The Tripod

James Lomax
Aug 23, 2017 · 4 min read

There’s a topic I’ve referred to a few times at Twitter I’ll expand on here. It’s not contentious, it’s based on technical facts and observations. I’ll start by explaining my background. I initially learnt photography many years ago with black and white film and darkroom processing. I used Ilford FP4 and basic cameras including a Zenit, Praktica, and the school’s Yashica. I saved enough money to buy an Olympus OM10 which at £100 was a large sum for a modest camera.

Even with better cameras you were restricted by the performance characteristic of film. You could buy faster film, better for lower light, but with reduced quality overall so it wasn’t a good idea unless you were shooting in low light. With film you were stuck with one light sensitivity whatever you were doing until you changed the film. I bought a Pentax P30 a few years later and continued with colour photography and if your film was above 200 ASA — the ISO equivalent — you noticed immediate noise. That is, image degradation.

I was a keen reader of the Amateur Photographer magazine. I read it every week in the library and remember some of the ideas I encountered, and the books on the shelves I borrowed. Kertesz, Cartier-Bresson, and make the first accessory you buy a tripod. Cartier-Bresson was described as stalking Paris in a battered leather jacket, his Leica hidden in a pocket he would whip out when he saw a decisive moment. Covered it in black tape apparently, so I did the same with my Olympus, but then carefully peeled it back because I didn’t want to damage my lovely camera.

I weighed in my mind if I liked the use of filters or not, which were new and fashionable. The starburst for example, which I decided against because it felt (and was) artificial. I didn’t have the money for more lenses but decided, in my mind, a selection of 28 or 35 millimetre, 85 and 135 was an ideal kit. But the 50 millimetre was all I could afford. Zoom lenses were at that time always inferior. It’s still true as a general principle but not always so with specific comparisons with prime lenses today when technology has advanced. It depends. Canon L lenses for example, which I use along with Sony Zeiss, are very good. They beat prime lenses in a lower price range. Zeiss and Leica have traditionally been the best lenses and this is still true. Sony G Masters seem their equal although I say this casually not from reading technical reviews.

You needed a tripod because you were crippled by the limits of film. If you wanted a slow exposure, or were shooting in low light, you had no choice. Even in good light, a tripod improved general photography allowing for smaller apertures and greater depth of field, which you generally want for mountain and landscape photography.

Consider the difference between the scenario above, thirty years ago, and digital cameras today. The Sony A7R range have astonishing high ISO performance, similar with Canon and Nikon SLRs. In absolute terms using a tripod is better. In practical terms it’s irrelevant if you can’t see any difference between, for example, ISO 100 and 500. For much of the time the debate is academic with no practical value. If you are walking for outdoors photography, using an unnecessary tripod is a tremendous burden. You have to carry it, and you are stuck with a fixed viewpoint in a light and shadow changing scene. Here’s an example. The light here was changing very quickly and I was moving around tracking it, anticipating it, framing and composing on the move.

I’ve noticed photography tutors who rely on parking a camera on a tripod and talking to a student as part of their pedagogy. I have three university degrees and a PGCE. Part of the training of a PGCE is teaching analysis. Not to be academic but to understand what works, what doesn’t, and how to refine your practice. You might need visual aids, internet access, or studio lighting. You might want to include books in your teaching. I’ve done that before, getting some from the library showing the work of Ansel Adams, Cartier-Bresson, and Martin Parr. You need a good location outdoors, although that’s not an end in itself. The point is, you walk and identify a good scene in changing conditions.

For many years the Amateur Photographer gravitated towards the film era with reviews, for example, of antique Olympus OM1 or Leica M4 cameras which few people used. Meanwhile, the world was racing away in the slipstream of digital technology. The AP, as we fondly called it, was stuck in the past with an older generation readership. They reduced from weekly to bi-weekly publication and other magazines ran slicker, glossier, and digital features.

There will always be reasons for using a tripod. If you want, for example, a 20 or 30 second exposure to create water and cloudy sky blur. That is however a very specific practice which is not applicable the rest of the time. You also need to equate quality needs with personal use. If you post on social media and make occasional small prints or photo books for family, your needs are very modest. There are reasons for not using a tripod: ergonomic, practical, financial, and aesthetic.

https://twitter.com/walkfoto/status/900090619430883328

)
Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade