Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Maybe *I* need stabilization

Reply
Thread Tools

Maybe *I* need stabilization

 
 
Mike
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
> I'm the same. I don't have image stabilization though so if I am
> tripodless and feel shaky I find something to lean on or prop myself
> against. I know this isn't always possible but the instruction to hold
> your breath just makes me shake more!
>

No - you don't hold it for _that_ long!
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Paul Heslop
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2005
Mike wrote:
>
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
> > I'm the same. I don't have image stabilization though so if I am
> > tripodless and feel shaky I find something to lean on or prop myself
> > against. I know this isn't always possible but the instruction to hold
> > your breath just makes me shake more!
> >

> No - you don't hold it for _that_ long!


It doesn't take me that long to get out of breath! :O)
--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2005
Thanks to all who replied (too many to reply to individually). I'll
practice indoors for now, and try agin in a few days when the current
heat wave is over... and I can walk 20 minutes through the park without
risking heat stroke.

--
Walter Dnes; my email address is *ALMOST* like (E-Mail Removed)
Delete the "z" to get my real address. If that gets blocked, follow
the instructions at the end of the 550 message.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Martin Brown
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2005
Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address) wrote:

> I took my new Panasonic FZ5 out to the park Sunday morning. With a
> couple of exceptions, every shot was a disaster. Basically, I seem to
> get nervous when taking photos, and can't hold the camera still. I
> don't have cerebral palsy or whatever, just a bit nervous. I tried...
>
> - turning on image-stabilization
> - selected "Aperture" mode; set to F2.8 (kiss depth of focus good-bye)
> - and dropped the shutter to -2/3.
>
> I know that ISO 80 and a polarizing filter aren't exactly the fastest
> combo, but it was very bright out there. Ironically, the two best shots
> I took were slightly underexposed shots of a footbridge in the shade,
> where the shutter was probably slower than on any of my other shots.
> But the good shots benefited from me resting the camera on a convenient
> post.


You don't say what the effective shutter speeds are, but on a
conventional 35mm camera you are doing something wrong if you can't get
a fully sharp image handheld at exposures shorter than
1/<focal_length_in_mm>.

Examine the specular highlights in the bad shots to see what you are
doing wrong - they will show you how the camera moved most clearly.

> I know that the camera can take good photos. Is there a technique for
> relaxing when snapping photos? I don't want to lug my tripod along
> wherever I take my camera.


Hold still and squeeze the shutter release gently. Don't expect to hold
the camera at arms length and get anything like the same control.

Regards,
Martin Brown
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2005
Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address) wrote:
> I took my new Panasonic FZ5 out to the park Sunday morning. With a
> couple of exceptions, every shot was a disaster. Basically, I seem to
> get nervous when taking photos, and can't hold the camera still. I
> don't have cerebral palsy or whatever, just a bit nervous. I tried...
>
> - turning on image-stabilization
> - selected "Aperture" mode; set to F2.8 (kiss depth of focus good-bye)
> - and dropped the shutter to -2/3.
>
> I know that ISO 80 and a polarizing filter aren't exactly the fastest
> combo, but it was very bright out there. Ironically, the two best shots
> I took were slightly underexposed shots of a footbridge in the shade,
> where the shutter was probably slower than on any of my other shots.
> But the good shots benefited from me resting the camera on a convenient
> post.
>
> I know that the camera can take good photos. Is there a technique for
> relaxing when snapping photos? I don't want to lug my tripod along
> wherever I take my camera.
>


Some people are just naturally 'twitchy', while others resemble the Rock
of Gibraltar (in steadiness, not size). As we age, we seem to go more
toward the 'twitchy' side. When I was young, I could hand-hold 3 second
exposures with no problem. Now, I have trouble with anything longer
than 1/30 sec. Learning the proper way to hold the camera, and use the
shutter may help, as may bracing the camera (or yourself) against
something, holding the camera firmly against your head (no arms length
LCD framing), and holding the camera so that pressure on the shutter
button is offset by pressure against the bottom of the camera. Straps,
chains, and monopods are also of some help, and much easier to deal with
than a tripod.


--
Ron Hunter (E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Eddy Vortex
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2005
Try to hold your camera firmly but softly. Tense muscles transmit
vibration..relaxed muscles absorbe vibration. Do some 'net research on
pistol shooting; those guys have got it down to a science. As for myself, I
like to draw in perhaps half a breath, hold it and shoot.
"Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:42d25352$1$2440$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I took my new Panasonic FZ5 out to the park Sunday morning. With a
> couple of exceptions, every shot was a disaster. Basically, I seem to
> get nervous when taking photos, and can't hold the camera still. I
> don't have cerebral palsy or whatever, just a bit nervous. I tried...
>
> - turning on image-stabilization
> - selected "Aperture" mode; set to F2.8 (kiss depth of focus good-bye)
> - and dropped the shutter to -2/3.
>
> I know that ISO 80 and a polarizing filter aren't exactly the fastest
> combo, but it was very bright out there. Ironically, the two best shots
> I took were slightly underexposed shots of a footbridge in the shade,
> where the shutter was probably slower than on any of my other shots.
> But the good shots benefited from me resting the camera on a convenient
> post.
>
> I know that the camera can take good photos. Is there a technique for
> relaxing when snapping photos? I don't want to lug my tripod along
> wherever I take my camera.
>
> --
> Walter Dnes; my email address is *ALMOST* like (E-Mail Removed)
> Delete the "z" to get my real address. If that gets blocked, follow
> the instructions at the end of the 550 message.



 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2005
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 03:40:13 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> When I was young, I could hand-hold 3 second exposures with no problem.
> Now, I have trouble with anything longer than 1/30 sec.


1/30 sec. is pretty good, even for a yoot. Amazing for a coot. I
find claims of good 3 sec. handheld exposures dubious, although it's
relative to your equipment and expectations. I imagine you weren't
using Leicas or even any of Kodak's very nice reflex cameras at the
time, nor would the 3-sec. pictures have been acceptable for
publication in magazines such as Boy's Life. But for little
snapshots (and back then many were smaller than 3 1/2"x5") a little
blur might not have been very noticeable or even of much concern.
You're in luck though. Due to the statute of limitations, 50 year
old EXIF data can't be used to refute your claims.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Frank ess
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2005
Eddy Vortex wrote:
> Try to hold your camera firmly but softly. Tense muscles transmit
> vibration..relaxed muscles absorbe vibration. Do some 'net research
> on
> pistol shooting; those guys have got it down to a science. As for
> myself, I like to draw in perhaps half a breath, hold it and shoot.
> "Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:42d25352$1$2440$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> I took my new Panasonic FZ5 out to the park Sunday morning. With
>> a
>> couple of exceptions, every shot was a disaster. Basically, I seem
>> to get nervous when taking photos, and can't hold the camera still.
>> I don't have cerebral palsy or whatever, just a bit nervous. I
>> tried...
>>
>> - turning on image-stabilization
>> - selected "Aperture" mode; set to F2.8 (kiss depth of focus
>> good-bye)
>> - and dropped the shutter to -2/3.
>>
>> I know that ISO 80 and a polarizing filter aren't exactly the
>> fastest combo, but it was very bright out there. Ironically, the
>> two best shots I took were slightly underexposed shots of a
>> footbridge in the shade, where the shutter was probably slower than
>> on any of my other shots. But the good shots benefited from me
>> resting the camera on a convenient post.
>>
>> I know that the camera can take good photos. Is there a
>> technique
>> for relaxing when snapping photos? I don't want to lug my tripod
>> along wherever I take my camera.
>>
>> --
>> Walter Dnes; my email address is *ALMOST* like
>> (E-Mail Removed)
>> Delete the "z" to get my real address. If that gets blocked,
>> follow
>> the instructions at the end of the 550 message.


Long ago I attended a seminar intended to "raise the consciousness" of
participants. One of the areas raised most poignantly was that of
Mind-over-body. We saw a credible film in which a hypnotized person
responded to a touch by a pencil eraser by raising a blister, having
been told the pencil was a hot poker.

Another less destructive and painful demonstration involved balance
and resistance to tipping. This one was remarkable because we were
there, did it and felt its effects. Everyone was on his/her knees,
posture as if standing, but shorter, arms relaxed at sides. The
facilitator came by and said we should resist his attempts to tip us
sideways by pulling down on one hand or another. We were easily
overbalanced, and staggered, so to speak, to keep from falling. Even
forewarned, no amount of effort or strength could maintain erectness.

Then we were instructed to half-close our eyes and imagine we were
mighty oak trees, rooted deep toward the center of the Earth, solid
and heavy. Under those conditions even a full-weight downward pull on
a hand simply hanging at the end of a relaxed arm could not disturb
our equilibrium.

Our bodies knew how to translate the vectors, once they knew what we
wanted, and they learned what we wanted by our focusing and
de-focusing in terms they could understand.

Any road, I get pretty good slow-shutter results when I remember to be
a centuries-old oak rather than just a big-fraction-of-a-century-old
lump of flesh with declining frequency in the hearing and other
important areas, and increasing frequency in natural grip resonance.

--
Frank ess

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2005
ASAAR wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 03:40:13 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>When I was young, I could hand-hold 3 second exposures with no problem.
>> Now, I have trouble with anything longer than 1/30 sec.

>
>
> 1/30 sec. is pretty good, even for a yoot. Amazing for a coot. I
> find claims of good 3 sec. handheld exposures dubious, although it's
> relative to your equipment and expectations. I imagine you weren't
> using Leicas or even any of Kodak's very nice reflex cameras at the
> time, nor would the 3-sec. pictures have been acceptable for
> publication in magazines such as Boy's Life. But for little
> snapshots (and back then many were smaller than 3 1/2"x5") a little
> blur might not have been very noticeable or even of much concern.
> You're in luck though. Due to the statute of limitations, 50 year
> old EXIF data can't be used to refute your claims.
>


The shots were done inside a church with a Minox B, and ASA25 film.
Given the enlargement needed to print at 3.5x5, any blur would have been
quite noticeable. Sure wish I could be that solid now....


--
Ron Hunter (E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan Meyer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2005
Here's a few more techniques no one has mentioned:

1. Turn the camera upside down and brace it against your forehead.

Yeah, it looks funny, but it helps. Of course you have to
use the viewfinder, not the LCD on the back.

2. Use a camera strap to brace yourself.

The best way is get or make a big strap and put it around
your body, under your arms. When you hold the camera, put
some tension on the strap so, in effect, you're supported
at four points - two hands plus two strap connection points.

Marksmen do this with rifle slings to steady their aim.

Bird watchers use special straps on their binoculars to do
this too.

You can, of course, combine this with using your forehead for
a five point stabilization.

3. Practice moving your finger without moving your hand.

This is a learnable technique. Marksmen learn to do this.
Watch your hand as you move your finger and study the best
way to move it without moving anything else on the hand.
Then practice with the camera.

And of course you can combine your minimal finger movement
with all other techniques.


Fortunately, pictures cost nothing with digital cameras
so you can practice as much as you like without spending
any money.

Good luck.

Alan

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Maybe it will; maybe it won't iL_weReo Computer Support 7 10-13-2009 08:42 AM
Lens stabilization vs Camera stabilization Al Clark Digital Photography 119 12-09-2006 01:30 PM
Of Intrest ? Maybe Yes, Maybe No Old Gringo Computer Support 0 10-11-2004 01:35 AM
Maybe, just maybe @decorator syntax is ok after all Ville Vainio Python 11 08-10-2004 06:01 PM
Some concepts (Maybe LOL maybe not...) C++ 5 08-18-2003 05:48 PM



Advertisments