# Funny Article - Tripods are pointless when shooting digital



## bdavis (Jan 15, 2009)

Found this just now, this guy apparently thinks tripods are pointless when shooting digital 

Digital Killed My Tripod


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jan 15, 2009)

lol...... RELEASE THE HOUNDS!


----------



## bdavis (Jan 15, 2009)

In the article he claims to walk around new york snapping tack-sharp night shots while hand holding the camera at 1/15 sec....sorry but no.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jan 15, 2009)

bdavis said:


> In the article he claims to walk around new york snapping tack-sharp night shots while hand holding the camera at 1/15 sec....sorry but no.



but you can at that focal range... especially since he admits to firing off a lot of exposures.... he might get a good one every four frames....


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 15, 2009)

Maybe he needs one of those new 'Digital Tripods'  :roll:


----------



## Overread (Jan 15, 2009)

is it me or has Ken's site got more adds on it now than it ever had in the past?

as for the guy and that article its well debated that its a load of rubbish. There are some good points in it, but its overall presentation and wording mean that you have to know the good points before you read it - making it generally poor reading for a newer photographer and rather pointless reading for those that know what they are on about.
The writer has made some good articles, but his style of writing and general content are written from a very "my way is the best and only way that matters" angle which means that his all sweeping comments and statments fall apart when other shooting methods, users, kit and conditions are taken into consideration


----------



## epp_b (Jan 15, 2009)

Oh, jeez, not again...

Some of his site can be read semi-seriously, but he's starting to sound more and more like a cranky old technophobe who thinks digitals are for talentless snapshooters and geeks.

Unless you have a BS meter tuned as finely as space shuttle instrumentation or are you a geek who actually thinks that good photos come from expensive cameras, keep away from this guy's site.  If you are a good photographer and artist, you already know better.  For the most part, he's so full of crap, it comes out of more places than just is rectum.

Alternatively, read this one instead, it's a lot more entertaining 



> In the article he claims to walk around new york snapping tack-sharp night shots while hand holding the camera at 1/15 sec....sorry but no.


OK, I'll defend him a little bit here: Keep in mind that "sharp" does not mean "no motion blur", it means "no camera shake".  This is certainly possible with normal to wide angles.  IS/VR will also help if you're shooting still subjects or if you want motion blur.

Here's a photo I took recently at 1/10th, ISO 800, f/3.8, effective 33mm, no IS/VR:





I braced myself by squatting down into a ball and holding my breath.

Here's where my defense ends: as for the claim that tripods are obsolete?  Bull cookies.  OK, Captain Ken, try getting these with no tripod:









I'd be really interested in what technique you use to hand-hold your camera perfectly still for three minutes, let alone three seconds.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jan 15, 2009)

epp_b said:


> Here's where my defense ends: as for the claim that tripods are obsolete?  Bull cookies.  OK, Captain Ken, try getting these with no tripod:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Your reading is selective... he advises to bring out the tripod for night shots...


----------



## bdavis (Jan 15, 2009)

dEARlEADER said:


> but you can at that focal range... especially since he admits to firing off a lot of exposures.... he might get a good one every four frames....



Agreed, it is possible to do that with a burst of shots, but I guess my thinking is that I would rather set up a tripod and know that my camera was steady rather than to get home to edit the photos and realize that I have a series of blurry shots. 

Granted, his article made some good points. Sure lenses are getting better and better and with the wide apertures and ISO noise reduction, you can crank out some decent shots. However, to say that they are completely obsolete is a load of crap. 

He actually said they degrade sharpness....which is one of the most controversial statements I have ever heard. He also says to take a shot on a tripod at f/22, and take a shot from your hand at f/8 and the second shot would be sharper...doesn't the sharpness fall off anyways at around f/16 or so? Not a fair test. I'd also like to see him hand hold a long telephoto lens when it's zoomed into the 200-400mm range, sorry but I dont think any amount of VR/IS will help you as much as a solid tripod would!


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jan 15, 2009)

bdavis said:


> Agreed, it is possible to do that with a burst of shots, but I guess my thinking is that I would rather set up a tripod and know that my camera was steady rather than to get home to edit the photos and realize that I have a series of blurry shots.



