Who needs a tripod?

Well, we all do, but sometimes we just do not have one with us. A couple of weeks ago, the family went on a week-long trip to Mackinac Island and Michigan's Upper Peninsula, and I did not take along my tripod in order to travel lighter. Here are a couple of shots that I think turned out well despite my lack of camera support:





Also, here are a couple of "wildlife" shots:





You can see the entire set of photos at http://smerryfield.smugmug.com/Vacation/Mackinac-Island-2009/9459586_73ccZ#634646637_oWSNK

Here is one more lower light shot:

Cool stuff!  What kinds of ISOs are you shooting at?  Steady hands and breathing techniques are important tools, as are steadying your body or camera with whatever is available when a tripod is not.

But....  Try doing low light Macro without your tripod tho =)

I had the lens wide open at f/2.8 and an ISO of 3200, and still was only getting shutter speeds of 1/15s or 1/20s for the night time shots. The one at twilight in the second post was f/4.5, ISO 800 and 1/6s. Having an image stabilized lens helped, as well as proper hand holding technique (as you mentioned). It wasn't ideal, but it was the only way to get the shot without a tripod.

I did use my dad's el cheapo tripod for the hummingbird shots just so I could leave the camera in position by the feeder at their house waiting for the birds to come in. However, that tripod did not provide solid support -- just a method to keep the camera in position without scaring the birds away.

As you said, I would never want to try serious low light macro work without a tripod. I've taken a few wild flower shots when we have been hiking during day time without one, and it's incredibly difficult to get a good close-up shot even then in good light.

Beautiful pictures. I especially like the night shots. I usually travel with just a compact camera, and would often miss chances like this, or have to live with grainy pictures. Even without a tripod, I am sure I can do a better job holding the camera steady, but haven't learned the proper technique - I see Ken Rockwell sometimes brag that he can hold for a full second.

A few months ago, I got myself a Gorillapod, and really love it. It's small and light, and is flexible enough for many situations, not just for low light but also difficult angle shots. I also have a cheapo standard tripod that I bought in Taipei for under $10, but I find myself using the Gorillapod more and more.

One question about SmugMug. I am running out of free space on Google Photo, and like the look of the SmugMug site you are using. I noticed that it's a paying site though. Would you recommend it?

I like the flexibility of Smug mug for site setup, as well as the unlimited storage. You can also sell photos through them, if you are interested in that (I am currently not).

The only thing that annoys me is that they limit individual file sizes to 12MB each. While the vast majority of my JPEG files are smaller than that after converting from RAW, some high ISO shots can exceed that size limit. For example, the low light shots here started out at around 14MB each when I converted from RAW to JPEG at the highest quality setting in Canon's DPP processing software, so I had to turn the quality down a couple of notches. It's not noticeable for web viewing, but I am also using this as an off site backup, too, so I would prefer to store them at the highest quality setting. The professional subscription option (at a higher annual cost) may increase the file size limit -- I have not checked.

Smug mug also offers a vaulting service for all file types that I would like to use for storing the original RAW files, but their price per GB is a little high right now. So, for now I am doing my own backups of the RAW files on DVD-R.

Thanks. I may have to look into that. I'm using Google Photo strictly as a photo sharing site, but file sizes are very limited. I mostly keep things on the original SD cards and on my PC, but I need a better way to back up.

Smug Pro does allow nearly unlimited photo sizes (and huuuuuge video too)

But....

I found I like Vimeo much better than Smug for video and Flickr's community outweighs Smug's technical prowess for me.  YMMV

I used to go crazy putting full size images up on Flickr but I found few people actually cared for em.  Now I resize everything to 2k max a side and call it a day, and keep my full rez images for prints only.

Sam

I used to hate lugging a tripod anywhere too -- and well, I still don't really like it.   But I find myself feeling more compelled  to lug mine a little more often in the past year or two (and getting a little bit more used to it) even though I did add the Nikon 70-300VR, which has IS.

I guess maybe I've gotten a little bit more picky about results and mind the inconvenience less as a result.

RE: the online photo storage/sharing sites, while the idea (to use them for off-site archiving of RAW originals or highest quality masters) is nice, it just doesn't seem very practical to me if for no other reason than the upload bandwidth that's needed to handle that -- unless you only need to archive a very small number of photos.  And if you have some very good stuff to archive and/or offer for sale (in prints), I'm not sure you'd want to put your highest quality masters (or the original RAW) on their sites either.  For prints, you really only need that for sizeable enlargements anyway, and that probably means you have some very good photos to offer.

