In article <4gq4al$iai@nntpa.cb.att.com>, dg@mthost2.mt.att.com1019MT says...
>In article <4fucvv$el1@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
>Bob Neuman
>> [...conversation deleted]
>>That's absurd! I care very much about sharpness (some are tempted to
>>use the word "fanatic") and bother to test large numbers of lenses
>>to own the best. In the process, I have learned how to take sharp
>>photos, which often does not require the use of a tripod.
>the comment i'd make is with respect to the superlatives.
>if you'd contend that sharp photos >often< do not require the
>use of a tripod, i'd have to disagree, since i seldom
>make images with only a super-wide lens or with a flash.
>i'd find that far more restrictive than carrying a tripod!
Hmmm..., since we often agree on things, it is odd to see the above
(maybe I am missing something?). The above may be true for you, but
my comment is true for me. Most of my commercial and personal
work is done without a tripod, and ALL of it gets checked with a 10X
magnifier. I have always delivered sharp images of what I have shot,
even under difficult conditions (practice, multiple frames, and
post-shoot selection of images does it). Even with longer-than-normal
focal-length lenses, I can produce full-DOF, razor-sharp hand-held
images. I used the example of the ease of hand-holding 16-20mm lenses
as something that I thought would be obviously true to virtually everyone, but I guess not! (Of course, if 25 ASA film is being used
at last light with an 85mm lens, I would be there with everyone else equiped with a tripod... [though I do have a nice {and sharp} image
of surf breaking on the Oregon coast shot hand-held with an 85mm lens
at 1/8th and f1.8 from a cliff with K64 in the pink light well after sundown....]).
>>(There are
>>even some circumstances when a tripod is inferior to hand-holding.)
>without a doubt! but i think you'd agree that these
>situations are the exceptions, not the rule.
No - a tripod just gets in my way until conditions get bad enough
to make its use essential (this may not be true for you, or most
others, but it is for me). As I pointed out before, I even do my
architectural photography hand-held (I can cover much more ground
for the client when the light is right, and can easily shoot from
locations that would be difficult if I used a tripod [like the
middle of a busy street, the side of a loose pile of dirt, over a
grating, off the edge of a stairway, over a car, etc.].).
>>A 20mm or 16mm lens can be held so reliably at 1/30th second, that
>>there will be no improvement in sharpness in most images taken at
>>the same aperture while using a tripod (assuming you have a fairly
>>steady hand).
>but what if the exposure was 30" instead of 1/30 (as it
>was for me recently, in fact using a lens at around 20mm)?
>some very interesting photographs an be had just before
>the sun comes up or just after it sets. i think shooting
>only in bright conditions very restrictive also...
Of course, but the point was that superwides, by being hand-holdable
at very slow speeds (combined with good DOF by f5.6), can allow one
to hand-hold in much lower light levels than one might think.
(We seem to agree on the other issues in your post, deleted.)
Hope This Helps