lowest shutter speed for hand held success

Luckless · Apr 24, 2017

There is of course a difference between 'relying on luck', and 'doing more to ensure you got the shot you want'. No matter how skilled you are, there is always a chance that the image isn't what you actually want at the moment you press the shutter, so at times it is kind of a foolish thing to simply assume that you did get what you thought you had. Taking extra shots in that case isn't 'relying on luck', but 'insurance against error'.

As for monopods, I don't find they are terribly cumbersome. I personally own a Oben CTM-2500 5-Section Carbon Fiber Monopod, which I find is easy enough to carry around. A tilt head with quick release makes it very easy to use, and lets me have the monopod take up the weight while I then balance the camera. (However, 90% of the usage of it is as a tool for taking up the resting weight of an SLR+long telephoto lens when out birding. In that case I often don't even have the monopod actually touching the ground when I'm taking photos, but rather lift the whole thing up to track the target. It then acts as a dampened mass hanging below the camera, which has its own pros and cons. Most of the usage in that case is effectively something to bring the ground up to shoulder height so that I can 'set the camera down' between shots.)

markbarendt · Apr 24, 2017

Luckless said:
There is of course a difference between 'relying on luck', and 'doing more to ensure you got the shot you want'.

The crux of the decision here centers on the importance of the shots intended.

If one is simply shooting for fun and bragging rights, using whatever tools they enjoy is cool. If the success of the shots is truly important, well that's an entirely different situation.

When people don't use tools like monopods or tripods or flash or faster film or whatever to do their work, they have simply made a choice about the relative importance of sharpness and their willingness to fail.

removed account4 · Apr 24, 2017

in addition to what i posted before you can always made a "string monopod"
you attach a string to your tripod mount and step on it, and keep it taut.
they sell them at the b+h probably or just google a utoob video to learn how to
make one.

Ko.Fe. · Apr 24, 2017

David Lyga said:
Do any of you have tips for acquiring tack sharp images at lower shutter speeds (no image stabilization)? The only thing that I can think of is tying a taut string to the tripod socket, extending that string to the ground, then stepping on it to cause it to 'anchor' the camera as you pull upward. Other suggestions? - David Lyga

I didn't check all three pages. So, just in case. Set lens on small aperture, usually f8 gives best performance in sharpness. And then use flash.

With flash on Leica I could take sharp images handheld at B and ISO 100 film, no need for Tri-X at 800 and 1/15.

dmr · Apr 24, 2017

Gerald C Koch said:
Tuck your arms to your side and then take a deep breath. Exhale and then press the shutter release gently. The article I read said this method was good down to 1/15 sec. I have never tried it down past 1/30 sec but it does work. ... Chair backs and door jams also work well.

Arms tucked to the side, lean up against something, anything. I've found (with a RF and normal lens, anyway) I can almost always do 1/60, usually 1/30, often but not always 1/15, seldom 1/8.

I do have a monopod but that does not really help that much. Might as well do the tripod.

Agulliver · Apr 24, 2017

It depends a lot on circumstances, and on the camera being used.

But taking some general ideas....if you are able to rest one side or the base of the camera against a wall, tree, fence, sign post or other object that can help. I've done night time shots at 1/4 second like this.
If standing, and with no suitable surfaces to rest the camera on or help steady it, I would say hold your elbows in as you hold the camera in both hands, tight up to your face and gently press the shutter release.
If you're sitting at a table, put your elbows on the table and again hold the camera to your eye close. I do find that my face/head adds stability.

I am generally able to hand hold pretty much any camera (SLR, TLR, small leaf shutter camera, medium format) to 1/15 or even 1/10 second exposures using these techniques. I'm more concerned about my subject moving.

In an ideal world...yes...faster film. But that isn't always practical for various reasons. I've shot 400 speed film in a dimly lit pub, exposing at 1/8 second by using the "elbows on table, camera to face" technique. The internal meter suggested I was under exposing half to one stop....which was fine with HP5+

I second what one poster said about breathing too...hold your breath...gently press the shutter and don't in/exhale until the shutter closes. Keep your finger on the shutter release too...the less you move, the more likely the shot will be sharp.

It goes without saying that the focal length of your lens matters too. Handholding for 1/10 second with a 45mm lens is far easier than with a 120mm lens.

bdial · Apr 24, 2017

The exposure for this was several seconds long with the camera sitting on the ground, and the lens propped up a bit on my wallet.
For me, interesting night-time pictures seem to show up far more often than occasions when I have a tripod.

ac12 · Apr 24, 2017

Agulliver
It is ...
Take a couple full breaths to load up with Oxygen, then release a half breath, then hold and fire within 6 seconds.
Inhaling and holding your breath gets your heart beating harder, which is bad for stability.
Hold for longer than 6 seconds, and your body passes is most stable point, and it starts to want Oxygen.
At least that is what my former rifle coach taught me.

I did 1/60 sec with a 210mm on a dx camera, so equivalent to a 315mm lens. Standing with my hip braced against a bench.
And the wedding pix of my niece came out just fine.

David Lyga · Apr 25, 2017

BrianShaw said:
Ah, David... not to be annoying but have you tried a monopod? They are definitely not cumbersome.

Yes, but I really meant 'minimalist' here. In fact, it is kind of an achievement to remain steady rather than rely upon a crutch. - David Lyga

Mainecoonmaniac · Apr 25, 2017

Depending on the focal length. But I was taught the rule of thumb for safe hand held shutter speed is 1/focal length of lens. For example if it's a 50mm, it's 1/30 of a secs. Higher speeds for telephoto lenses. To up your success, take a deep breath and squeeze the shutter release.

Pioneer · Apr 25, 2017

I am truly impressed with how steady many of you can hold your camera.

For me it really depends on what I intend to do with the photograph, the focal length of my lens and how much I may need to crop the negative. Do I want a 5x7 print, 16x20, or even larger.

Sometimes only a tripod, flat rock, stump or fence post with a shutter release or timer will get me the exposure I need.

I have a few negatives that I really would like to print real big, but cannot because I shot the photograph handheld. And it really doesn't become obvious until that enlarger is cranked all the way up to the ceiling and I am trying to get that negative to focus on a big sheet of paper!

That's when I realize that I am not as steady at 1/30 seconds as I thought I was.

David Lyga · Apr 25, 2017

Mainecoonmaniac said:
Depending on the focal length. But I was taught the rule of thumb for safe hand held shutter speed is 1/focal length of lens. For example if it's a 50mm, it's 1/30 of a secs. Higher speeds for telephoto lenses. To up your success, take a deep breath and squeeze the shutter release.

The point of my post is to refute what the mantra is and see if one can circumvent what one is 'supposed' to do, and how. This 'focal length' rule of thumb is what usually manifests with the success rate. I wanted to know if I can learn to enhance that percentage of successful takes. - David Lyga

BrianShaw · Apr 25, 2017

David Lyga said:
The point of my post is to refute what the mantra is and see if one can circumvent what one is 'supposed' to do, and how. This 'focal length' rule of thumb is what usually manifests with the success rate. I wanted to know if I can learn to enhance that percentage of successful takes. - David Lyga

Good luck with that. Stereotypes, rules of thumb, mantras, and the like exist because statistically they are true. So that means you might exceed them, or you might fail to achieve them. But statistically speaking if you want success they might be worth paying attention to. Don't let that stop you from trying, though!

bdial · Apr 25, 2017

That rule of thumb has a pretty sound basis. There are probably many more examples of photos showing camera movement at 1/focal length and faster than there are successful handheld shots done slower. I know I have plenty. But I'm not fond of carrying a tripod either.

While it's most certainly possible to be successful hand holding, or using an improvised support, at lower speeds, I don't think it's a rule that needs refuting. If nothing else, the rule tells you that you need to be thinking about ways to support or steady the camera when you're trying to expose at 1/4 second, or whatever.

Mainecoonmaniac · Apr 25, 2017

Pioneer said:
That's when I realize that I am not as steady at 1/30 seconds as I thought I was.

You drink too much coffee

LAG · Apr 26, 2017

David Lyga said:
The point of my post is to refute what the mantra is and see if one can circumvent what one is 'supposed' to do, and how. This 'focal length' rule of thumb is what usually manifests with the success rate. ...

bdial said:
That rule of thumb has a pretty sound basis. There are probably many more examples of photos showing camera movement at 1/focal length and faster than there are successful handheld shots done slower. I know I have plenty. But I'm not fond of carrying a tripod either.

While it's most certainly possible to be successful hand holding, or using an improvised support, at lower speeds, I don't think it's a rule that needs refuting. If nothing else, the rule tells you that you need to be thinking about ways to support or steady the camera when you're trying to expose at 1/4 second, or whatever.

Certainly true!

removed account4 · Apr 26, 2017

the further you are from your subject the less noticable camera shake is seems ( like relative speed, fast far away=slow, fast close=fast )
this is a 40 second exposure holding a 4x5 slr
good luck with your rule breaking david !

Pioneer · Apr 26, 2017

Mainecoonmaniac said:
You drink too much coffee

That is certainly true...

...but I am even worse when I leave the coffee at home.

Fortunately I can carry my tripod in one hand and my coffee in the other.

markbarendt · Apr 26, 2017

Pioneer said:
That is certainly true...

...but I am even worse when I leave the coffee at home.

1/8000 will work if, like you, I leave my coffee at home by accident.

mgb74 · Apr 26, 2017

David Lyga said:
The point of my post is to refute what the mantra is and see if one can circumvent what one is 'supposed' to do, and how. This 'focal length' rule of thumb is what usually manifests with the success rate. I wanted to know if I can learn to enhance that percentage of successful takes. - David Lyga

But David, why refute just part of the mantra? In other words, why does the print need to be tack sharp? One of my best recent photographs ("best" in my opinion - and grading on a curve) is a rainy night scene of an alley. 1/4 second handheld with a 50mm lens. Tack sharp - no. But not too unsharp to detract from what I was trying to accomplish.

Further, I can virtually guarantee that you can learn to enhance the percentage of successful takes. I say this only partially in jest; these competitors learn to control breathing, heartrate, and steadiness.

NJH · Apr 26, 2017

Definitely try a monopod. I started using one recently and feel a bit embarrassed in a sense that I didn't use the thing earlier as it sat in a draw for a couple of years (only a cheapo Velbon with Manfrotto quick release adapter). With a 6x6 SLR its doubly nice as it makes intermediate shutter speeds between say 1/30 and 1/125 much more likely to result in quality results + you don't have to turn the camera on its side so the relationship with the monopod doesn't have to be altered other than up and down. With the monopod leg out front and the camera pressed firmly into my chest its pretty amazing how much less the camera seems to move. Triple nice actually as when on the monopod its taking the weight of the camera of your arms or neck.

David Lyga · Apr 26, 2017

mgb74 said:
In other words, why does the print need to be tack sharp? One of my best recent photographs ("best" in my opinion - and grading on a curve) is a rainy night scene of an alley. 1/4 second handheld with a 50mm lens. Tack sharp - no. But not too unsharp to detract from what I was trying to accomplish.

AHA! This is the very point! The print does NOT have to be tack sharp. The print DOES have to be tack sharp. Both become relevant within the realm of aesthetics!

The dichotomy emanates from whether or not one WANTS the print to be tack sharp. For your rainy night scene the perception was probably enhanced with the slight blur. But in many other cases, one needs tack sharp results to make one's aesthetic point. In so many words, using your statement in an absolute sense, one does not GET to determine whether said print becomes sharp or not. In other words, the 'choice' is left to happenstance. I do not want that. Instead, I want to be able to CHOOSE whether the print is sharp. - David Lyga

mgb74 · Apr 26, 2017

David Lyga said:
AHA! This is the very point! The print does NOT have to be tack sharp. The print DOES have to be tack sharp. Both become relevant within the realm of aesthetics!

The dichotomy emanates from whether or not one WANTS the print to be tack sharp. For your rainy night scene the perception was probably enhanced with the slight blur. But in many other cases, one needs tack sharp results to make one's aesthetic point. In so many words, using your statement in an absolute sense, one does not GET to determine whether said print becomes sharp or not. In other words, the 'choice' is left to happenstance. I do not want that. Instead, I want to be able to CHOOSE whether the print is sharp. - David Lyga

Well, if you want to CHOOSE, then you have to start on that biathlon training. But please be careful running around Philadelphia with a rifle.

David Lyga · Apr 27, 2017

mgb74 said:
Well, if you want to CHOOSE, then you have to start on that biathlon training. But please be careful running around Philadelphia with a rifle.

To be perfectly honest, there is far more danger from self-serving, fiercely aggressive, 'entitled' cyclists who follow absolutely no rules and deem pedestrians to be mere detritus (especially at crosswalks and on sidewalks). - David Lyga

phelger · Apr 27, 2017

David - your format is 135. For many years it was too for me and I always worked on to how to obtain sharpness untill I had read enough books explaining what is sharpness! Constraints of film size and lens resolution set a limit to the sharpness - law of nature! I made decent enlargements 12 x 16, but was'nt convinced. Then I got a Mamiya 7, and immediately understood what a sharp print is!
So your choice is IMHO : EITHER use a tripod (or not) and accept what 135 format can do (which can be incredibly good, just look at works of great photograpers, e.g. Cartier-Bresson); OR get yourself an MF camera (when I came to that point my greatest issue was I had to get a new enlarger!)
Good luck, Peter

lowest shutter speed for hand held success

Luckless

markbarendt

removed account4

Ko.Fe.

dmr

Agulliver

bdial

Attachments

ac12

David Lyga

Mainecoonmaniac

Pioneer

David Lyga

BrianShaw

bdial

Mainecoonmaniac

LAG

removed account4

Attachments

Pioneer

markbarendt

mgb74

NJH

David Lyga

mgb74

David Lyga

phelger

lowest shutter speed for hand held success

Attachments

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency