What are the advantages of photographing handheld? (Page 2): How about all those places that no longer (or never did) allow tripods such as museums? I understand that some national...

WarpedWeaver

How about all those places that no longer (or never did) allow tripods such as museums? I understand that some national parks are thinking about limiting tripod use to certain areas....and I think street photography would be awkward with a tripod.

zug55 Loc: Naivasha, Kenya, and Austin, Texas

My input is from the perspective of a travel photographer--and why I do not travel with a tripod.

Extra weight for your checked baggage. Or uses up much of the hand luggage allowance.

If you shoot in busy places, like popular tourist destinations, there often is not enough space to set up a tripod safely.

Too much weight and too bulky when I walk through a city all day long--or on hikes.

Most churches, palaces, museums, etc. do not allow tripods--which is when a tripod would be most useful.

If you are part of a group tour you do not have enough time to set up a tripod.

I can shoot at ISO 10,000 with my Sony A7III without significant noise.

Quixdraw Loc: x

John Gerlach wrote:

Thanks for your thoughts all! I hope I get more t... (show quote)

Well, film speeds advanced pretty fast - and I was using them. ASA 25 pretty much gone at the end of the "50's. Kodachrome II @ ASA 64 in 1961. Ektachrome @ 64 in 1963, 160 in 1969, 200 in 1978, that doesn't take into account a variety of others - Anscochrome / GAF ASA 500 introduced in 1967 and the big news, you could develop your own slides at home. Forgotten days!

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I have a tripod and I use it, but not all that frequently.

Most of my shots are hand held because I can carry a camera around with me fairly easily, but not a camera and a tripod. Using a tripod is for planned shots, and most of my shooting is grab shots. My cameras do well using high ISO so even on ordinary shots I can use high ISO and therefore fast shutter speeds, reducing the need for a tripod. Even for panoramas and focus stacking I find I am usually able to do hand held shots if I'm reasonably careful. So the bulky inconvenient tripod sits in the basement 99.99% of the time (i.e. it gets used about an hour a year).

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

JD750 wrote:

Re the title question. My simple answer: Mobility.

I agree!

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

Hand held - My preferred, It's more fun, mobility, less to get hung up in sticks and stones, allows for greater stealth - less conspicuous, if no health impediments - no compensation required with extra gadgets, and modern cameras/lenses have helped us with image stabilization, floating ISO, just much greater flexibility. Favorite way to shoot, in those circumstances and where I can get away with it.

Not Hand Held - more effort, planning,/logistics/equipment, conspicuous; but it is required often enough that I have tripods/monopod/heads/triggers etc. for when HH isn't working, or on station waiting for that shot. Multi-camera set-ups.

Many fine example photos on this one. My favorite method will always be HH, until I have to use the rest of the gear, whatever the reason
my$.02.

rambler Loc: Masssachusetts

Sometimes difficult or not allowed to get tripods down where flowers grow. Get macro or close up focus by moving one’s body back and forward . There is also a small flat camera plate that also hold a ball head and camera. Great for setting on anything flat. It is a platypod

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Much of my photography is landscape and scenery, for which I prefer to use a tripod, giving me more time for thoughtful composition, with my swivelling monitor usually horizontal - in fact it gives me a better "feel" for the subject. If the light is a problem for viewing the monitor, I'm grateful that my GX7 has a swivelling EVF.

philo Loc: philo, ca

I love my tripods and have quite a few. As a matter of fact i have a new travel tripod on order from Peak Design.
How ever when doing portrait work (non studio) I always shot handheld. It is much more informal and a lot quicker. I feel that my subjects are more relaxed when i shoot handheld. If doing a group or a more formal shot them i would lean trough a tripod.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

JD750 wrote:

Re the title question. My simple answer: Mobility.

Agreed! However- let's say that the photographer is agile, inventive, industrious, mobile, and creative enough to hand hold the camera and move into whatever position or angle is needed to get the shot. So..once he or she is in position to execute the shot, do they s necessarily know exactly what other technical decisions to make as far as stabilizing and supporting the camera and selecting the best settings? Other factors kick is such as selecting the right shutter speed for the focal length in use, the speed of the action and the DIRECTION of the movement of the subject as it relates to the position of the sensor plane. What about focus issues? Not every camera/lens has image stabilization. Not every camera will produce noiseless images at extremely high ISO settings. Electronic flash will tend to freeze movement when it is the primary light source, however when combined with ambient light the correct shutter speed needs to be selected.

All this is why when there is a discussion of hand holding the camera, many other factors should be included. All of this should go into the plan when deciding to lug around the tripod or leaving it at home. The old tripod is great to have at your disposal if you want intentionally long exposure to enable water blur, pan with the action- especially with longer lenses and a host of many other techniques that require extremely stable support.

Obviously, you can't bring in a tripod where it is prohibited so planning alternative supports such monopods, a belt pod, special camera straps, and harness and practicing effective hand holding- hand positions, shutter releasing techniques, and postures and stances.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

John Gerlach wrote:

I have been ask to write about the merits of using a tripod and shooting handheld. Both have merits for sure, and both have drawbacks. I learned to shoot nature photos in the early seventies from Larry West and John Shaw in Michigan. Both were quality photographers who stressed how to shoot quality images. I paid attention, and it worked for me. I use a tripod or another solid platform whenever I can. That often is a bean bag on my car window or in the roof hatch of a safari vehicle. That means I am on a solid support 95% of the time. But, there are times when even I admit handheld shooting is better, or the only way to work the subjects. Photographing snow geese almost directly overhead at Bosque comes to mind as I have never been able to shoot a gimbal head directly up due to hitting the tripod legs. Therefore, I have compiled a list of places where handheld could be an answer, though, not always. Well, on a rocking boat, I think handheld is the only answer so your body can absorb some of the motion. If you have an example where handheld is really helpful, please pass it along. I already have many situations where a tripod is the better answer, but I want to be far to both ways of doing things.

Oh, by the way, I just posted my article on how I shoot sharp wildlife photos on my blog.

Advantages of Handheld Photography vs Tripod or Stable Support Photography
1. Don’t need to spend the money on a tripod or head
2. Don’t have to carry the weight of the gear
3. Quicker to shoot handheld than mounting your camera on a tripod
4. Easier to shoot in deep snow where the base is not stable for a tripod
5. Easier to shoot when you must shoot straight down from a viewpoint where it would be difficult to get a tripod into position without it falling over the edge.
6. Better handheld to shoot from a boat that is bouncing in the swells
7. Better for shooting birds overhead
8. Quicker to try different compositions
9. Short lenses and bright light and image stabilization make it easier to shoot sharp images handheld now
10. Easier to track moving targets handheld, especially when close and moving fast.

I have been ask to write about the merits of using... (show quote)

The main advantage of hand holding is time sensitive wide ranging MOBILITY - but there are others.

If your subject can/is subject to moving - then the most successful photography will be realized with timely wide ranging camera movement ! - and the MOST timely wide range camera movement is with hand held aiming. Second to hand holding, is the use of a bodypod with facial stabilizer ( https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-269999-1.html )

To this end, I have developed facial stabilization and long lens holding brackets that can increase aiming accuracies and ergonomic comfort. Aiming accuracy means better compositions and AF placement.
.

(Download)

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

I shoot a lot of video. Have some those gizmos gimble etc.
I have gotten really good and creating film moves hand held.
I do shoot "doc" style and some sports like running marathons.
I bring a monopod and when doing talking interview bytes I
use the monopod. eye level and talk to the talent.
I make stills from my 10 bit camcorder on my Mac.
And photoshop the. Good enough quality for PR shots.
Clients love the stills. When I shoot stills I use
lens like the Sony 70 200 f4 and 55mm and hand hold.
Dont have any really long zooms accept the RX10 III
with the 24 600 zeiss lens. You can hand hold at 600mm
sticks would be better.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

In the past we had to rely on a solid platform for sharpness. Case in point, when you took that workshop with West and Shaw. I found myself doing lots of landscape work using my trusty Manfrotto 2031 from the early 70's with a ballhead that has been my favorite head for my tripods.
Then came IS, first incorporated in lenses and eventually in the camera body. That was a godsend, now we could stabilize the image without the use of a tripod to make shots as sharp as if we were using one. As the time went by and technology improved the new models of IS (VR for Nikon) were even better allowing up to 4-5 stops of stabilization. A good thing became better.

