Shooting on a Tripod, yay or nay?

[fjrabon]

So, I got a lot of flack about this on another thread, so I wanted to get some more thoughts. I actually won't respond to this thread at all, because I'm not trying to be argumentative about this, just actually a little confused, because I've gotten such mixed advice on this issue. Some people on here have said that tripods are really only for a very few specific types of shots and that the majority of shots are perfectly fine handheld, where that goes against everything I've read from books and what the real life photographers I know have said in workshops or meetups, which is basically, "if it's remotely possible to shoot on a tripod, you should."

So I'll start the discussion with a quote from Scott Kelby's intro. I know Scott isn't the world's greatest photographer, or really much above good, but as far as I can tell he's an excellent technical photographer, and more importantly, he's very good friends with some of the world's greatest photographers and thus would know what he's talking about when he says "this is how the pros do it." Here's the quote:

"...the most important [factor to getting tack sharp photos] is shooting on a tripod. In fact, if there's one single thing that really separates the pros from the amateurs, it's that the pros always shoot on a tripod (even in daylight). Yes, its more work, but it's the key ingredient that amateurs miss."

Agree or disagree? Reasons why?

 

[gsgary]

Tripods have uses, i only use one for landscape shots and product arty studio shots, monopod when i'm using my 300mmF2.8L but everything else is handheld, i don't think you will see a war photographer with a tripod

 

[borisnikon]

Sometimes there is no need, people often say what ever focal length lens you got if the shutter speed is under that you should shoot on a tripod. For example if your shooting at 55mm and your shutter speed is 1/60 second you will be fine. But if your shooting at 55mm and your shutter speed is 1/40 you should use a tripod. I would take pictures on a tripod when it is possible.

 

[Rosshole]

I don't feel that the issue is with photogs using tripods or not. It is a fair statment to say that nearly all photogs own and use a tripod. I think where you ran into dissagreements with it was stating your statistics of 75% of the time...

 

[D-B-J]

I use a tripod when necessary of feasible, and i don't when i don't need it.

 

[Big Mike]

To me, it's as simple as this.

If the camera is moving, at all, when the shutter is open...it will cause blur. At shorter exposure times (faster shutter speeds) the blur becomes less apparent, but it's certainly debatable as to when that blur can be eliminated because of a short exposure time.

So if your goal is to get the maximum possible sharpness in your photo, it would make sense to make the camera as steady as possible while the shutter is open.
Putting it on a tripod and firing it without touching it, is the first step.

Another step would be to use Mirror lock up mode, if your camera allows for that.

I was reading an article recently, where a photographer was looking for a really great tripod. He mentioned doing a test where you put a laser pointer on the camera and aim it at a far wall (20 ft) while you take the exposure. By examining the laser spot, you can see that the camera may move, not only when the mirror opens, but when the shutter opens. The more solid & stable the support (tripod), the less movement you will see via the laser.
So not only should someone use a tripod when trying to achieve maximum sharpness...they should use a very good quality (stable) tripod.

Of course, the other side of the coin is that it may be hard or impossible to actually distinguish the difference between a tripod shot and a hand held shot, if the shutter speed is say, 1/1000. Or if you are not going to make large prints, then that threshold may be a much slower shutter speed.

So we have the perfectionist way of thinking, or the practical way of thinking. It's up to the photographer to choose how they want to do it.

For me, part of the appeal of using a tripod is that it allows me to more freely choose my exposure settings. If I know the camera won't be moving, then I can pretty much use any shutter speed, which means that I can choose any aperture & ISO that I want.
This is fairly important because your choice of aperture & ISO will also affect the sharpness of your photo.

 

[analog.universe]

To me shooting with a tripod and without are simply two different working styles. Which one you do more of depends on what type of photos you like to shoot. For me the tripod "process" requires the mentality that your shot will take time. You set up your gear, frame the shot accurately, focus accurately, do test shots, fine tune settings, the whole bit... The result is that you have a lot of control over everything. If you shoot on a tripod, the goal is perfect composition, sharpness at the limits of physics, minimized ISO, etc. The tradeoff, is that you can't see a shot and just take it, you have to spend the time. Shooting handheld, you sacrifice the perfectionism for the ability to shoot anything at any time, and that's totally just a matter of style. Each method has shots that it can obtain that the other method cannot.

I do want to disagree about 1/60 of a second being fine at 55mm, and suddenly going to 1/40 means you need a tripod. To me it's a much deeper methodology than that. First of all, in most situations you can see the difference between 1/60 and 1/400, even at 55mm. But besides that, it's not just about the camera being faster, for me it's more about the speed of the photographer. The approach of "get it right at all costs" vs. "don't miss the moment".

 

[fjrabon]

I don't feel that the issue is with photogs using tripods or not. It is a fair statment to say that nearly all photogs own and use a tripod. I think where you ran into dissagreements with it was stating your statistics of 75% of the time...

Not going to argue one way or the other about this, but I do want to clear up the original post here, because I'm not originally positing that some people are saying tripods aren't necessary ever, as that would be an obvious straw man and a disservice to the other side of the argument.

The original post is saying that you should almost always use a tripod, yes, well over 75% of the time. Scott's quote actually says pros always use a tripod, which is obviously at least partially hyperbole, but according to him, it's definitely over 75% of the time when they're shooting paid shoots. I can't find the exact quote, but in one of his other books he says, again "if you're getting paid, you're shooting on a tripod, or you won't continue to get paid. Of course if you're getting paid you already know this."

edit: so I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with what you said, but just saying that the original post is meant to be taken as, "if you want pro level results, you should shoot on a tripod almost always", and then asking for opinions.

 

[Big Mike]

edit: so I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with what you said, but just saying that the original post is meant to be taken as, "if you want pro level results, you should shoot on a tripod almost always", and then asking for opinions.

They key word there is 'should'. Ideally, everyone should shoot with a tripod.

But more important, is the use of your common sense. If using a tripod won't make enough of a difference to your final product and/or will otherwise hamper your ability to get the shots you need...then it may not be the best idea to use one.

 

[tirediron]

Always use a tripod if you can. Unfortunately, a lot of the time, it's not practical. Weddings, events, etc... just not going to work. That said, I always use a tripod whenever possible. Mike also made a good point earlier about it forcing you to slow down and think more!

 

[Derrel]

Tripods are 100% necessary with view cameras. I never made a single exposure with my view camera that was NOT on a tripod. A tripod keeps the camera free from vibration. But it also allows the camera to be kept in one,exact,precise location, so that lighting can be adjusted, and another photo made, and the changes compared on the LCD, or even later that afternoon after the film comes back from the processor. A tripod allows you, forces you, to really LOOK at what the camera is framing. It allows for minor, incremental, very subtle changes in framing or camera height or camera tilt, etc,etc. A tripod also can allow you to frame up a portrait or group photo, and then use your remote release to allow you to move away from the camera a bit, and focus on the expressions and eye contact of the subjects. Using a remote release held behind your back also helps when you have a blinker, or a family of blinkers in front of the camera. (it runs in families)

A tripod-mounted camera is very helpful with larger, heavier cameras, or when the camera needs to be positioned in what would be a low, or awkward place to hold by hand. Some cameras are simply meant to be tripod-mounted; the Maimya RB and RZ 67 for example, are horrible hand-held machines...lousy ergonomics, heavy, and just BAD for hand-held work...never were designed for that. The Leica rangefinder camera on the other had was designed and optimized for hand-held, eye-level work. Fantastic system for eye-level, hand-held work.

Many writers resort to hyperbole when trying to make a serious point. Monopods are used by about 95% of sports shooters when using their 300,400,500,or 600mm lenses from moving camera positions. If the position is non-moving, stationary, I've seen tripods used by pro sports shooters at events like the Olympics, where guys line up along a railing or walkway area and shoot with loooong lenses from rather distant positions.

Shooting tripod-mounted as opposed to hand-held is a big,big difference in approach.

 

[baturn]

Tripods,monopods beanbags, etc. are tools. You have to decide when it is necessary, desirable or impossible to use them.

 

[fjrabon]

Many writers resort to hyperbole when trying to make a serious point. Monopods are used by about 95% of sports shooters when using their 300,400,500,or 600mm lenses from moving camera positions. If the position is non-moving, stationary, I've seen tripods used by pro sports shooters at events like the Olympics, where guys line up along a railing or walkway area and shoot with loooong lenses from rather distant positions.

Just for clarification purposes, even though they're different, I'm including monopods with tripods here (as the quote did as well). Basically anything other than handheld is considered tripod for the purposes of the OP (though with all the after the fact clarification, I probably could have done that in the OP)

 

[gsgary]

I don't feel that the issue is with photogs using tripods or not. It is a fair statment to say that nearly all photogs own and use a tripod. I think where you ran into dissagreements with it was stating your statistics of 75% of the time...

Not going to argue one way or the other about this, but I do want to clear up the original post here, because I'm not originally positing that some people are saying tripods aren't necessary ever, as that would be an obvious straw man and a disservice to the other side of the argument.

The original post is saying that you should almost always use a tripod, yes, well over 75% of the time. Scott's quote actually says pros always use a tripod, which is obviously at least partially hyperbole, but according to him, it's definitely over 75% of the time when they're shooting paid shoots. I can't find the exact quote, but in one of his other books he says, again "if you're getting paid, you're shooting on a tripod, or you won't continue to get paid. Of course if you're getting paid you already know this."

edit: so I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with what you said, but just saying that the original post is meant to be taken as, "if you want pro level results, you should shoot on a tripod almost always", and then asking for opinions.

WTF you said you were not going to post

 

[fjrabon]

WTF you said you were not going to post

I thought it was necessary to clear up what I meant originally, I wasn't arguing about what he said. I guess I meant more that I won't argue the point, not that I wouldn't post at all.

Though I originally didn't think I would post at all, I also didn't anticipate that people would take the OP as saying "you need to use a tripod sometimes." Nobody disagrees with that, but that wasn't what I was saying. It may well have been my fault for not making the OP clearer, but I wanted to make sure people understood the position I was advocating originally, as the reply didn't seem to really get what I was saying in the OP, or at the very least wasn't responsive to it.