Yes.... but while you are dithering with your tripod he has taken a couple of hundred exposures from all sorts of different perspectives including some places where you can't set up your tripod... like a ledge... or a bench.. etc..



bdavis said:


> Granted, his article made some good points. Sure lenses are getting better and better and with the wide apertures and ISO noise reduction, you can crank out some decent shots. However, to say that they are completely obsolete is a load of crap.



Exactly... Ken will make a few noteworthy points and follow it up with a sweeping generalization.... His job is to get read.... Maybe it's working don't ya think?




bdavis said:


> I'd also like to see him hand hold a long telephoto lens when it's zoomed into the 200-400mm range, sorry but I dont think any amount of VR/IS will help you as much as a solid tripod would!



Ken Rockwell is a landscaper... they GENERALLY shoot wide.... most if not all of Ken's theories come from a landscaping perspective... that's what he does..


Look... I'm pretty much wasting my time on this because nothing is happening at work... I'll read Ken once every month or two like how someone reads the comics while on the crapper...

Ken Rockwells target audience are not the people that further educate themselves on forums like these...

Ken pontificates to the masses of amateur "Joe Photographers" who never get past the butt sniffing stage in photography...

trust me.... there are a lot more D40's out there in Auto than AP or manual....  these are the people that he services... and they love him...


----------



## Garbz (Jan 15, 2009)

I read about 3 sentences randomly from the article. One said ISO1600, one kinda made sense, then at the bottom he suggested trying to see if a tripod at f/22 is sharper than non tripod at f/8. Sorry what the hell does diffraction related sharpness issues which you will get at f/22 have to do with a tripod? I wish this was china so we could censor some of his bull****.


----------



## bdavis (Jan 15, 2009)

dEARlEADER said:


> Yes.... but while you are dithering with your tripod he has taken a couple of hundred exposures from all sorts of different perspectives including some places where you can't set up your tripod... like a ledge... or a bench.. etc..



True, but there are also places that dont have ledges or benches in which case a tripod would come in handy.




dEARlEADER said:


> Ken Rockwell is a landscaper... they GENERALLY shoot wide.... most if not all of Ken's theories come from a landscaping perspective... that's what he does..



I realize this, but he said there was really no use for a tripod, not that there was no use for one in landscape photography. There probably isnt a need for one in landscape photography, but if you were shooting sports with a long zoom, you might need one.




dEARlEADER said:


> Look... I'm pretty much wasting my time on this because nothing is happening at work... I'll read Ken once every month or two like how someone reads the comics while on the crapper...
> 
> Ken Rockwells target audience are not the people that further educate themselves on forums like these...
> 
> ...



Sadly you're right....

I'm not trying to argue, just debate a controversial topic and make a few good points. I normally wouldn't do this, but I'm bored at work as well, so what can ya do?


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jan 15, 2009)

Garbz said:


> . Sorry what the hell does diffraction related sharpness issues which you will get at f/22 have to do with a tripod? I wish this was china so we could censor some of his bull****.



Because his fan base are sending him tripod stabilized images at F22 that aren't sharp and asking him why?

Joe photographer thinks that smaller apertures create sharper images.  Joe photographer thinks smaller apertures require longer shutter speeds which necessitate the use of a tripod....


----------



## Overread (Jan 15, 2009)

?? so because Joe is not after an indepth answer he should be given incorrect answers?
I can understand encouraging those with a lesser interest into areas or using methods that are better suited to their shooting style, but not when you do so by giving over incorrect information. That just hampers any hopes later on when Joe might want to learn more.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jan 15, 2009)

Overread said:


> ?? so because Joe is not after an indepth answer he should be given incorrect answers?
> I can understand encouraging those with a lesser interest into areas or using methods that are better suited to their shooting style, but not when you do so by giving over incorrect information. That just hampers any hopes later on when Joe might want to learn more.




Don't tell me this..... tell Joe this....  I'm just an observer....

but FWIW... I hardly think it's misinformation to express that todays technology permits much more accessibility pertaining to hand held shooting..

Joe is mostly like armed with an image stabilized 18-55 and a DLSR that will give him decent shots at ISO800...... he is most likely taking pictures at his daughters 3rd birthday party using gawd awful pop up flash.... AND GUESS WHAT?....... HE DOESN'T NEED A TRIPOD!!!!!!!!


----------



## Overread (Jan 15, 2009)

true he does not - but its not the same as telling Joe that using one will damage his images - nor is it helpfull that the example given (f22 vs handheld f8) is horribly bias in the results it will give. Granted there is more to the article than that, but that is the part that Joe will read - test and consider himself proven to not need the tripod.

Sometimes I think this is not working with new technology nor attempting to focus peoples interests and methods towards areas where they benefit - but more about beating the pro at his own game. There seems to be some sort of stigma or view that a pro is in some way being elite by using not only the best camera and lens, but also things as exotic as a tripod - just look at how many people think that anyone with a tripod is instantly a pro and yet anyone can pick one up for a handfull of £/$s in Tesco/Walmart. 
By saying that you don't need a tripod in the way that the article does it seems to me as if its trying to convince Joe that he can beat the pro and (somehow) be above the (mythological) elite group that the pro is in.
Installing confidence is one thing - but out and out lies is another


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jan 15, 2009)

Overread said:


> - but out and out lies is another



but what is he lying about? it's all contextual.... relax all you Ken Rockwell haters and enjoy a little reading that I stole -




Ken Rockwell is the Chuck Norris of photography  
Ken Rockwell's camera has similar settings to ours, except his are: P[erfect] Av[Awesome Priority Tv[Totally Awesome Priority] M[ajestic]  
Ken Rockwell doesn't color correct. He adjusts your world to match his.  
Sure, Ken Rockwell deletes a bad photo or two. Other people call these Pulitzers.  
Ken Rockwell doesn't adjust his DOF, he changes space-time.  
Circle of confusion? You might be confused. Ken Rockwell never is.  
Ken Rockwell doesn't wait for the light when he shoots a landscape - the  light waits for him.  
Ken Rockwell never flips his camera in portrait position, he flips the earth  
Ken Rockwell ordered an L-lens from Nikon, and got one.  
Ken Rockwell is the only person to have photographed Jesus; unfortunately he ran out of film and had to use a piece of cloth instead.  
When Ken Rockwell brackets a shot, the three versions of the photo  win first place in three different categories  
Before Nikon or Canon releases a camera they go to Ken and they ask him to test them, the best cameras get a Nikon sticker and the less good get a Canon sticker  
 Once Ken tested a camera, he said I cant even put Canon on this one,thats how Pentax was born  
 Rockwellian policy isn't doublethink - Ken doesn't even need to think once  
 Ken Rockwell doesn't use flash ever since the Nagasaki incident.  
 Only Ken Rockwell can take pictures of Ken Rockwell; everyone else would just get their film overexposed by the light of his genius  
Ken Rockwell wanted something to distract the lesser photographers, and lo, there were ducks.  
 Ken Rockwell is the only one who can take self-portraits of you  
Ken Rockwell's nudes were fully clothed at the time of exposure  
Ken Rockwell once designed a zoom lens. You know it as the Hubble SpaceTelescope.  
When Ken unpacks his CF card, it already has masterpieces on it.  
Rockwell portraits are so lifelike, they have to pay taxes  
On Ken Rockwell's desktop, the Trash Icon is really  a link to National Geographic Magazine  
 Ken Rockwell spells point-and-shoot "h-a-s-s-e-l-b-l-a-d"  
When Ken Rockwell went digital, National Geographic nearly went out of business because he was no longer phyically discarding photos  
For every 10 shots that Ken Rockwell takes, 11 are keepers.  
Ken Rockwell's digital files consist of 0's, 1's AND 2's.  
Ken Rockwell never focus, everything moves into his DoF  
 Ken Rockwell's shots are so perfect, Adobe redesigned photoshop for him: all it consists of is a close button.  
 The term tripod was coined after his silhouette  
 Ken Rockwell never produces awful work, only work too advanced  for the viewer  
 A certain braind of hig-end cameras was named after people noticed the  quality was a lot "like a" rockwell  
 Ken Rockwell isn't the Chuck Norris of  photography; Chuck Norris is the Ken Rockwell of martial arts.  
 Ken Rockwell never starts, he continues


----------



## bdavis (Jan 15, 2009)

LMAO....brightened up my day....