But in the end, I also wonder whether selling photos to casual browsers on such sites is worth your while anyway -- there are just too many images (of all varieties, whether good or bad) fighting for attention, IMHO.  If you actually want to sell anything, you're probably better off presenting actual enlarged prints of your favorite/best work in person to whomever might be interested at all.  Just carry some w/ you in a good size portfolio as part of your routine.  When I was out shooting more often in the past (and also doing a little bit of low end freelance stuff), I found that people are definitely much more interested in my "work" when they see me in person out shooting, etc., especially if I was lugging (in-their-minds) sizeable gear, including a nice looking quality tripod.    OR maybe I just generally *look* like a serious photog to them (or so many of them seem to wonder when they talk to me) -- perhaps, it was the "hair" to some extent...  




_Man_

Edited by Man-Fai Wong - 9/4/09 at 12:40am

The online archiving became more of a concern for me after I lost some photos due to a PC crash (I hadn't gotten around to backing up those photos to DVD-R yet). Bandwidth has not been an issue -- I just start the upload process and walk away to do something else. RAW file backup would take longer, but I can always let those run over night. I have no desire to try and sell any photos, so I use the site strictly for archiving and sharing.

One nice thing about Smugmug is that you can also create private archives, or block individual photos in a public gallery from public viewing. You can even password protect galleries. I upload all our family photos there, but I do not want to make those available for public viewing.  For our niece's wedding, I locked the gallery with a password and let her give it to people she wanted to share the photos with.

I agree with wanting to use a tripod more, Man. I also prefer the results I get when using one. For this trip, though, my parents were traveling with us and my dad needed a wheel chair due to recent knee surgery. So, between dealing with his wheel chair, his walker, our bicycles (Mackinac Island does not allow motor vehicles), and our luggage, I tried to pack as light as I could. Our poor Saturn Vue was packed full.

As an alternative for backup storage you could simply register for a web hosting site that has unlimited storage and file transfer (bluehost.com is one example, I'm sure there are others). Unless you create your own web pages, you won't have quick online access to view them via a browser, but then you might not need that with smaller uploads to the other photo sites. The cost should be less than $10 a month for that.

For back-up, I recently got a portable hard drive (a Seagate FreeAgent Go for me, but there are many other brands). 320 GB for around $70. It's quick and convenient for storage, but it cannot replace a photo-sharing site.

I have a couple of external hard drives, too, and they are great for storing photos, music, etc. As you said, though, they still do not replace an off site photo sharing site.

 I just lugged my S3 IS on a tripod through the entire Carlsbad Caverns.  I was doing very long exposures, up to 15 seconds, and getting some amazing results.

Sadly, I discovered a ton of problems with my tripod, which I had not used in years.  It worked well enough on the trip, but a Coke exploded on it in the trunk, which might have been a commentary from the universe on the outlived usefulness of it.  I pitched it, and am in the market for a new one.



Here is the entrance to the "Big Room".  8 second exposure, f2.8, ISO 80.

I use a Bogen 3021 pro but I think those have been replaced....  For the S3 you probably want something quite a bit lighter I'm guessing....

 Hey, Sam.  Yeah, the "lugging" had more to do with the fact that the clamps on the two of the leg middle sections were broken, so I could only extend the lower sections.  I kept it extended on the full hike because it was VERY crowded, and I had to take photo opportunities quickly.  Some of those passages are a bit like doing the limbo, so it was interesting to do it with an extended tripod.

I'll probably use the new tripod for stills and video (Canon Vixia HG20).

 Buzz, make sure you get a fluid head if you're going to be shooting video.  I sold off my SD video camera and tripod, thinking I was getting away from video to work exclusively in stills.  So I bought a small tripod for my digital camera, then I got a new still camera that happens to take beautiful full HD video... and now I'm finding it difficult to get smooth moves from that non-fluid head tripod.  So be prepared!

 How about like this?

http://cgi.ebay.com/New-Camera-Photo-Tripod-with-Pro-Fluid-Head-for-Video_W0QQitemZ160348853644QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item255589558c&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14#ht_3632wt_1174

'pro' and under $100 do not go together. If you are going to get one, get a good one. Bogen is a good moderate quality brand in this space and you can easily spend a couple hundred bucks on a quality head. Prices go UP from there...

