How slow can you go handholding a TLR?

Q.G. · Jul 12, 2008

Any speed you can shoot, i can shoot slower.
I can shoot any speed slower than you.
No you can't!
Yes i can!
No you can't!
Yes i can!
No you can't!
Yes i can, yes i can!

Shoot a picture, with the camera of your choice, handheld, at 1/250.
Then put the camera on a tripod and shoot the same picture, at 1/250 again.
Examine and compare the results, and then you will see what MF is capable of
... if only we would use tripods.

Rolleiflexible · Jul 12, 2008

My wife Melanie has been shooting a
2.8E recently. She often shoots at
slow shutter speeds, with stunning
results. Here is a photograph she
took a couple of weeks ago, f/2.8
at one second:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/reneeking/2626540735/

Melanie has an uncanny ability to
shoot slow speeds handheld. QG,
this photograph would never have
worked with the camera on a tripod.

Sanders

dpurdy · Jul 12, 2008

Yes but I don't think setting the camera on the floor counts as hand held...
Dennis

2F/2F · Jul 12, 2008

"Shoot a picture, with the camera of your choice, handheld, at 1/250.
Then put the camera on a tripod and shoot the same picture, at 1/250 again.
Examine and compare the results, and then you will see what MF is capable of
... if only we would use tripods."

Of course you are right...but 95% of my favorite prints of all time, shot in a variety of formats, absolutely could not have been taken if the shooters had followed your advice.

Rolleiflexible · Jul 12, 2008

dpurdy said:
Yes but I don't think setting the camera
on the floor counts as hand held...

It wasn't on the floor. It was
a foot off the floor, held low.
(Which is why a tripod was
out of the question.)

edtbjon · Jul 12, 2008

Handheld or not, a full second or not, Melanie is probably a better photographer than most of us. She has an exceptional eye for seeing the pictures in a simple context.
Also, from the look and mood of the pictures, it doesn't look like she's rushing things, rather having a relaxed attitude. All of which is good for hand-holding at slow speeds.

//Björn

Rolleiflexible said:
My wife Melanie has been shooting a
2.8E recently. She often shoots at
slow shutter speeds, with stunning
results. Here is a photograph she
took a couple of weeks ago, f/2.8
at one second:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/reneeking/2626540735/

Melanie has an uncanny ability to
shoot slow speeds handheld. QG,
this photograph would never have
worked with the camera on a tripod.

Sanders

Q.G. · Jul 12, 2008

2F/2F said:
Of course you are right...but 95% of my favorite prints of all time, shot in a variety of formats, absolutely could not have been taken if the shooters had followed your advice.

Ah... You're absolutely right. You can't get many shots from atop a tripod (though many you can).
And being tack sharp is not the begin all end all of a good photo. Not a necessary condition.

But this wasn't an advice to use tripods only.
Merely a reminder that even at fast speeds hand induced shake is already visible.
So no matter how steady we think we can hold our cameras, better not be too optimistic. 1/4 sec., when 1/250 already is hard?

Personally, i would rather not invest in expensive MF gear if i would plan to use the thing handheld at anything slower than 1/60 a lot.
And even at 1/60 i would not feel comfortable.

Sanders,

That is a very nice shot, which shows that you can use slow speeds handheld.
But how many times does it not go so well as in this shot?

Larry.Manuel · Jul 12, 2008

Technical Quality Vs. Artistic Composition.

Q.G. said:
...snips...1/4 sec., when 1/250 already is hard?

Personally, i would rather not invest in expensive MF gear if i would plan to use the thing handheld at anything slower than 1/60 a lot.
...snips...
But how many times does it not go so well as in this shot?

Point taken. Now to be a contrarian: Many of my favorite photos of all time, from various people, have been technically awful [or at least imperfect] and artistically sublime, so it depends on one's goals and what one is satisfied with. I consider myself a geek for technical stuff, and I'll take a phenomenally composed heart-stoppingly gorgeous photo that is somewhat blurry, any time over the polar opposite.

