturation films I used in landscape work.

AgFA 25 ASA film, scanned with HP 4300 scanner

Rob pix4u2 wrote: I think that those of us who have an appreciation for the qualities that film brought to our art have a different perspective, that's all. I love the things that digital has done for my photography, I love doing my own post work on my laptop. I love the instant feedback but I do miss some of the lower speed high saturation films I used in landscape work.

AgFA 25 ASA film, scanned with HP 4300 scanner

No offense, but that image really doesn't support your cause.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but there's nothing in that picture that makes me think film is better. Your picture is soft, noisy and unrealistically over saturated. I could take a digital file, add a few filters in lightroom and get the exact same look.

It's a low res scan from a 4 x 6 print . the saturation is what the film captured though . Back to the topic - tripods and monopods still have their place if you want extra sharpness in your photo

Rob pix4u2 wrote: It's a low res scan from a 4 x 6 print . the saturation is what the film captured though . Back to the topic - tripods and monopods still have their place if you want extra sharpness in your photo
]

The color in that film scan is horrible. Over done and blotchy. Honestly I rarely see a shot done in film that makes me think film is somehow better, so it's not your fault.

The digital hockey shot you put next is a lot better, though it is shot at 1/400 so a monopod wouldn't do jack all for increasing sharpness. It would make holding the lens and camera for the whole game easier though.

Time for me to be heading to bed I think. Night y'all.

Lightpuller wrote:

KCook wrote: The majority of my 35mm SLR photography was without a tripod. Even without any IS or ISO 12000 film.

Kelly

That's because film photographers aren't usually that good.

Now what you are doing is called trolling. I am sure you and your "special friends" are having a great time slapping those who disagree with you - or are are you one of your "special friends". You seem to lack basic photography knowledge. SHow us a few out your photos so we can determine how your theory works out.

I do suggest you try to shoot with something more than a 200mm lens and not use a tri- or mono-pod.

Baydream wrote:

Lightpuller wrote:

KCook wrote: The majority of my 35mm SLR photography was without a tripod. Even without any IS or ISO 12000 film.

Kelly

That's because film photographers aren't usually that good.

Now what you are doing is called trolling. I am sure you and your "special friends" are having a great time slapping those who disagree with you - or are are you one of your "special friends". You seem to lack basic photography knowledge. SHow us a few out your photos so we can determine how your theory works out.

I do suggest you try to shoot with something more than a 200mm lens and not use a tri- or mono-pod.

Exactly!
I too have yet to see any of his great works. It seems that he is good at bashing good technique, but short on proof. He makes me think he is a /p/ refugee coming here t troll.