When I say USE A TRIPOD, I MEAN IT!!!!!!

[Andy]

Overkill?

(This is a MF camera spec tripod)

[ixl]

That's a *really* big ballhead, lol.

[ixl]

That ballhead costs more than the camera, that's for sure.. and the tripod legs probably more than the head and the camera combined.

I am actually non-traditional in that I only use tripods when I need to...

[Andy]

"I am actually non-traditional in that I only use tripods when I need to..."

Hmnn. Me too. I just need to most of the time.

Rich and I were photographing this water fall and a guy came along with his P&S and wanted to know how we made the water look soft. So Rich showed him how to take a longer exposure on his camera and offered up his tripod. I couldn't resist photoing it. I am sure I'll use it as an illustration somewhere along the line.

[Rockwall Tim]

My wife and I live in Texas and, of course, have to fly into Boston or Hartford to start our foliage excursions. We don't check luggage in order to save time and fees. Instead we each pack 5 days of stuff in 2 carry-on suitcases.

I might could get a tripod in the carry-on, but I can't afford to lose the space it would require. So I guess, unless I change how we handle luggage, I'm doomed to hand-held images for the duration.

[Andy]

Tim: Not sure how you would "fare" with a tripod in the carry on. I have never tried it, but I have read on some forums that folks have been forbidden to carry a tripod on. Not sure why, or whether that is consistent from airline to airline (or even plane to plane).

We fly Delta most of the time and have one of their American Express Cards (which we use very seldom -- usually only with flight - related issues. we are pay the balance off every month folks and I don't like having too many credit cards). With the AMEX we each get one bag checked free. This has been nice. The last trip we took carryon's but coming home, because of a very short layover in Detroit, my wife didn't want to have to do the "O.J. Simpson" run through the airport with her carryon, so we checked it.

My last flight to Vermont, I paid the ransom (didn't have the card yet). I cannot imagine myself without my Carbon Fiber Crutch

[nikonf]

Any large format guys still shooting real 4x5 film?
I am going to Vermont next week with a 4x5 view camera and film holders.
Yahoo.......last time I went to Vermont with my view camera was 1979.
Can't wait!

By the way, what tripod is that? Looks awesome.
Happy shooting,
Mike

[MrBumps]

Any large format guys still shooting real 4x5 film?
I am going to Vermont next week with a 4x5 view camera and film holders.
Yahoo.......last time I went to Vermont with my view camera was 1979.
Can't wait!

By the way, what tripod is that? Looks awesome.
Happy shooting,
Mike

I sold my 4x5 a few years ago and sure regret it! Digital is great, but there is is something very calming about shooting large format. Looking at those big flims on the light box! I bet a drum scanned 4x5 still blows away the best DSLR image! Have Fun!

[nikonf]

Yes. 4x5 drum scans are great. The only problem today is finding a good lab that can scan them properly. Digital "machine gun" shooting has forced many companies to go out of business and only Fuji is commited to film shooters today. We have a 45 MP digital back at work and it produces excellent 40x60 prints. The best drum scans I had made for a comparison were clearly superior, but not by much. I work for Mercedes-Benz USA and we did a full comparison between the 21MP Canon, 45MP Hasselblad and the 4x5 drum scan. The detail in the wheel spokes on the cars and in the shadow areas was amazing on the 45MP and the drum scans. If you use the digital lenses made by Rodenstock and Schneider with the digital backs, the results are truely spectacular!
Have fun and be well,
Mike

[deaner1971]

I think that is the same tripod from which we used to shoot our M2 .50 caliber machine guns when I was in the Army...

In all seriousness, I made a stupid mistake on my last trip and it was borne of overconfidence in technology and laziness which are fights I think we all wage. Thus I thoughtI would pass it along.

I got one day of brilliant light and wanted to shoot as much as possible. Because I have VC in my camera and light was good, I thought I would be fine without my tripod and would be able to move more quickly.

I shot a few great spots and thought I'd get away with a few keepers. Composition and light were both good on camera so I thought I was set.

I get home to discover that I had forgotten to turn back on my VC (I had turned it off for some nighttime tripod shots) and many of the shots I thought were cmoepletely safe are, in fact, on the edge of unusable.