Rolleiflexible · Jul 13, 2008

Q.G. said:
[snip]
Personally, i would rather not invest in expensive MF gear if i would plan to use the thing handheld at anything slower than 1/60 a lot.

Sanders, That is a very nice shot, which shows that you can use slow speeds handheld. But how many times does it not go so well as in this shot?

QG, I think Bjorn had it right, that it all depends on the
photographer. I trust my hands to produce a sharp
image handheld down to 1/8 second with a Rolleiflex.
Below that, it is as much luck as skill. Melanie, she
nails it every time at one second and slower. I have
seen her shoot at night on bulb for 5-10 seconds,
handheld, and the negatives are razor-sharp. I do
not know how she does it, but she does.

Plenty of people shoot MF handheld at speeds slower
than 1/60 second. In fact, it's a lot easier shooting
slow with a Rolleiflex than with most 35mm cameras
because the weight and form factor rests more stably
in the hand. At least, that is my experience.

Sanders

Toffle · Jul 13, 2008

Rolleiflexible said:
Plenty of people shoot MF handheld at speeds slower
than 1/60 second. In fact, it's a lot easier shooting
slow with a Rolleiflex than with most 35mm cameras
because the weight and form factor rests more stably
in the hand. At least, that is my experience.

Sanders

I agree. My make/miss ratio is much higher with my Rollei than with my Nikon. At slow speeds, the Rollei wins hands down. Now, I would never dream of hand holding my GS-1 at anything less than 1/125. For one thing, the prism slaps pretty darn hard, so I'd have to use the mirror lock-up, which means a hand-held shot would be a real crap shoot. For another, I just don't feel as comfortable with a heavier camera at eye level at slow speeds. I've seen Nicole B-M shooting her Hassy hand held in the woods, though and she doesn't seem to have any problem.

As many have said here, with a TLR using a WLF, your whole body is so much more stable. With good technique, and steady hands you can easily gain two full stops over eye level shooting.

Cheers,

Q.G. · Jul 13, 2008

Larry.Manuel said:
Point taken. Now to be a contrarian: Many of my favorite photos of all time, from various people, have been technically awful [or at least imperfect] and artistically sublime, so it depends on one's goals and what one is satisfied with. [...]

I already agreed to that in the post you quoted.

My point was that - though it indeed depends on the person, Sanders - the 'effect' of handholding doesn't begin to be visible at slow speeds only.
Even at fast speeds it already is there, in a discernible fashion.

Someone may be able to produce a 'sharp' image handheld at 1/8, while someone else may be able to get an image equally 'sharp' only at 1/30.
But compared to what both images would be at 1/250 (handheld, and from atop a tripod) you'll see that what someone may be able to also depends on a rather fluid definition of 'sharp'.

What level of sharpness you can achive also depends on the situation.
On the open top deck of a ship on open sea, in a blustering gail, you can even forget about using 1/2000.
Same situation, but with the photographer still panting, heart racing, because he ran up many flights of stairs just to get to that top deck in time, you can also forget about 1/8000.

eddym · Jul 13, 2008

Rolleiflexible said:
My wife Melanie has been shooting a
2.8E recently. She often shoots at
slow shutter speeds, with stunning
results. Here is a photograph she
took a couple of weeks ago, f/2.8
at one second:

Sanders, that is gorgeous! Incredibly sharp for 1 second, and the narrow depth of field really "focuses" one's attention on the hands. Please pass my congratulations to Melanie!

Rolleiflexible · Jul 13, 2008

eddym said:
Sanders, that is gorgeous! Incredibly sharp for 1 second, and the narrow depth of field really "focuses" one's attention on the hands. Please pass my congratulations to Melanie!

Will do. Melanie's the
real talent in the family.

