Is a tripod needed? Please help!

[ypurcaro]

This photo was taken at around 6:00 PM when the sun was ready to go down. Now, I still think that this photo is not clear enough. Do I need more light natural light for this and do I really need a tripod in order to take clear and crisp photo? Your comment is appreciated.

Camera Canon EOS REBEL T1i
Exposure 0.013 sec (1/80)
Aperture f/5.6
Focal Length 55 mm
ISO Speed 200
Exposure Bias 0 EV

[LeeR]

Theoretically, you should be able to shoot at a 30th of a second without using a tripod and get a pretty good image, a 15th if you hold your breath, an 8th if you lean against a wall. However, if you blow your image up to 100% you will likely see the telltale signs of motion blur at all these speeds. This is truly one of those places where you see a big difference between pros and amateurs; pros will use a tripod just about anywhere they can. Yes, I know, they are bulky and heavy but this is where we separate the men from the boys. Real men carry tripods...real women, too.
Your own image is a case in point. You shot at 1/80 second, something you should be able to handhold. However, you are about three stops underexposed, which would put you down to a tenth of a second. You can't stand in the middle of the street and get this shot at 1/10th without some motion blur.

[mwanafunzi]

If you have steady hands you could reduce your shutter speed by two stops and increase you ISO to 400.

that might improve the exposure slightly

[Matthew Mulford]

A tripod would help, a higher iso if that is not an option, but not too high. When i when to flickr and went to the full res image i saw quite a bit of shake making the image unclear. It is also under exposed a bit. I would definitely recommend getting a quality tripod. It will allow you to take much longer exposures that are very sharp

[ypurcaro]

Originally Posted by LeeR

Theoretically, you should be able to shoot at a 30th of a second without using a tripod and get a pretty good image, a 15th if you hold your breath, an 8th if you lean against a wall. However, if you blow your image up to 100% you will likely see the telltale signs of motion blur at all these speeds. This is truly one of those places where you see a big difference between pros and amateurs; pros will use a tripod just about anywhere they can. Yes, I know, they are bulky and heavy but this is where we separate the men from the boys. Real men carry tripods...real women, too.
Your own image is a case in point. You shot at 1/80 second, something you should be able to handhold. However, you are about three stops underexposed, which would put you down to a tenth of a second. You can't stand in the middle of the street and get this shot at 1/10th without some motion blur.

Again, thank you, LeeR. Since you said carry a tripod is a real woman, I want to be a real woman from now on. In fact, I don't mind to carry the bulky tripod if it is the only way to take clear and sharp photo. I thought we only need a tripod when taking macro photography.

[ypurcaro]

Originally Posted by Matthew Mulford

A tripod would help, a higher iso if that is not an option, but not too high. When i when to flickr and went to the full res image i saw quite a bit of shake making the image unclear. It is also under exposed a bit. I would definitely recommend getting a quality tripod. It will allow you to take much longer exposures that are very sharp

Is there a way to make sure if I have the right exposure in the camera before I take the photo? Thanks for your suggestion.

[ypurcaro]

Originally Posted by mwanafunzi

If you have steady hands you could reduce your shutter speed by two stops and increase you ISO to 400.

that might improve the exposure slightly

Ok, so we need to reduce the shutter speed. What about the F-stop?

[KansaiGreenie]

Hi ypurcaro,

The consensus seems to be that you should have used a tripod and I agree with that.

However, looking at the EXIF data I noticed a few things. First, the focal length of the lens when you took this shot was 55mm. On a Canon crop sensor, the full frame equivalent is 88mm (55 x 1.6). Remember that in order to get sharp images your shutter speed needs to greater than your full frame equivalent focal length. For this image 1/90 or faster. However, your lens has image stabilization, so 1/80 should have been OK. Which makes me wonder if the IS was turned off. (I couldn't tell from the EXIF data.) If it was turned off than 1/80 was too slow. If it wasn't than 1/80 should have been OK.

The other thing that I noticed was that you had the auto-focus turned off. Which makes me wonder if the lack of sharpness in the image is not due to an exposure related issue (shutter speed) but because it just wasn't well focused. Not being there, I have no way of knowing.

My advice is to make sure that you've got the IS turned on and use the auto-focus and I would also get a tripod. I don't think you'll regret it.

I hope that helps.

KG

[ypurcaro]

Originally Posted by KansaiGreenie

Hi ypurcaro,

The consensus seems to be that you should have used a tripod and I agree with that.

However, looking at the EXIF data I noticed a few things. First, the focal length of the lens when you took this shot was 55mm. On a Canon crop sensor, the full frame equivalent is 88mm (55 x 1.6). Remember that in order to get sharp images your shutter speed needs to greater than your full frame equivalent focal length. For this image 1/90 or faster. However, your lens has image stabilization, so 1/80 should have been OK. Which makes me wonder if the IS was turned off. (I couldn't tell from the EXIF data.) If it was turned off than 1/80 was too slow. If it wasn't than 1/80 should have been OK.

The other thing that I noticed was that you had the auto-focus turned off. Which makes me wonder if the lack of sharpness in the image is not due to an exposure related issue (shutter speed) but because it just wasn't well focused. Not being there, I have no way of knowing.

My advice is to make sure that you've got the IS turned on and use the auto-focus and I would also get a tripod. I don't think you'll regret it.

I hope that helps.

KG

Hi KG, thank you for your feedback. Your advise really get me into the "full frame" vs. "shutter speed". I never known that we have to pay attention on this matter. Now, how do I get more information on this topic?

Yes, my IS is always on. I thought the manual focus will be better than the auto, isn't it?

[LeeR]

Your camera's meter will usually get you pretty close when it comes to exposure, but you will find that there are times when your meter is fooled by the lighting situation. One way to double check what is going on it to look at the histogram. You may have to read your manual to find out how, but your camera should allow you to review your images with the histogram overlayed. If you had looked at this image with it's attendant histogram, you would have seen that all of the values are bunched up on the far left; a sure sign that it is underexposed. If all of the values had been pushed against the right it would have indicated overexposure. For digital photography, you want as many values as possible on the right hand side of the histogram without letting them get overexposed. (You camera may also have a feature that causes areas that are overexposed to flash off and on; commonly referred to by photographers everywhere as "damned blinkies.") Thus the common saying, "Expose to the right, but don't overexpose!" I don't suggest you check every image, but checking occasionally and in difficult lighting situations will help keep you from making a mistake.