Got any for why he doesn't use tripods?


----------



## tirediron (Jan 15, 2009)

bdavis said:


> *LMAO....*brightened up my day....
> 
> Got any for why he doesn't use tripods?


 

+1 :thumbup:  Yep, that's freakin' hilarious.  Well done.


----------



## epp_b (Jan 15, 2009)

_Ken Rockwell doesn't need a tripod.  He's so manly, his three feet are his tripod._

...maybe that was a little over the top


----------



## bdavis (Jan 15, 2009)

epp_b said:


> _Ken Rockwell doesn't need a tripod.  He's so manly, his three feet are his tripod._
> 
> ...maybe that was a little over the top




Brilliant....lol

Did you know that Ken never uses a flash? He just radiates extra awesomeness to light his subjects.


----------



## xposurepro (Jan 15, 2009)

that was the stupidest thing I have read in a while .. he should post some 100% crops of these spectacular images so we can see how professional they really are.


----------



## Phranquey (Jan 15, 2009)

Until he debuts his "Biceps of Steel", I will stick with my tripod.

I know....I will bow to the mighty Ken "Norris" Rockwell, for he would most certainly be able to effortlessly shoot with this at 1/10, f16 @ ISO 100.....


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 15, 2009)

KR says he doesn't use digital for anything serious.  What's a little camera shake to a snapshot?


----------



## epp_b (Jan 15, 2009)

> Did you know that Ken never uses a flash? He just radiates extra awesomeness to light his subjects.


I literally lol'd at that!


----------



## xposurepro (Jan 15, 2009)

Phranquey said:


> Until he debuts his "Biceps of Steel", I will stick with my tripod.
> I know....I will bow to the mighty Ken "Norris" Rockwell, for he would most certainly be able to effortlessly shoot with this at 1/10, f16 @ ISO 100....



that's nothing I could shoot with that thing one handed ... of course I would bust into tears when gravity ripped it out of my hand and it hit the floor. :mrgreen:


----------



## Garbz (Jan 16, 2009)

bdavis said:


> I realize this, but he said there was really no use for a tripod, not that there was no use for one in landscape photography. There probably isnt a need for one in landscape photography, but if you were shooting sports with a long zoom, you might need one.



I think KR often means well but ends up blurting out crap in the process. Again back to my example. Even if his fanbase is sending him f/22 photos and asking why they aren't sharp, then address the issue, don't fancy up some bull**** about if you don't use a tripod and force yourself to use an aperture that may not be the artistic direction you wanted to go in the first place.

If his target audience is Joe photographer then there is a problem. He is the first google hit, and Joe the photographer is not the only one reading his site. Now other people who genuinely want to improve their photography end up reading something that is utter rubbish. Want the perfect example? You dEARlEADER, you. I have seen you around this forum long enough to know that you are far above and beyond Joe the photographer along with many of the people on this site, yet a lot of people still take his word as gospel.


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Jan 16, 2009)

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]





> (in regards t the really old cameras) You needed a tripod not just to hold the camera steady; you needed it to hold the camera while  the photo exposed!


 What? What does this mean?



> [/FONT]
> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*[SIZE=+2]Still Think  Tripods Make Sharper Images? [/SIZE]*[/FONT]
> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Try it yourself.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Make a shot from your 'pod at f/22. Then pick up your tool in your own bare hands and make some shots at f/8 or wider. Look for yourself. It's obvious.


This is where I couldn't continue reading.  I understand Ken Rockwell is very biased and crazy. Alright. But I thought he at least understood the very basic fundamentals of photography.  
[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Almost all lenses are sharpest around f5.6 to f11 and all lenses lose resolution by the time they get to f22.  What the hell? Is Mr Rockwell an idiot then? I don't get it. Despite all the controversy, I thought he was at least a smart man.
[/FONT]


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 16, 2009)

Garbz said:


> He is the first google hit...



That's his goal, not educating newbies.  He spouts something that gets people riled up, and sits back and watches the hit counter turn over.

Then again, KR's bull**** is no deeper than much of what I hear/read at many photography websites.  The problem is we all think it works the same way for others as it does for us, and it doesn't.

"Photography appears to be an easy activity; in fact it is a varied and ambiguous process in which the only common denominator among its practitioners is in the instrument." -Henri Cartier-Bresson


----------



## bdavis (Jan 16, 2009)

Phranquey said:


> Until he debuts his "Biceps of Steel", I will stick with my tripod.
> 
> I know....I will bow to the mighty Ken "Norris" Rockwell, for he would most certainly be able to effortlessly shoot with this at 1/10, f16 @ ISO 100.....




Wow thats a big mother...what is it?  Hand hold that Mr. Rockwell.....


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jan 16, 2009)

Garbz said:


> Want the perfect example? You dEARlEADER, you. I have seen you around this forum long enough to know that you are far above and beyond Joe the photographer along with many of the people on this site, yet a lot of people still take his word as gospel.



ME?... Easy now.... I have very sensitive feelings......

What do I have to do with this? I don't endorse Ken Rockwell.... but I also don't get my nickers in a twist when somebody mentions his name...

I waded into this post because the OP thought it wasn't possible to take 1/15 handhelds @ 12mm.....  well it is possible...

About KenRockwell.com

Ken Rockwell is just one photographer with an opinion just like anbody else.  Opinions can be right or wrong, or right and wrong.  The only person I've ever seen who has a perfect opinion all the time is me.  You think it's easy being me?

Don't gimme some cry baby story about students looking to further themselves somehow get ripped off by reading his site.  If you are looking to further your study and are only using Ken Rockwell as your source of education then you really ain't looking to further your study.  If you read Ken Rockwells Tripod article and binned your tripod than you may be a Joe.

I find it humorous that people are posting their 500mm lens pic's in an effort discredit him.  Then again, some people like to whip out their Johnsons at any opportunity just to make themselves feel better.  I think it's obvious his opinion wasn't directed at serious photographers.  

I promised myself I would leave this thread when Village Idiot posts his standard "Ken Rockwell is a joke" rebuttal ... but he is somehow late for the party... so... until then... who wants to mindlessly argue some more?


----------



## optic79 (Jan 22, 2009)

Funny article. I doubt he has shot much with Image stabilization since it definitely does not "eliminate" blur. Sure, it is possible to hand hold a camera at a higher shutter speed for a night shot when the ISO is cranked up to 1,400+!!!, like some of his images were. However, the pixels will be the size of dimes though.


----------



## Garbz (Jan 23, 2009)

dEARlEADER said:


> ME?... Easy now.... I have very sensitive feelings......
> 
> What do I have to do with this? I don't endorse Ken Rockwell.... but I also don't get my nickers in a twist when somebody mentions his name...
> 
> ...




 I love you man :hugs:


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Mar 17, 2009)

optic79 said:


> Funny article. I doubt he has shot much with Image stabilization since it definitely does not "eliminate" blur. Sure, it is possible to hand hold a camera at a higher shutter speed for a night shot when the ISO is cranked up to 1,400+!!!, like some of his images were. However, the pixels will be the size of dimes though.


Actually he said "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.) IS and VR lenses eliminate blur caused by  camera motion."

Also those pictures are smaller, the high res versions could be slightly blurry, and is reduced when you shrink the image...

There is also a lot less movement on wide angles of lenses, and they weigh less, even less movement... He is talking about his type of photography, what he says IS working for him, its does not mean it works for everything... They are just tips that if used correctly, can work. 
[/FONT]


----------



## skiwez (Mar 24, 2009)

These discussions are great.  Seems as though every profession/hobby has their Ken Rockwell's.  I'm fairly new to photo message boards, but am also involved in scuba diving and a few other hobbies that have become less of a focus but the one thing that all of them have in common is that there is always a small group or individual person that has mastered the art of BS.  They are usually very skilled in their craft but dispense equal amounts of good info and garbage.  What sets them apart from the crowd though is the ability to create controversy that leads back to an abundance of self promotion.  Whether you think he's a boob or the annointed one of photography Ken Rockwell's sole ambition is to get you talking about him and at that he has succeeded in spades.  Love him or hate him he has figured out a way to make money and some notoriety on nothing more than the words that he prints.


----------