I own a Flashpoint carbon fiber tripod, which is the house brand at Adorama, coupled with a Giottos ball head. The Flashpoint is a nice balance between quality and cost, offering a very stable platform, easy extension of the legs, and the light weight benefits of carbon fiber. The legs were less than $200, and you can add whichever head suits your needs .The Giottos ball head was a little over $100, and works well for my still shot needs (I am not currently shooting any video). For video, though, you will want some sort of panning head, as others have recommended.

Cool scene.

Probably would be good to stop down the aperture some next time (rather than shooting wide open) since you're using a tripod anyway.  Not too sure if it was the lens limitation, but there's a certain aberration to the image that makes it look like a relatively long lasting, slight camera shake or something (to affect an 8-sec exposure like this).  Maybe there was some kind of long lasting vibration in the cavern and the tripod setup was not sturdy/steady enough for it.  OR maybe it's a residual camera shake from when you set it up, especially if the tripod setup is not very sturdy.  Did you use the camera's timer to delay the start of the shot (to help give it time to settle from your setup), especially if it's not a very sturdy tripod?

RE: shopping for a new tripod, yeah, get something good, if you want good results.  The one at that ebay link does not look very good.  *ANY* tripod that relies on those center column braces -- the ones that link the center column to the legs at their middle sections -- aren't gonna be all that sturdy.  In fact, the use/extension of the center column will usually make the setup less sturdy and should generally be avoided if/whenever possible.  Also, look for something w/ legs that use bigger diameters for rigidity/sturdiness -- go for carbon fiber, not skinny/flimsy legs, if you need something lighter weight.  Get something that has a hook at the bottom of the center column to hang some weights (like a heavy camera bag or backpack) to help it stay steady after setup.

And as Steve suggested, get separate heads to use for stills vs video, if you want best results.  Most good tripods (for stills) will be available as just the legs w/ interchangeable heads added separately.  Go for that instead of a video tripod (w/ panning head built-in).

Also, work on your tripod (and camera) setup skills/technique as good pods w/ problematic actual setup will still yield subpar results.  You'll probably need better technique, especially in more difficult situations where you might not have much time to set up and just get one or two shots off.

If you skimp too much on the tripod, you'll just end up regretting it later, especially if you think you'll get more serious into photography.

Hope that helps...

_Man_

 In fact, I had intended to use the timer, since there is no remote trigger available for the S3, but I had the limitation of large crowds (it was labor Day).  Adding ten seconds to each shot was going to be difficult, if not outright impossible.  Every time a crowd came through, it was full of people with flash cameras going nuts, and children of indulgent parents who had bought miner's hats with bright LED flashlights on them, who were not shy about shining them everywhere (especially in other people's faces).  Not to mention the people who had no clue what I was doing and would walk in front of the camera assuming no flash = no shot.

So the effect you are seeing is probably from my finger pushing the button and releasing initially.  However, this was my first attempt, and I need to go outdoors at night where it is dark (not hard out here) and play with things like the ISO setting to see if I can get a tighter f-stop.  I do plan to go back sometime when it is not busy (January is supposed to be pretty dead), and try again when I can have more time to set up and take shots.

BTW, I really appreciate all the input on tripods.  My original one was a real cheapie, and I have known very little on the differences between them.

Hey Scott,

Nice images. I spent a weekend on Mackinac a couple weeks ago. I recognize that hotel in the last photo; in fact, we had a heavy rain/wind storm that knocked down a huge tree directly in front of that hotel. Horse carriages had to ride up and back down that driveway to circumvent the fallen tree.

Jon

Here are a couple from my Mackinac trip:

">

Thanks, John. The hotel is the Island House, and is where we stay whenever we go to Mackinac Island. It is directly across from the marina. We really like the place.

Were your photos taken down near Mission Point Resort? I really like the composition of the first photo -- although I would try straightening the horizon to see how that looks, too. It's odd, though, to see that area with no people.

Hi, Jon.

Like Scott, I also like the composition in that 1st photo and really enjoyed the scene thru it.  However, I would probably crop it some to a wider AR, losing some of the bottom so that the nearest set of chairs are placed mostly in the bottom 1/2 of the frame rather than centered vertically - and maybe also cut out that one extra chair on the far right although I normally prefer more breathing room for something like this (and might've tried shooting a bit wider and/or used a slightly different POV to get that).

Not too sure about the horizon issue that Scott mentioned though (at least for the 1st photo).  Seems like you probably *did* try to straighten the horizon (for that 1st photo), but probably chose a different part of the horizon than what Scott's thinking.  Looks like you lined up the top of the distant land masses rather than the waters or the nearer visible coast line.  That kind of thing seems to happen whenever the horizon has multiple layers of shapes/objects, and I guess you just have to choose what's most apparent (or expected) and go from there.

OTOH, the horizon issue in the 2nd photo is complicated by the fact that the 2 up-front-and-centered chairs require the opposite slant to look right.  The 2 main characteristics of that photo are at odds w/ each in this respect.  In such cases, it's probably best not to go for that kind of shot (or maybe choose a different set of chairs that might work better).

Thanks for sharing -- and my apologies if you weren't looking for additional comments about cropping, etc.  Often hard to know what kinds of comments (if any) people expect for posted photos.

_Man_

I appreciate any and all input, always looking to improve.

Yep, that scene is right in front of Mission Point (where we stayed - pretty cool despite the large mouse - or small rat - I saw scurrying down the hallway. :)

Man is dead-on about the horizon; I did straighten it, using the far edge of the water as my guide. I see how it looks a bit skewed, though.

I'm usually pretty comfortable with composition, but I did struggle a bit with this image; no crop seemed to work just right.

There were no people in the area because it was just after a wicked rain and wind storm and was a bit chilly. On the ride to the island, we had six-foot waves. The weather started getting rough, the tiny ship was tossed, etc. Though it was 11:00 a.m., ours was the last boat to the island that day.

As for the second photo, again the horizon has been straightened. I don't mind the chairs being a bit off-kilter at all.

Aside from the composition, upon second look, I don't like the sky in the first shot. It was weird, but not quite that weird. Here's an edit:

Hi, again, Jon.

Sorry to be picky,  but I think that last crop was a bit too tight now.  I did like having some breathing room at the bottom.  Maybe if you cropped only 1/2 as much in the bottom, it'd work better.  Also, you've lost much of the wider scope I was thinking by cropping the additional pair of chairs, instead of just the dangling one.  Were you trying to keep the OAR when you did the crop?  There's nothing wrong w/ cropping to a different AR than the original shot, if that's what you were thinking.  That shot (w/ that POV) just begs to be wider than the original 3x2 ratio, IMHO.   If you want to output to the OAR (for print enlargement for instance), you might consider letterboxing (or windowboxing) the wider image w/ suitably colored borders/bars instead (for a matted look).

As for the color/contrast change, it's hard for me to tell which is best due to calibration issues (and I'm looking w/ this crappy-ish laptop LCD), so I won't go there.

And thanks again for sharing...

_Man_
 

I would put in a little more grass at the bottom, but not much more and definitely keep the rest of the image at the right. If you want to crop anything at the right, it would just be at that last chair, but no more. That shot just begs to be a wide open landscape shot. With all that grass at the bottom it turns into a close up (of the grass!). I pretty much agree with Man on this one, but perhaps not so much grass at the bottom. Or maybe we're saying the same thing.

Actually I like how the clouds look in that first image. It has some interesting formations. Strangely though, you lose some of it in the first crop. Keep the shot open.

Jon,

I took the liberty of applying the suggested crop for you.  Hope that's ok w/ you.  Also, I'm posting it w/ forum settings that are a bit more friendly for IE6 users -- everyone can click on the image to bring up the full size version.




It was hard to tell (in forum format w/ IE6) exactly how much/little cropping would work w/ all the scrolling I had to do before, but yeah, Bill is correct that only a small amount needed to be added back to the bottom.

And as I mentioned earlier, hard to tell exactly what contrast level works best due to calibration issues, but the original level seems fine enough to me (and probably also to Bill) -- your later adjusted one seems a bit too bright and washed out.  But again, it's hard to know given calibration issues.

_Man_

Man, I really like your crop. Yeah, I was trying to stay within the 'normal' aspect ratio with a possible print in mind. I intensely dislike the square-ish look; much prefer your 'OAR' version. Much more suited to landscapes.

I still think my original sky looks over-cooked.

Scott - it seems I've totally hijacked your thread. Sorry.

Looking at the rest of your photos, I see you made it to Tahquamenon Falls, the Soo locks and Whitefish Point. Cool settings, all. And I gotta ask about those bear shots - he looks as if he's in the wild. Yes? No?

Jon