Alley in Pisa, Italy

by Lars Kotthoff

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Tag Info

New answers tagged

1

F/22 suggests to me that the photographer first took some pictures with nearby objects in the foreground and then forgot (or didn't bother) to increase the aperture for this particular shot. The ISO setting of 640 is then quite appropriate, you can go lower with a longer exposue time, but as the other answerers point out that can cause problems if the clouds ...


0

1) Be simple. (s)he forgot to switch to the lower ISO. ). For example, (s)he wanted to catch a bird before. 2) But I heard one story from an older photographer (?) about the long exposure (sensor reheating during the long exposure): sometimes it's better using short high ISO shot vs. long exposure shot to avoid noise. The best solution to make two shorts ...


1

A very narrow aperture such as f22, which allows for an almost infinite Depth of Field, lets in very little light. ISO 640 may have been required to ensure the shutter speed stayed at a reasonable level, if the photographer didn't want to risk camera shake from wind or cloud blur.


0

Perhaps the photographer believes that ISO 640 can be LESS noisy than ISO 100. I'm not necessarily supporting that viewpoint, just stating that there is one.


6

The photographer chose a slightly higher ISO to compensate for using f/22 aperture (small opening = less light). You may ask, so why not make the shutter speed longer? The shutter speed was set to 1/6th of a second, rather than say 10 seconds, so that the image is nice and sharp, it may have been windy and might have shaken the tripod even just a little bit. ...


0

One (remote) possibility, based on a different camera... My Fujifilm X-Pro1 has a "dynamic range" setting that lets me choose between 100%, 200%, and 400%. Higher settings are supposed to extract more shadow and highlight detail (almost like a simulated HDR) in the out of camera JPEgs. BUT the 200 and 400 settings are only available at higher than minimum ...


2

I can't buy the clouds moving being an issue here. However, I can think of one reason that would be invisible: There are mobile objects near the photographer that sometimes get in the frame. He shot quickly to avoid them. He might have shot several, this is just the one that actually worked. I do think it's more likely an oops, though.


1

Disclaimer: this answer is highly dependent on equipment, firmware, etc. and may actually be conjecture. Another possibility is that the digital camera is not optimized for the lowest ISO values. If you look at the internals of a camera some sensors do not support "50 ISO" and instead the camera firmware shoots at about 160 - 200 and pulls the exposure ...


0

It could have been very windy. =0)


0

The only technical reason I can see in this particular case is that there might be some traffic on that road that you don't want in your shot. Thus the faster shutter speed was required to catch it between vehicles. Not that I think this was actually the reason, since the timeframe for ISO 100 is still pretty short.


10

I can't think of any technical reason for this to be the case. Even assuming that he used the lens at 105mm, if he was more than 387 ft from the closest object in the frame, he could have focused at 750 feet and had everything in focus even at f/5.6, so f/22 was completely unnecessary unless intending to get the shutter speed longer. A faster shutter speed ...


25

The mountain and the valley obviously are static -- even more from that distance. The clouds, however, move. If you chose a low ISO value, e.g., in the range of 50 to 100, the exposure time might be enough to get washy/faded/blurred clouds. If I calculated it correctly, an ISO value of 100 with the other settings (exluding shutter speed) staying the same ...


0

I've used two things. One is Promaster SystemPRO clamper that comes in different sizes, can be used like a mini pod and clamps onto lots of things. And it can be used for strobes. Another a low cost and light weight solution consists of a 7/8" washer, nylons string measured to near your floor to eye height, and a small bolt with the same thread as the ...


0

Molding a chunk of clay onto the surface and then putting something flat like a small piece of wood on top to balance the camera on could work for a variety of surfaces. The clay would need to be relatively stiff though so that it does not deform under the weight of the camera.


23

The traditional cheap solution is a bag of beans.


1

I often got away with using the camera bag and/or the lens cap. And small objects (rocks) around can be moved as well. For shutter speeds up to a second, I also lean my camera against poles or walls, locking the hand grip against it. For time lapse you probably don't care so much for long exposures, you just want no motion in between successive exposures. ...


8

Other options for uneven surfaces which I like a lot are these ones: Ballpod THE pod RiceQ (their online shop is pretty bad, if you need international shipping I'd suggest to use amazon.de)


3

To a large extent, this depends on your camera (and lens), how uneven the surface is and what you mean by "too much money", but the obvious answer here is a Gorillapod or equivalent (other brands are available).


1

Legs, yes; head, no. Most tripods (when new, at least) will actually support more than their rated limit comfortably in "normal" position, where the legs are splayed out somewhere around 20 degrees, but not in the wide stance (if it has one). With compacts and travel tripods, where the tubes start getting pretty thin, you'll want to avoid overloading them ...


1

The other answers address your concerns, but let me expand upon an important aspect of point four, carrying the tripod over your shoulder with the camera attached. By carrying your camera like this, you are relying upon the head or quick release to be secure enough to hold the camera securely. With a quick release system you need to be confident in the ...


2

Overall it sounds like you are a bit overly concerned. The specifics of what a tripod is designed to handle depend a lot on the particular tripod, but in general, they are designed to hold weights up vertically and stable for extended periods of time. Your first case is exactly what a tripod is designed to do. As long as the weight of the item does not ...


8

1: this is what tripods are designed to do 2: you're worried about standing a tripod on its legs? 3: the legs will naturally loosen a little with use, so this isn't unexpected 4: is risky because, especially with a ball head, the camera can slip out of position and hit the tripod itself (the risk is to the camera more than the tripod). There is also a ...


0

You just need an "L" plate that can tilt the camera 90 degrees and allow it to attach to the quick release plate for your Hama tripod. The most popular maker is probably Really Right Stuff, which custom make them to fit various camera bodies.


2

I've got a Manfrotto 190-series tripod with the horizontal arm, and I can attest to the utility and convenience of this arm design; however, I've found that using this arm just to flip the camera by 90 degrees isn't a typical use case. Most tripod heads can do this on their own, simply by laying the camera over on its side, and if you've got an ...



Top 50 recent answers are included