I am in total agreement with you in regard to those conditions that make it very difficult or impossible to use a tripod. Under those conditions we are glad to have lenses and cameras with IS. My first experience with VR took place when I bought the old 80-400 Nikon lens. I cannot remember a single shot I made with the lens where I had used a tripod. All of them were sharp as a tack even when hand holding at 400mm focal length.

I am old school and for my landscape photography even using VR I use my tripod. I do not like to raise the ISO setting in camera to shoot hand held at night, I prefer a tripod. I simply feel comfortable when I use one. It gives me plenty of time to think about my shot, makes me select the best composition and allows me to observe the subject. All of that without any question improves my photography.

As you can see I am not suggesting when to leave the tripod at home, that is a personal decision and believe me I understand there will be many occasions when it will be difficult if not impossible to use the tripod. Even when I travel I take the tripod with me although now I care more about weight and I use a cheap Dolica aluminum tripod that using good tripod techniques has served me well even using heavy gear. I also has a carbon fiber tripod but to my surprise I use the Dolica more often.

It is an interesting thread and I thank you for your interest in this matter guiding others on how and when not to use a tripod.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

rjaywallace wrote:

John - Your knowledge and wildlife experience is well-known and highly respected on the UHH forum.
Was wondering what ISO you selected for your example photo and Canon or Nikon? I might have (on a Fuji camera) boosted the ISO in order to use a higher shutter speed. Cheers, Ralph

John Gerlach wrote:

I was likely at ISO 1000, but even that is challenging in dim light.

To be exact, it was ISO 1600, f/5.6 1/320th Auto W/B. The camera is a Canon 1DX MkII, and the lens is Canons EF 800mm f/5.6l IS USM ($13,000). That's the largest lens and camera. No wonder you used a tripod. You really can't hand hold that setup.

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

John Gerlach wrote:

I have been ask to write about the merits of using a tripod and shooting handheld. Both have merits for sure, and both have drawbacks. I learned to shoot nature photos in the early seventies from Larry West and John Shaw in Michigan. Both were quality photographers who stressed how to shoot quality images. I paid attention, and it worked for me. I use a tripod or another solid platform whenever I can. That often is a bean bag on my car window or in the roof hatch of a safari vehicle. That means I am on a solid support 95% of the time. But, there are times when even I admit handheld shooting is better, or the only way to work the subjects. Photographing snow geese almost directly overhead at Bosque comes to mind as I have never been able to shoot a gimbal head directly up due to hitting the tripod legs. Therefore, I have compiled a list of places where handheld could be an answer, though, not always. Well, on a rocking boat, I think handheld is the only answer so your body can absorb some of the motion. If you have an example where handheld is really helpful, please pass it along. I already have many situations where a tripod is the better answer, but I want to be far to both ways of doing things.

Oh, by the way, I just posted my article on how I shoot sharp wildlife photos on my blog.

Advantages of Handheld Photography vs Tripod or Stable Support Photography
1. Don’t need to spend the money on a tripod or head
2. Don’t have to carry the weight of the gear
3. Quicker to shoot handheld than mounting your camera on a tripod
4. Easier to shoot in deep snow where the base is not stable for a tripod
5. Easier to shoot when you must shoot straight down from a viewpoint where it would be difficult to get a tripod into position without it falling over the edge.
6. Better handheld to shoot from a boat that is bouncing in the swells
7. Better for shooting birds overhead
8. Quicker to try different compositions
9. Short lenses and bright light and image stabilization make it easier to shoot sharp images handheld now
10. Easier to track moving targets handheld, especially when close and moving fast.

I have been ask to write about the merits of using... (show quote)

Something to consider for your writing.

It's true, there are times a tripod or steady platform would be needed. Although consider that most still use them because they were raised with tripods being used or told by their elders/instructors, that tripods need to be used.

When you figure the early photography only had relitively low rated ISO or ASA film, it's no wonder they needed a tripod. I remember using ASA 50 or 100 because I wanted a decient photo only to find I had to use a very slow shutter, which in turn meant using a tripod. Not so anymore.

Speciality films could be had higher although if you wanted standard film above about ASA 400, (...and that higher value only came later on), only black and white could provide the choices.

Today's photography has the advantage of sensors that can provide much higher ISO values. Something not available back when using a tripod was "more" the norm. needed and insisted by those who "cut their teeth" in older times.

Considering we now have modern technology on our side, a tripod is not needed for the majority of applications.