If VC is your anti-lock brakes, the tripod is still your seatbelt. Huge mistake to believe that having one should allow me to skip the other.

Lesson learned.

[Andy]

Deaner: Thanks for the timely reminder. I have been accused of being pedantic about this subject. I guess this is a good time to clarify.

I shoot from a stable platform (usually = tripod) 99% of the time. One of the things we photographers like to talk about are "rules." Rules, and structure, in photography (and, I like to lecture my -- now adult -- kids, in life) are a good thing. But I have, as I "mellow" in my extreme old age, moved away from the rigidity of "rules" in many cases (we are especially talking photography here ) and moved toward "guidelines."

One of our august posters here signs off with something like "the best camera is the one you have with you." A great thought. It makes me think of a related thought. The worst image of the day is the one you didn't take. There are just going to be times when you cannot or should not use a tripod. Some guy named Henri Cartier Bresson may have illustrated that. I have a pro friend who I highly respect and who is probably the most amazingly talented travel, street and product photographer I know. He does photography for, among others, the Lonely Planet travel book series. Much of his work is done handheld with a fast, wide angle lens. He understands the "rules" intrinsically and I doubt he ever consciously thinks about them.

When I was in Alaska, much of my shooting was done from a small boat or a train. A tripod just wasn't going to work and in some cases may have resulted in worse results.

Other times, you may just be carrying the camera and if you want to get the shot, you better take it handheld.

OTOH, I think we need to be sure it is not an excuse for just being lazy. There is no reason not to carry the tripod in most instances and again, usually no reason not to use it in the appropriate situation. I also think it helps me slow down and think more about creating an image, rather than just snapping the shot.

In my Blog, a year back, I wrote about the proper way to shoot from a tripod (in my opinion). I usually will carry it somewhere near my shooting point and then walk around with my camera and look at and try different angles and views. When I find what I want, I then move the tripod into the correct position. The "laziness" I sometimes suffer from is not doing the above and suddenly the tripod becomes a leash, rather than a tool.

[Andy]

I was surfing this forum this a.m., looking to see if there was any way to liven it up, when I came across this old post. It actually stimulated some interesting conversation (admittedly, I have done most of the talking -- there may be a pattern here ).

Two thoughts this morning: (1)This illustrates my mantra about using a tripod. Anyone notice the irony that the handheld image is OOF?

(2) and more "maybe" useful. I have been thinking about tripod alternatives lately. In my basement, I have a large Manfrotto monpod that probably works better as a self defense weapon than a camera support for my type of shooting. I have used it for some sports shooting and its one of those things that, while rarely used, will probably stay among my possessions. I have owned several tripods over the years, including a rather small, light tripod that would fit in a suitcase or even the bottom of a garment bag (gave that one to my daughter along with a D200 and lens last year). I have built my own window mount for my car. All are interesting alternatives, but none really address an issue that came up here.

They are difficult to do mass transit travel with. It is highly unlikely that you will carry one on an airliner today without a major hassle from TSA, or the airline. I am also becoming more sensitive to the fact that certain places restrict tripod use. Some State and National Parks (more directly, some officials) look at a photographer using a tripod and decide he must be singled out for numerous reasons. I will be doing some shooting in Washington, D.C. in August and there are certain areas around the government buildings and monuments with restrict or prohibit tripods. Based on my research (and a suggestion by the author of a book on photography in that area), I purchased a "table top" tripod." http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywor ... nik1uhqo_b This page illustrates a few that are available. I purchased the Slik ball head model. I have an adaptor that will allow me to use my L bracket with this tripod. When folded down, it is quite small and light, easily fitting into a carry-on. The author's point was that you can almost always find a wall or fence, or trash can (or stone, or fencepost, or stump) to set up on and have a rigid, stationary camera support. In low light conditions, this will be a possible "boon." I plan to carry it around the monuments in August and will report back on its utility. But for those of you who travel light, or just don't use a tripod, its an alternative. I expect it will fit into the cargo pocket of my pants or shorts! And how can you beat the price.

I won't let it be a substitute for my normal tripod -- nor should you, in my opinionated view. But it will become another tool.