Are "tripods" really necessary for landscape shots? (Page 10): I caught the sarcasm, which I chose to ignore. Sometimes people prefer to be salty rather than engage in meaningful...

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

SuperflyTNT wrote:

True. I only recognize good satire.

I caught the sarcasm, which I chose to ignore. Sometimes people prefer to be salty rather than engage in meaningful discussion. 😐

graybeard

Photographer Jim wrote:

I caught the sarcasm, which I chose to ignore. Sometimes people prefer to be salty rather than engage in meaningful discussion. 😐

Excuse me for my lack of profundity. I am not an arteest, such as thou.

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

graybeard wrote:

Excuse me for my lack of profundity. I am not an arteest, such as thou.

(Sigh). Whatever.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

they are necessary if YOU feel you need one.

graybeard

bull drink water wrote:

they are necessary if YOU feel you need one.

I prefer to think rather than feel.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

graybeard wrote:

I prefer to think rather than feel.

Ok, they are necessary if you THINK you need one

graybeard

SuperflyTNT wrote:

Ok, they are necessary if you THINK you need one

I don't THINK I need one. (But I have four).

topcat Loc: Alameda, CA

There is a difference between landscape photos and snapshots. If I am serious about the shot, I use a tripod. If I am not serious, then I use a faster SS. But using the faster shutter speed, you also use a larger f stop, which means that the DOF is smaller. In real landscape photography, you have to use a smaller f stop. That is why real photographers that are serious about their shot use a tripod.

But whatever floats your boat. If you are happy with a quick shot, go fo it.

rebride

Photographer Jim wrote:

My tripod is ONE of my most import pieces of equipment. It serves as an integral part of my shooting process, to the extent that I didn’t hesitate to lay out more cash than I have for some lens.

Great piece of advise from back in the day was, "if you wonder why someone else's photograph looks better then yours it is because they used a tripod."
It still applies today.

topcat Loc: Alameda, CA

The majority of good landscape photographs are taken in the hour before and just after sunrise, and just before and after sunset.
Photos taken in these times require a tripod due to the low light, and the DOF required in most landscape photos.
A tripod is most essential to a good photograph taken in low light. I would say in almost any light unless you are taking snapshots. Then it doesn't matter.

graybeard

topcat wrote:

There is a difference between landscape photos and snapshots. If I am serious about the shot, I use a tripod. If I am not serious, then I use a faster SS. But using the faster shutter speed, you also use a larger f stop, which means that the DOF is smaller. In real landscape photography, you have to use a smaller f stop. That is why real photographers that are serious about their shot use a tripod.

But whatever floats your boat. If you are happy with a quick shot, go fo it.

Quick. Yeah, that's me. Quick shots, quick bucks, quick sex. Quick is good.

knoxworks Loc: Western Mass.

jcboy3 wrote:

Precise framing, long exposures, difficult positions, precise panoramas, waiting for the right lighting. And yes, there is a difference between base ISO and high ISO, but there is also a difference between slow and fast shutter speeds and large and small apertures. Pick the settings you want, then decide whether you need a tripod.

I use a tripod frequently, and yes, they are necessary for my landscape shooting.

For snapshots, they are not.

jcboy3 hit the nail on the head, IMHO. My best landscapes were shot with a tripod. (My U-line with a Gitzo head did the job, but I recently switched to a much lighter and easier to use carbon fiber Manfrotto tripod and ball head. Worth every penny.)

anotherview Loc: California

No. Read why here: https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-killed-my-tripod.htm

Of course, the tripod industry pushes this accessory as if necessary.

A minority of photographers insists that using a tripod induces a more careful, thoughtful approach to doing photography.

toast wrote:

Unless you're trying to do a long exposure to free... (show quote)

scubadoc Loc: Sarasota, FL

anotherview wrote:

No. Read why here: https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-killed-my-tripod.htm

Of course, the tripod industry pushes this accessory as if necessary.

A minority of photographers insists that using a tripod induces a more careful, thoughtful approach to doing photography.

My Canon 7D MKII with a Canon 100-400 mm IS II USM lens weighs 2.4 lbs without a battery grip. I use it for day long photo shoots, mainly landscaping and wildlife. Using it without a tripod gets pretty tiring after an hour or two. By the end of the day, if I hadn’t been using a tripod, I either would have gone home hours earlier or I would have had to put up with fatigue induced camera shake.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

anotherview wrote:

No. Read why here: https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-killed-my-tripod.htm

Of course, the tripod industry pushes this accessory as if necessary.

A minority of photographers insists that using a tripod induces a more careful, thoughedtful approach to doing photography.

Included in that minority would be folks such as Ansel and his crowd. Best of luck.