Photographs Mrs. Barbarian is a photographer, too.

[Barbarian]

 

[Barbarian]

 

[Barbarian]

 

[Barbarian]

 

[farouk]

Yes, you are right, she is! and a good one, too.

 

[Asyncritus]

Did she forget to turn off the image stabiliser (if it's a digital camera) when using the tripod?

I only learned that a few days ago (so I'm showing off a bit here) but if the camera does have one - image stabiliser, I mean - when it's on a tripod it's so still that the stabilisation mechanism picks up its own usually unnoticeable vibrations and results in a tiny amount of shake, which makes the image less tack sharp than it might otherwise be.

Hope I'm not teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, as they say in England.

What make of camera is it, if I may ask?

Amazing what evolution can do in producing cameras though, isn't it?

Just think, Leica, Nikon, Canon, Hasselblad and all that lot from a slab of primordial slime ten zillion years ago!

Amazing, I say.

 

[farouk]

Sounds like an expert is talking now...

 

[Barbarian]

The blur is selective focus, done by opening the aperture and reducing effective sharpness to a few elements in the photo. In her case, she used an Olympus E-410, and set it so that the auto feature would go for a faster shutter and a larger aperture. The Gerber Daisies, for example appear that much sharper, because selective focus threw the background out of focus.

These are hand-held, and yes, there is a digital image stabilization mode in the E-410, unlike the mechanical one used in my K20. But it seems to do pretty well. Nikon had a bit of trouble with that, and opted to put image stabilization in selected lenses, meaning legacy lenses have no stabilization at all. On the other hand, I can use a 40-year old Pentax lens on my K20 and image stabilization works fine.

Which is a big deal to me, because much of the old glass was better, and most of it was a lot faster than today's lenses. A 1.8 85mm Takumar gives me an amazing 1.8 128mm equivalent, which is perfect for a lot of indoor sporting events. If I need even more speed, Mrs. Barbarian's E-410 can mount, via adapter, a 55mm f1.2 Nikkor, which is the equivalent of a 110mm f1.2.

And all image stabilized, which means slower shutter speeds work, allowing more control over depth of field.

 

[Asyncritus]

I wasn't trying to be critical, barbarian.

Merely pointing out for general benefit that a tripod's stillness has a drawback, which is often unrecognised.

Common sense tells you that a tripod is utterly still. But in those cases where there is an image stabiliser, that stillness is ever so slightly deceptive because the mechanism detects its own vibrations, be they ever so tiny.

And that dulls the tack-sharpness that the lens could otherwise produce.

 

[Barbarian]

I wasn't trying to be critical, barbarian.

Didn't think you were.

Merely pointing out for general benefit that a tripod's stillness has a drawback, which is often unrecognised.

Common sense tells you that a tripod is utterly still.

The rule is, a tripod should be stiff, light, and inexpensive. You get to pick 2. Hers is a Manfrotto Vista, which is stiff and light. Most of the stuff you see in department stores or big boxes, is neither stiff nor light. But image stabilization, fast lenses, short shutter speeds, and decent technique can often make a tripod unnecesary. The fact that her camera is the lightest DSLR in existence makes a heavier prop unnecessary.

I use tripods mostly for night shooting, or in the rare case where a "real" HDR is necessary.

But in those cases where there is an image stabiliser, that stillness is ever so slightly deceptive because the mechanism detects its own vibrations, be they ever so tiny.

That's why we have mirror lock-up and remote shutter releases.

And that dulls the tack-sharpness that the lens could otherwise produce.

Yep. But you don't always need a tripod to get that.