Michael S said:Regarding the beanbag and the mirror lock-up etc. In
almost 15 years of photography I've never had a problem
with vibrations from mirror-slap - on any one of about 20
different camera bodies (both 35mm and medium format).
I have, typically with long lenses and light tripods.
Quoted message said:Obviously this is only really a problem with longer
lenses, which I only ever really use for wildlife
photography (although I will use them occasionally for
certain landscape shots).
I personally think that there is fantastic potential in
using very long lenses for landscapes, a potential that is
rarely explored and which I myself have only scratched the
surface of. So much of landscape photography is obviously
suited to wide angle lenses that it takes a lot more
discipline to look deeper into the landscape to see the less
obvious possiblities of telephoto compositions. And I'm not
just talking about photographing distant summits, that's the
most obvious use of a telephoto lens and one which is often
scuppered by haze. Many of the best telephoto opportunities
can be found much closer to the photographer, but it's much
harder to recognise them IMO.
In particular I think that the juxtaposition of a foreground
object (actually middle ground) with a background object has
great possibilities, but whereas such juxtapositioning with
a wide angle lens may require moving only a few feet, or
even inches with an ultra-wide angle, with a long telephoto
you are often required to move much greater distances, which
can even be measured in miles.
"Now let me see, if I just move half a mile to my left..."
Quite a different mindset is required to see telephoto
opportunites IMO. It's a very neglected area of landscape
photography and one which I'm keen to explore. Of course one
of the main reasons why it's neglected is because landscape
photographers are not generally in the habit of carrying big
heavy telephoto lenses around with them.
Quoted message said:And, with wildlife photography, shutter speeds usually
always need to be fast - certainly fast enough to avoid
mirror-slap vibrations.
Very true.
Quoted message said:With a short, wide-angle lens attached to the body the
problem of mirror-slap vibrations just doesn't exist in my
experience.
Nor mine.
Quoted message said:I'd choose to use a tripod in virtually all situations
I probably would too if I didn't take so many shots. The
fact is though that I'm a walker as well as a photographer,
necessarily so, I have to walk to get to the viewpoints, and
I tend to take so many shots enroute that using a tripod
every time would be impractical. Those who have walked with
me will testify to how much time my photography consumes,
and that's just taking shots hand held.
There does seem to be a breed of landscape photographers
that will religiously use a tripod for every photograph
irrespective of whether it's actually necessary or not. A
friend of mine recently did exactly that when shooting snow
covered mountains in bright sunlight, while I preferred the
quicker hand held option. In such bright conditions there
are no problems getting fast enough shutter speeds with
decent apertures, even with a long telephoto lens, so the
only conceivable advantage of using a tripod in such a
situation is for fine control over composition. Whilst I
appreciate that advantage I also appreciate the advantage
of travelling quickly, so I've developed the discipline to
compose photographs very carefully even when shooting hand
held. There is a myth that using a tripod results in better
compositions, and I understand why, but it is possible to
do the same hand held, it just requires a lot of
concentration and care.
Quoted message said:- I can't remember the last time my bean bag even
left home.
Last time I left mine at home was just a few walks ago, and
I regretted it!
Quoted message said:A long time ago I used to drape the beanbag over the lens
(mounted on a tripod) to prevent potential vibrations from
mirror-slap,
Hey that's a good idea! Thanks for that, I'll most
definitely try that out.
Quoted message said:but I soon learned that this just wasn't necessary.
It is for me I can assure you. Sounds like your tripods
aren't as light as mine. By way of justification I'd just
like to point out that the "legend" Galen Rowell also used
to have the philosophy of travelling light and fast and thus
used a flimsy lightweight tripod to the horror and disgust
of other landscape photographers, so you can see where I get
my ideas from! :-)
Quoted message said:If you have a 'light' tripod try hanging your pack from
the center column - this extra weight stabilises a tripod
dramatically (although is obviously dependent on the
weight of the pack!).
I've heard that advice and tried it, but it doesn't solve
the problem. The problem is that the weak point is the
tripod head, where the camera connects to the tripod. You
only have to press the end of the telephoto lens to see that
there is some play in the connection. Even though I screw my
cameras tightly to the tripod mount, there is play in the
mount, not the legs. I can actually see the image vibrate
through the viewfinder when using a telephoto lens, but it's
not the legs that are moving. In this case mounting the lens
to the tripod rather than the camera would be a better
solution, but I don't have that option.
Quoted message said:In the long run a sturdier tripod would be
preferable though!
Well since you mentioned long runs, I recall that
Galen Rowell literally did a long run of 10 miles to
reach a wilderness viewpoint in time for sunrise,
travelling ultralight. He didn't carry a heavy tripod
on his long run! :-)
I agree though that a heavy tripod would be best in all
situations of easy accessablity, for example coastal
photography, which rarely involves a long or difficult walk
from the car. Mountain top photography however, is a
different matter, to which a bean bag is much better suited,
especially from a convenient cairn or trig point.
Quoted message said:Personally, I would only ever use a bean bag if I didn't
have a tripod, full-stop.
Which is sort of what I just said. For a decent mountain
walk I really wouldn't want to carry a heavy tripod with me.
Been there, done that, as they say. I will take my ultra
light tripod on such a walk though (about a pound I think),
but it won't do for the long telephoto stuff. I took no
proper tripod at all on my recent stroll up Mynydd Drumau,
yet I desperately needed one when I reached the top.
Fortunately my pocket sized bendy legged tripod came to the
rescue, and it was that which I used to take my "Neath at
Night" shots, balancing it on tussocks of grass and a
convenient wall. I didn't have my bean bag at the time, it
would probably have been better.
Quoted message said:As for the self-timer vs the cable-release... there are
obviously situations where there is no alternative to the
cable-release - such as the particular situations you
mention - waves, and night sky (and lightning) shots on
the bulb setting (plus others).
Fair enough.
Quoted message said:But then I'm rarely taking night-sky/lightning shots!
Not that common for most people, but I've been doing more
and more night/low light photography over the last year and
I want to do lots more of it. It's a fascinating area to
explore, another one that's generally neglected by most
photographers, probably because of the hassle of wandering
around wild places in the dark. I feel quite comfortable
with this though, so it's something that I'd really like to
specialise in.
Quoted message said:I should have been clearer, but I was referring to the
*usual* kind of landscape shot where the image in the
viewfinder hasn't moved for several thousand years (except
for any vegetation!).
Of course.
Quoted message said:I have found with landscape photography that timing is
critical - but in a long-term sense, not the short term.
Well you presumably don't do much photography on very windy
days then. Fast moving clouds racing across the sky create
ever changing patterns that are never the same from one
moment to the next, not only the patterns in the sky but the
shadows on the ground. I rate such conditions as one of the
best to take landscape photos in, and timing is usually very
critical in such situations. It may not be very pleasant for
the photographer to be blasted by a cold wind, but such
situations often result in the most dramatic photographs.
Quoted message said:I have photos that took around 45 minutes to compose,
followed by a further 3 and a half hours of waiting for
the 'right' light.
Well that's certainly one approach, and a very valid one,
and I offer the respect that's due to you for having such
patience. But it's not the only approach. I often tend to
favour the "action landscape" approach, which involves
travelling light and moving fast. It may not be the
traditional approach, it may receive scorn from some, but it
can and does produce results. Galen proved that over and
over again. I follow some of his footsteps. At the end of
the day, the bottom line is the photographs we produce, they
speak for themselves. If they are up to scratch, then who
really cares what techniques were used? All techniques are
valid if they produce the required results. Different
techniques are like different personalities, we each have a
different way of doing things.
Having said that, I guess I do often wait a long time for
the right light. Although I like to keep moving when on a
walk, I also love to camp wild in scenic situations. I've
often camped for days in the same spot, waiting for the
right light. I like to pitch the tent in such a position
that I can get good shots straight from the tent itself. I
once camped for two days on a ridge overlooking Tryfan,
taking shots intermittently from the tent as good light
presented itself.
This was one shot from the tent. The strange wisps of cloud
in the top left probably lasted for no more than 20 seconds
or so, I don't know what caused them. wilderness-wilderness-Open ↗
wales.co.uk/pg/gl/gfw75.jpg
Here's another shot taken from the same location at night.
This was taken on my flimsy lightweight tripod in a worrying
breeze. To my great relief the breeze didn't ruin the shot.
wilderness-wales.co.ukts75.jpgOpen ↗
Then another shot from the same spot the next morning; wilderness-wilderness-Open ↗
wales.co.uk/pg/gl/tef75.jpg
While I'm on the subject, my last roll of film was lost by
the developers. 4.5 years later I still feel angry whenever
I think about
it. The four free rolls of Velvia I got out of them was no
compensation. :-(
Quoted message said:Landscape photography is definitely a marathon, not
a sprint.
Depends how you choose to run the race. There's more than
one way to run it. Hares and tortoises are all potential
winners. I have great respect for the patient approach, but
I'm usually too impatient, except when wild camping! :-)
Quoted message said:I've yet to see a sky change *significantly* in 10
seconds...
It's more a question of the light on the ground changing
(particularly the foreground) than what's happening in the
sky, although I've got panoramas taken in gale force winds
in which the clouds changed significanlty from one shot to
the next, enough to make it impossible to get a perfect
stitch (although you can fudge it with the clone tool).
Quoted message said:While you may get the appearance of crepuscular rays or a
rainbow (etc.) for a couple of seconds only, you've got to
be pretty darned unlucky to have that appear perfectly
within the frame of a carefully pre-composed shot and miss
out on it. Anyway, I'm beginning to ramble... The point of
mentioning the self-timer was that excellent landscape
shots *can* be achieved without the need for a cable-
release.
Indeed, and I still do that if it isn't critical. At the end
of the day, attaching the remote switch is just more hassle
which consumes time, so for the odd shot or two it isn't
really necessary.
Before I forget I should point out that I'm becoming a big
fan of infrared photography, which often involves
exposures of 30 seconds even in bright sunlight. The
remote switch can be handy for that too, especially if I
need to switch to bulb.
Quoted message said:In fact, I'd say that most of my shots which have been
used in calendars, magazines and on book covers were taken
using the self-timer (and on a tripod!) - simply because I
rarely use the cable-release.
Anyway, it's not like it adds much weight to total pack
weight... just thought I'd mention the self-timer option
for those situations when it is suitable!
Which it often is. But the real question is, do you get
[censored] waiting 10 seconds for a web page to load? I do.
Maybe that's why I have no patience with the self timer.
Modern technology has taught me to expect things to happen
instantly! :-)
Quoted message said:At the end of the day, we have to take what we personally
feel the need for. Like I said earlier, I often lug my
medium format cameras up hills, and I wouldn't recommend
that for one second!!!
Why not? Whilst on the one hand I'm looking forward to
retiring my film SLR, on the other I have a couple of rolls
of 120 film just waiting to be used shooting waterfalls with
my Mamiya Press. There's a certain perverse pleasure to be
had in doing it the old fashioned way even though you have
all the new technology, isn't there? Rather like navigating
with a compass instead of a GPS for a change!
Oops! Sorry! On-topic alert! ;-)
Quoted message said:Similarly, if you like to use a bean bag then you'll carry
on taking it with you, and so you should!
It's not a case of whether I like it or not, it's a case of
necessity. If I could shoot everything hand held I probably
would. Less hassle. But I can't, so I do what I must. There
is a certain satisfying solidity that a bean bag gives me
that a flimsy tripod doesn't. I really must buy myself one
of those half ton tripods, but I won't be carrying it up any
mountains.
Quoted message said:Different strokes for different folks! Happy shooting
everybody!
You too. Thanks for the comments.
Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗
