| Forum Regular
Posts: 694 Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Dallas, Real First Name: Bill iTrader Rating: 0 LIKES Received: 0 LIKES Given: 0 |
08-08-2006, 02:14 AM
Easy answer: When the picture suffers from camera motion, in your opinion, and you can get a better shot with a tripod-mounted camera.
Pictures have different end purposes. 30x40 prints, 4x6 prints, 100x150 pixel Web shots. A small Web shot could look great. A huge enlargement could be sorry.
An Impressionistic picture taken at 1/2 second could make a fine enlargement because it is all about the impression, anyway, not sharpness or high resolution.
If you are shooting at night and want to get a ribbon of automobile lights, a tripod allows you to contrast them with their rock-steady surroundings(buildings, street signs, etc) by shooting at very low shutter speeds.
To get you in a tripod frame of mind, ask yourself if there is a reason to take a shot handheld. If you do landscape, architectural, macro, or portraits, you may find that a fixed camera allows you to think and work very deliberately. Fast-paced work, such as photojournalism or candids are often hurt by the reduced flexibility of a tripod. For a mix of more stability than handheld and more flexibility than a tripod, try a monopod, the favorite of sports shooters.
Some people are worried about using high ISOs because of noise problems. Boost that ISO. Sharpness will trump noise many times. If you run out of ISO, underexpose and boost in software. Just do what you have to do to get the shot.
Tripod substitutes: Walls, cars, trucks, poles, signs, trees, bridges, fences, fire hydrants(wait, that might be needed by others), and the like. |
| | |