I definitely agree that angling out the legs is much more stable, but it seems to be a few cases where you want the camera almost on the ground that reversing the column gets you there, while angling out the legs at best (depending on the tripod) gets you 6 inches off the ground, and with most tripods it's more like 8" to 10" off the ground.

In my mind -- if those 6" are important for your macro shot -- then reversing the column is a useful tool to have in your hand basket of tools. An opinion, that was validated by many of the people that posted on this thread.

So yes, my opinion (and I'm totally disagreeing with my class instructor on this issue) is that angling out the legs is your best bet to get low to the ground, and reverse your column if you need to get 6" or less to the ground, where his opinion was that reversing the column was a gimmick, and not worth doing.

Thanks for all the great advice! You all rock!!

Honestly, my instructor is really good. He's a landscape photographer, and really good at landscape photography. I've learned a lot from him in this area, even though it is not my primary interest area. I'm much more interested in shooting people. He is a bit old school though, although fortunately I do not take everything I'm told as gospel.

What I've learned from this post on UHH is that macro photographers are a very creative bunch, and are not afraid to experiment to get those awesome shots.

Cheers!

Well said. :-)

This is definitely an interesting topic with lots of opinions. One of my favorite pieces of advice on this topic: "Advice I was given on this is to use American spelling when in doubt. Because if you use American spelling, Brits will say "They are using American spelling". If you use British spelling Americans will say "Who is this moron who can't spell 'center'?". :-)

I'm taking an advanced photography class and the instructor has demonstrated twice the use of tripods. When he demonstrated getting the legs at extreme angles to get the camera low to the ground, I made a comment that most tripods have reversible columns as a feature and you can use this feature to get the camera right off the ground if you wish (instead of the 7-10 inches off the ground with the angled feet method.

The instructor became quite "heated" with me for mentioning this, and said that the reversible column method was useless, and just a marketing gimmick from tripod vendors.

I've shot using the reversible column method with the camera upside down and I like it. I can get the lens literally right off the ground. Sure, it's a little bit of a pain to use the screen on the camera with the camera upside down, but I think it's a small price to pay (and by careful positioning of the tripod legs, I can easily work around the tripod legs casting shadows issue).

Was wondering what other people thought? I do agree it is a bit harder to shoot this way. Do people use the reversible column feature of their tripods? Is this a gimmick or a useful feature?

This is an excellent assessment, each brand has its pros and cons. I would add one comment, if you are interested in full frame, or upgrading to full frame mirrorless then Sony is your choice.

I have this discussion all the time with the technical writers at work and they all agree on the following. Yes, the American English version is preferred if you're in the U.S., but it is not incorrect to use the British English spelling. If someone wants to use the British English version it is fine to do so.

Yes -- been fixed. Live view rocks, which includes focus peaking and focus magnification.

Plus if you do video. Mirrorless is definitely better. In fact, most DSLRs essentially use a mirrorless mode to shoot video. :-)

The one area where expensive DSLRs still win out is focus speed, but that gap is being closed very fast by Sony, Fuji, and Panasonic.

[quote=catchlight..]Was that in the film days?...
I guess the real point I am trying to convey is the fact that the newest DLSRs just very reliable.
quote]

I don't think anyone disagrees with you. Yes, modern DSLRs and MILCs are extremely reliable.

I also have never had a failure, however I always carry a backup for events just in case. It only takes one failure...

The good news is I don't think an event photographer should ever have to resort to a smart phone camera at a wedding.

I've never had a failure at a wedding event, but let's assume both my main and my backup failed at a wedding. Before I resorted (as the ultimate last resort) to my smart phone. I'd just go find an amateur/enthusiast at the wedding with a decent DSLR or MILC camera (which in almost all cases should be very easy). Tell him/her the situation and offer him maybe a 1/3 of the event fee to use his/her camera, and get his/her help as well. He/she would probably be glad to help in your plight and also appreciate hanging with you and learning some stuff as well.

Hypothetical catastrophe averted. Reputation saved. Bride is happy. Win/win.

A backup camera is a must I think for event photography. It's that insurance. May never need it, but just in case...

Although, like another poster said -- the backup camera doesn't have to be an expensive camera. There are some amazing low cost cameras out there that would be perfect as a backup like the Sony RX100 series.

Very popular among Sony event photographers is having a full frame camera like the Sony aRII as the main camera, and a Sony a6000 series camera as the backup camera. Very inexpensive backup option as the Sony a6000 is less than $500 and can use Sony FE lenses (just at a different crop factor).

My Dad loves Picasa. It is free, and super easy to use and it does everything that he needs. He uses it all the time to do collages, and other simple stuff.

Be aware though that Google discontinued it last year and stopped supporting it. My Dad figured out how to store a copy that he can run (as Google keeps trying to move you over to another program, that my Dad says is not as good).

So, the moral of this story is, if a software package meets your needs. Then use it.

I've been trying to move him over to PaintShop Pro (which I know extremely well, so that I could teach him how to do more advanced stuff, and even offered to buy him a copy for $50 off of Amazon), but he claims Picasa is all he needs and he loves how easy it is to use. I completely understand his point of view.

Agreed this is a very hard question to answer... especially since there are probably only a few people who know "both" GIMP and Photoshop well enough to answer it.

When I was looking for an alternative for Photoshop. I took a different product selection tack. I built a list of must have features for a photo editing package. My main purchasing criteria was: RAW Support, very mature Layer support, tons of filters, Photoshop script support, and Photoshop brush support. Paintshop Pro met all of my purchase criteria. It is also IMHO very similar to use to Photoshop, so if you know Photoshop you can jump to PaintShop Pro fairly easily, and vice versa.

I'm not sure this statement is really accurate, especially "Elements". If more... then what? i.e. what features? I think the main difference is that Gimp is usually considered a bit harder to use, than Photoshop. My advice is if GIMP works for you use it.

Personally, I use PaintShop Pro, it completely meets all my needs. Absolutely love it, and IMHO a great alternative to Photoshop.

Actually, I am a buyer. I don't want to get too technical but what I purchased was a "Perpetual" license, you of course are paying for a "Subscription" license.

My perpetual license allows me to use a certain version of PaintShop Pro for perpetuity, in this case version X9, because I upgraded recently.

Nothing, wrong with either type of license. The reason I'm pointing this out is I want to help people understand exactly what they are paying for and what you are getting for it, and make sure everyone understands that there are good alternatives.

Me I prefer to be a buyer, and have found that the optimum upgrade cycle is about once every three years. Just my opinion, but I've found this rule of thumb, works extremely well, and almost always have saved a ton of cash by following it. It's not always the case, but usually subscription is more expensive.

In regards to your claim of Photoshop being the "best". Not sure what that claim even means, as "best" is a very nebulous term, "best" in what way? Sure Adobe is the company that is the market share leader in graphics software, but after that we start getting into the world of opinions, and as most people have different needs for what they want in their graphics software, everyone is going to have different opinions.

My claim is nothing of the sort. My claim is that I believe PaintShop Pro is a great alternative program to Photoshop, and that AfterShot Pro is a great alternative to Lightroom.

Have never seen this issue. I am currently using the latest version PSP X9 not sure which version you had.

Here's a link to the geo location features of PSP X9 for reference:
http://help.corel.com/paintshop-pro/v19/main/en/documentation/index.html#page/Corel_PaintShop_Pro%2FAdding_Location.html