JBrunner · Jul 13, 2008

I have found that working at a slow shutter speed (relative to the focal length of the lens, this must always be a consideration, you can go much slower wide than long) past that certain point (say 1/60 with a 90mm on MF) that the subject movement causes at least as many problems as camera movement. Of course something that doesn't move (or someone who knows how to not move) doesn't cause these issues. After that, it boils down to what you consider acceptable relative to how big you are going to print. I have negs that print fine at 8x10 by my standards but when I move them up to 11x14 they don't quite cut it, so the printing intention comes in to play, as always.

I wish there was a pat answer to your question, but like so much of photography the answer is subjective, and what I find fine you may reject, and vice versa. The acceptable sharpness pie slices pretty thin.

A test roll is the only true method for you to find the answers that are true to your intentions.

vic vic · Jul 13, 2008

hi ari and all....

basically, i quite agree with what JBrunner says about "subjective" conicdirations and especially - "intentions" regarding final result and print.
a print for wall that should be a part of interior design is very different "requirement" from a harsh-reportage capture.

still, a waist level, two-hand held of rolleiflex is indeed an advantage over eye-level camera (even a rangefinder). the fact that there is no mirror (like in hasselblad which is also very comfortable) is an additional advantage. so ya, in a given situation, i think rolleiflex is probably the finest hand-held camera, and whatever are the "requirments", rolleiflex seems to get one to two stops slower speed advantage relativly to other cameras.

in numbers:
at 1/60, i would accept a well printable sharp negative for 20x24" paper. ( of course 1/125 or a tripod will have more edge with closer inspection than a normal viewing )
1/30 feels as comfortable zone, especially for "sharp looking" negatives like HP5+ and TRI-X...
at 1/15 i would accept a fine image of an authentic scene that, above all, the most important part should be the instinctive/intuitive reaction to the "moment". and if the "moment" feels to be such inspiring and remarkable, i would even "call" 1/8 of a sec "a sharp foto"

eddym · Jul 13, 2008

Rolleiflexible said:
Will do. Melanie's the
real talent in the family.

Ah, so that explains it... you're just the trophy husband!

jordanstarr · Jul 14, 2008

I've heard in a lecture from a reliable teacher on the subject of slow shutter speeds that 1/15 is the worst shutter speed to work with because the second the mirror opens and flaps up the vibration starts at exactly 1/15 of a second (on a 35mm camera anyway). He recommended either go one down on the aperature and shoot at 1/30 or increase the aperature a stop and shoot at 1/8 as the photo will suffer less proportional vibration. The logic is that, even though the immediate vibration may be the same, it's taking in less light in the initial vibration from the mirror slap and bringing in more light when the vibrations stop.
Is this correct? I've never actually tried it before (I just muscle out the tripod), but I remember taking really good concert photos at 1/8 of a second with no flash as long as I could sturdy the camera. I'm a little skeptical of the logic, but it does make sense in a sense.

JBrunner · Jul 14, 2008

jordanstarr said:
I've heard in a lecture from a reliable teacher on the subject of slow shutter speeds that 1/15 is the worst shutter speed to work with because the second the mirror opens and flaps up the vibration starts at exactly 1/15 of a second (on a 35mm camera anyway). He recommended either go one down on the aperature and shoot at 1/30 or increase the aperature a stop and shoot at 1/8 as the photo will suffer less proportional vibration. The logic is that, even though the immediate vibration may be the same, it's taking in less light in the initial vibration from the mirror slap and bringing in more light when the vibrations stop.
Is this correct? I've never actually tried it before (I just muscle out the tripod), but I remember taking really good concert photos at 1/8 of a second with no flash as long as I could sturdy the camera. I'm a little skeptical of the logic, but it does make sense in a sense.

I'm not sure, it sounds a lot like saying it's ok to put the cat in the microwave so long as it's fur isn't wet.

raucousimages · Jul 14, 2008

NEVER SKIP PAGES. I went from page one about how to use slow speeds on a TLR to mirror slap (on a TLR??) and cat's in microwave ovens on page five. I am scared to read the rest. I'm going to clean the soda off of my computer now.

Q.G. · Jul 14, 2008

jordanstarr said:
I've heard in a lecture from a reliable teacher on the subject of slow shutter speeds that 1/15 is the worst shutter speed to work with because the second the mirror opens and flaps up the vibration starts at exactly 1/15 of a second (on a 35mm camera anyway). He recommended either go one down on the aperature and shoot at 1/30 or increase the aperature a stop and shoot at 1/8 as the photo will suffer less proportional vibration. The logic is that, even though the immediate vibration may be the same, it's taking in less light in the initial vibration from the mirror slap and bringing in more light when the vibrations stop.
Is this correct? I've never actually tried it before (I just muscle out the tripod), but I remember taking really good concert photos at 1/8 of a second with no flash as long as I could sturdy the camera. I'm a little skeptical of the logic, but it does make sense in a sense.

The logic is correct. Sort of.

Assuming the vibrations start at 1/15 sec. after the mirror went up, you would also need to know how long the vibrations last and when the exposure starts to know how much the mirror induced shake will affect the picture.
But supposing the exposure starts exactly then too, and that the shake takes 1/15 to die down, the longer the exposure, the smaller the proportion of it that is affected.
Shorter exposure will reduce shake only if they start (and possibly/ideally finish) before the shake starts. But given that the mirror is hitting the frame (the thing that is supposed to cause the shake) before the exposure can begin, how big is the chance of that happening?
It would depend on the speed with which the movement propagates through the camera, i.e. the camera not being quite ready to shake yet, but quite willing and able to complete the rest of the release cycle.

What would be not correct is that you can name one single speed as generally the worst one. That would be different for different cameras.

And what would also not be correct is any assumption that mirror induced shake is something we need to worry about when we are holding the camera in our hands...
If present, it is orders of magnitude smaller than hand induced shake.

So unless you have your camera on a tripod, do not worry about the mirror!

jordanstarr · Jul 14, 2008

Q.G....
My thoughts exactly. We should probably just put a cat in the microwave for good measure anyway.

Mark Antony · Jul 14, 2008

I'll chirp in here. I've been playing around with a lot of low light stuff recently and I like others here feel I can safely use 1/8 with a TLR. My method is to use a strap or kneel on the ground (like a rifle-shooter) camera perched on my knee.
Range finders or TLRs are best for low shutter speed although I don't think they are a panacea as has been pointed out one mans sharp is another mans soft and final print size is important too.
Here is a gallery of very low light images shot on a Rolleiflex 1/8-1/15 wide open at F3.5 12,800 EI
http://www.pbase.com/mark_antony/robert_short_70th
most seem sharp to me
YMMV
Mark

Q.G. · Jul 14, 2008

jordanstarr said:
We should probably just put a cat in the microwave for good measure anyway.

To be scientific, two.
One wet, one dry.

vic vic · Jul 14, 2008

to be scientific ... at least two more, to additionally check out wether it is a singular case or a pattern

panastasia · Jul 14, 2008

Q.G. said:
What level of sharpness you can achive also depends on the situation.
On the open top deck of a ship on open sea, in a blustering gail, you can even forget about using 1/2000.
Same situation, but with the photographer still panting, heart racing, because he ran up many flights of stairs just to get to that top deck in time, you can also forget about 1/8000.

I was able to get tack sharp photos from a speedboat, rocking on the rough waves in Boston Harbor - the boat was in constant motion - using my RB hand held at 1/400 with a 90mm (standard) lens, wide open. When I looked at the quality of the photos I could guess that they could have been shot at 1/250 and would still be acceptably sharp. No exaggeration.

How slow can you go handholding a TLR?

Q.G.

Rolleiflexible

dpurdy

2F/2F

Rolleiflexible

edtbjon

Q.G.

Larry.Manuel

Rolleiflexible

Toffle

Q.G.

eddym

Rolleiflexible

JBrunner

Moderator

vic vic

eddym

jordanstarr

JBrunner

Moderator

raucousimages

Q.G.

jordanstarr

Mark Antony

Q.G.

vic vic

panastasia

How slow can you go handholding a TLR?

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency