Re: [Leica] Sharpness and handholding (was leica report 70-180)

[Greg Locke <locke@straylight.ca>]

>    Logic says there will be some camera shake even at 1/1000 second.
Perhaps though, the camera shake is so slight that it is not recordable on
the film.  Or, if it is, it will only be visible with very large enlargements.
>    
>    Theoretically I suppose you should try and use the fastest possible
shutter speed in every situation (subject to depth of field requirements, of
course).  But the law of diminishing returns must apply.  Somewhere along
the line the increased shutter speed simply mustn't matter much or at all.

        ...and what do you do when you need depth of field?

I think we have been down this discussion road before. Theory is great but
APPLIED is when your chickens come home to roost.
Here is a real world working example of a couple of weeks ago.

Assignment:  Oil rig in the North Atlantic

        Client (the rig owner) needs various aerial photos of his rig and
one of these photos is from directly ABOVE the rig looking straight down...
sort of like aerial mapping. This requires shooting from a Super Puma
helicopter hovering directly over the rig.

 He needs 30 X 40 inch prints for the emergency response room and safety
training.

        The top of an oil rig is approx 300 feet (100 metres) above the
water line and we need maximum depth of field. 

The film of choice is Fujichrome Velvia for maximum sharpness and
saturation, 35mm cameras for flexibility and Leica lenses for (again)
maximum sharpness.

So, right off the bat you know that even on a sunny day the best you can do,
exposure wise, is about 60th at f16.  Anyone who has ever shot from a
helicopter knows that "camera" vibration is the least of your problems.

To compensate for aircraft vibration you need much higher speeds.
I ended up shooting at about 500th and f5.6. I had to sacrifice some depth
of field to over come the vibration... lesser of to evils.

..... YES! both the slides AND the 30 X 40 prints were SHARP! There is no
discernable motion or "fuzziness" in the prints.  For all practical and
APPLIED purposes this "hand held" argument is bogus. (same as the filter vs
no filter argument).  Let's face it, how many people out there make prints
of this size?

        As a professional photojournalist, 99% of my work is handheld and
most of that with the slower shutter speeds and wide open apertures.

THAT said, being able to shoot consistently in the 15th and f2 range
requires A LOT of practice. I, and other working professional
photojournalists, shoot dozens of rolls a day and in diverse lighting
conditions that we have NO CONTROL over.... so you learn how to "deal with it". 

Just shoot your pictures however you want but what's the point of taking a
picture for "technical" reasons. We make pictures to please ourselves and
others that is the only consideration.  What's the point of making a
PERFECTLY SHAPE picture if the exposure is wrong or you didn't get the depth
of field you wanted.  Remember, film is designed to deliver optimum results
at a specific exposure. Reciprocity failure occurs when you get too far away
from that optimum exposure.

Every picture is different and requires different technical parameters.
Choose the parameters (shutter speed, f-stop, film, lens, lighting) you need
to achieve the desired effect.

My work is at  http://www.straylight.ca/locke

regards,

 

Greg Locke <locke@straylight.ca>                               
St. John's, Newfoundland. 
http://www.straylight.ca/locke
- ----------------------------------
TOUCHED BY FIRE: doctors without borders in a third world crisis.
McClelland & Stewart Canada.  ISBN#0-7710-5305-3 
http://www.straylight.ca/touchedbyfire.htm