Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,931   Posts: 1,556,943   Online: 1032
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 48

Thread: Rule Of Thumb

  1. #11
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,622
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by hoffy View Post
    Very interesting! Putting that into context, how enlarged is that shot? Also, the shot that was done on the tripod, was Mirror Lock Up used? You have me very curious!
    The 'length' of the first camera shake on the left is about 2.5x the standard CoC for the 35mm negative format (2.5 x 0.022 mm). In other words, your resolution is dropping to about 18 lp/mm. That's pretty poor.

    No mirror lock-up was used in order to compare to the worst tripod performance possible. Even with mirror slap, the tripod performance is about the same as the CoC. This proves Q.C.'s statement that mirror slap is minor compared to hand-held camera shake.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  2. #12
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,622
    Images
    1
    After thinking about it a bit more, I'm not so sure that it really is a 35mm rule. I remember my Dad teaching me this rule at a time when we used nothing but medium-format cameras. Could it be that the rule is an older medium-format rule of thumb and was carelessly carried over to 35mm?

    The smaller the format, the more critical camera shake is.

    The attached sample shows the 1/60s exposure with a 50mm lens again. This time it also shows the standard CoCs for 35mm, 6x6 and 4x5. Judging from this shot, I'd say that 35mm needs a tripod or a faster shutter speed, but MF would get away with the rule of thumb. LF has no issue at all, but a 50mm lens is unrealistic for LF.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails CameraShake2.jpg  
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  3. #13
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,770
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by hoffy View Post
    "If you were to set the minimum shutter speed to be the same as the focal length, you shouldn't be effected by camera shake"
    I think this is a marginal as a rule-of-thumb and only applicable where there is nothing else driving the shutter speed choice and when the value of the shot is low.

    As with most rules-of-thumb, it is like a set of training wheels and absolutely conditional on the shooters skill and intent of the photographer.

    For a high value shot, shutter speed needs to be driven by an answer to this question "what do you, as the artist or technician, expect from this photo?"

    Given that the "intent" may change from shot to shot the rule-of-thumb is in my estimation bunk for serious work.

    For example:

    I've been shooting a fair amount lately at 1/10th to 1/15th hand-held and panning. The rule of thumb is just way to fast for the effect I want.

    For general snap shooting I'd rather deal with a little underexposure when I'm enlarging, than with unintended blur so the rule-of-thumb, based on my preferences, is too slow for me there.

    If I really need a truly sharp shot I'm going to use something besides a rule-of-thumb and I'll be lugging the right tools along.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Don't make too big a deal out of it. This rule of thumb is no more than a way to find a safe handheld shutterspeed.
    As such (and for what's it's worth) it stands, no matter what other considerations there are that drive shutterspeed choice.

  5. #15
    Paul VanAudenhove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    350
    Maybe I haven't had enough time to wake up on a Sunday morning yet, but instead of saying "If you were to set the minimum shutter speed to be the same as the focal length, you shouldn't be affected by camera shake" wouldn't phrasing it to read "If you don't set the shutter speed to be at least the same as the focal length, you will be affected by camera shake" make more sense?

  6. #16
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,330
    Images
    148
    No it doesn't make any more sense, have a coffee wake up

    It's entirely possible to get sharp images at slower speeds, just less likely, and there's to many variables. It depends how you're standing, holding the camera, type of cameras etc.

    When shooting with my Leica + 50mm lens I know that using 125th of a second I always get good sharp shots, there's no mirror to bounce.

    It's just a very loose rule of thumb, no more than that.

    Ian

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Washington, the state
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,143
    Images
    16
    Another factor to consider is the degree of enlargement expected.

    For example, consider a 4x5 press camera such as a Speed Graphic. To get a print that is 8x10 you only enlarge 2X.

    From 6x7, the same size print is 4X enlargement and a 35mm would need a 8x enlargement. Camera shake from the 35mm would be more exaggerated.

  8. #18
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,611
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by mopar_guy View Post
    Another factor to consider is the degree of enlargement expected.

    For example, consider a 4x5 press camera such as a Speed Graphic. To get a print that is 8x10 you only enlarge 2X.

    From 6x7, the same size print is 4X enlargement and a 35mm would need a 8x enlargement. Camera shake from the 35mm would be more exaggerated.
    The film is just an intermediate stage though and is irrelevant. What does matter is the final print size and the larger the print (or magnification) the greater the chance of camera shake being visible in the print.

    Obviously we can then start arguing about viewing distances!.....


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  9. #19
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,622
    Images
    1
    Since the final print size is typically unknown, or could change in the future, it is common to make sure that camera shake is below the CoC. That's why I used it as a criterion in my posts.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  10. #20
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,192
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    After thinking about it a bit more, I'm not so sure that it really is a 35mm rule. I remember my Dad teaching me this rule at a time when we used nothing but medium-format cameras. Could it be that the rule is an older medium-format rule of thumb and was carelessly carried over to 35mm?

    The smaller the format, the more critical camera shake is.

    The attached sample shows the 1/60s exposure with a 50mm lens again. This time it also shows the standard CoCs for 35mm, 6x6 and 4x5. Judging from this shot, I'd say that 35mm needs a tripod or a faster shutter speed, but MF would get away with the rule of thumb. LF has no issue at all, but a 50mm lens is unrealistic for LF.

    The really interesting point is that your father taught you this for MF. Historically, the rule of thumb was developed [pun intended] for MF and then in the 1960's and 1970's at the photo stores I worked at*, we started telling the customers to use the rule for 35mm cameras.

    Steve


    * one was Baker's Photo on Wisconsin Avenue Washington DC NW
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin