Posted by sirpsychosexy Leveling compositions with a wide angle lens isn't easy, you'll have to get used to spending time on that. Even then, a good part of the photos I come home with have to be slightly rotated and/or perspective corrected to be perfect. Also, we photographers can become a bunch of nitpicky people. The average Joe doesn't look at your photo and think "hmm this needs to be rotated 1 degree clockwise". The homeowner association in my apartment decided to have a photo someone took at the nearby beach printed on a huge 3 by 3 meters canvas and hang it in the lobby. I have a chuckle everytime I walk past it because the sea horizon is a good 10 degrees crooked, yet no one but me has apparently noticed or cared. I know it's a matter of taste but I don't think this is great advice. We're talking about leveling your camera, and a tripod with bubble level is a great help here! When you balance your camera on poles and ledges, you're kinda asking for crooked photos Not only do I need a tripod because I bracket almost every shot, also 90% of the abandoned buildings I visit are simply too dark to shoot without a tripod, unless you want to go over iso 400 permanently. I've recently had a discussion with someone who posted some photos with terrible digital noise. He told me that he never takes a tripod because he thinks it's too bulky to carry. Of course it's a good point but on the other hand it's a lazy mindset. I gladly carry some more weight so I don't have to rape my photos with high iso noise. If you really care about image quality, work for it, bring a tripod and keep your iso low. If you have a newer camera that handles high ISO very well it's a different story. Oh, and my new tripod is basically a ninja. Nowadays most tripods have so many features that they're not very limiting in terms of composition anymore (not talking about a 30 dollar piece of plastic labeled as tripod). I can even turn around the center column so the camera is upside down between the tripod legs, and go as close to the ground as I want. Both have always been very inspirational to me back in the days, but now I'm looking through archived UER threads of them, pretty much all of their photos were crooked and distorted. Maybe we all just didn't care so much about it back then.

Photography is art. Are you going to hen beck every brush stroke to death or admire the piece as a whole? Distortion is found on all lens especially wide angle... work with it. As for being a degree or two off, you can line it up perfectly using the technique I described if you get the heights right. My cut off ISO was 400 usually unless street shooting.
Composition, focus and WB are way more important than a small degree of edge distortion. Editing out that distortion at the cost of degrading the focus point of the shot is unexceptable. This is art not perfection.

If you can capture better images than Nick, Glass, or me, go for it. I think you'll spend more time goofing around with gear and editing then exploring or catching keepers. For some low light and specialty shots you need tripod. Shooting technique, having to cam settings spot on, being fluid and adaptable to the subject out weight any benefits in most shoots than for having a tripod. I'm not above leaning or bracing on anything to capture a image and that attitude has served me far better than my high dollar tripod. Most of my best keepers where shoot fast and loose. May not work for you, and you don't learn how to do it in a one day.

DanWhitham is one of the best when it comes to lines.
anatonic has some excellent work as well.

These two could give lessons on lines.

Posted by blackhawk Photography is art. Are you going to hen beck every brush stroke to death or admire the piece as a whole? Distortion is found on all lens especially wide angle... work with it.

It's just like any art form that the artists is constantly trying to improve what he's doing, and that's probably why DescentOnARope is having line struggles right now. It's progression. I work with the distortion by trying to get the lines as straight as possible during the shooting and then perfecting it in post-processing (to a certain degree), which takes maybe 30 seconds of the 5 minutes I take to edit a photo. Little effort big result. If you decide to not do this then that's fine by me, but DescentOnARope was having problems with crooked lines so that's what my advice was for.

DescentOnARope, what I forgot to add, most editing software have line grids to help with staightening. If you use this you align your horizon with a line in the grid you know it's 100% a fact that it's straight. Same for other horizontal and vertical lines!

My cut off ISO was 400 usually unless street shooting.

Then you've been lucky to visit bright places, most I visit are boarded up pretty good or underground. Not to mention the dreary rainy days in this season.

Composition, focus and WB are way more important than a small degree of edge distortion. Editing out that distortion at the cost of degrading the focus point of the shot is unexceptable. This is art not perfection.

Why would art not be related to perfection? Maybe for some it's not, but I think most of us who see this as an art form try to do what we do as good as we can. I agree that composition, exposure, focus, wb are most important, but if you easily can fix distortion issues and have a better looking photo, then why not? I agree that it shouldn't go at the cost of anything else but it rarely does.

If you can capture better images than Nick, Glass, or me, go for it

I've never said that and never will. Please don't shove those words into my mouth. They were my inspriation (along with Motts from opacity.us, Dsankt from sleepycity.net) when I was young and taking crappy photos, they made me want to become as good as them. I think I'm on my way

For some low light and specialty shots you need tripod. Shooting technique, having to cam settings spot on, being fluid and adaptable to the subject out weight any benefits in most shoots than for having a tripod. I'm not above leaning or bracing on anything to capture a image and that attitude has served me far better than my high dollar tripod. Most of my best keepers where shoot fast and loose. May not work for you, and you don't learn how to do it in a one day.

Indeed doesn't work for me. It's not a matter of being above anything or having any attitude, but why the hell would I want to depend on objects to lean against, being limited to where they are located and still having a great chance that my photo isn't very sharp, when I can bring a mobile thing to put my camera on and have it 100% sturdy and motionless? Let me emphasise that it's a matter of taste and to each their own but I have a hard time understanding your arguments. If I had a camera that could do high iso without dirty digital noise, and a better dynamic range, I would probably leave my tripod at home.

On a side note, can I see your work somewhere? I tried searching the uer archived threads but couldn't find anything.

Posted by sirpsychosexy It's just like any art form that the artists is constantly trying to improve what he's doing, and that's probably why DescentOnARope is having line struggles right now. It's progression. I work with the distortion by trying to get the lines as straight as possible during the shooting and then perfecting it in post-processing (to a certain degree), which takes maybe 30 seconds of the 5 minutes I take to edit a photo. Little effort big result. If you decide to not do this then that's fine by me, but DescentOnARope was having problems with crooked lines so that's what my advice was for. DescentOnARope, what I forgot to add, most editing software have line grids to help with staightening. If you use this you align your horizon with a line in the grid you know it's 100% a fact that it's straight. Same for other horizontal and vertical lines! Then you've been lucky to visit bright places, most I visit are boarded up pretty good or underground. Not to mention the dreary rainy days in this season. Why would art not be related to perfection? Maybe for some it's not, but I think most of us who see this as an art form try to do what we do as good as we can. I agree that composition, exposure, focus, wb are most important, but if you easily can fix distortion issues and have a better looking photo, then why not? I agree that it shouldn't go at the cost of anything else but it rarely does. I've never said that and never will. Please don't shove those words into my mouth. They were my inspriation (along with Motts from opacity.us, Dsankt from sleepycity.net) when I was young and taking crappy photos, they made me want to become as good as them. I think I'm on my way Indeed doesn't work for me. It's not a matter of being above anything or having any attitude, but why the hell would I want to depend on objects to lean against, being limited to where they are located and still having a great chance that my photo isn't very sharp, when I can bring a mobile thing to put my camera on and have it 100% sturdy and motionless? Let me emphasise that it's a matter of taste and to each their own but I have a hard time understanding your arguments. If I had a camera that could do high iso without dirty digital noise, and a better dynamic range, I would probably leave my tripod at home. On a side note, can I see your work somewhere? I tried searching the uer archived threads but couldn't find anything.

blackhawkimages.org is my old site. Not the best of my shoots and mostly street shooting. Because of asses like Seph Lawless I always kept a tight rein on my images. I also have/had a private board here on UER but turned it over to Busted Knuckle when I was PBed. Can't access it to allow new members and BK is MIA.

Why shoot without a tripod? Better mobility, less of a target, way faster set ups. With street shooting there are no tripods. It taught me to grab it while you can. I miss some low light shots at sites, but I found there are usually plenty to be had. I can hold a cam rock steady for at least an 1/8 of a second with some help. I simply reshoot if I think there's shake. Works about 90% of the time.

Tripods have wasted my time and once literally got me busted. A 12 yo that it was a rifle and called the cops. Cops everywhere and a 12 gauge shotgun take down. I'm not found of tripods for a number of reasons.

If your ultimate goal is dead straight images right out of the camera then I would never advocate shooting without a tripod. You should embrace the tools that will help you achieve your end goal. Even if it comes at the sacrifice of added weight and more gear to carry. That being said, to each his own.

I recently spent a day shooting nature shots in the Poconos. My camera was on a tripod 98% of the time. I am a stickler for tack sharp images.
We don't spend big money on lenses to shoot soft images.

A human can not possibly hold a camera as still as a fixed inanimate object.
I have a carbon fiber tripod that weighs about 4lbs and folds down to approx. 16 inches and fits inside my camera bag. Granted it wasn't cheap but I'm not a fan of lugging stuff around and a tripod that fit in my bag was a requirement. I want my hands free for various reasons. I also dont want to carry a tripod and advertise to the world that I have camera equipment.

These were all shoot with no tripod. Some them would have been impossible to capture with one. All my street shoots are without a tripod. For that matter all the shots currently on my site were shoot without a tripod except a few at the Sunoco Paper Mill Demo... meh.
blackhawkimages.org

It takes practice and good technique to free shoot. With a IS lense the basics still apply. Wide foot stance, elbows in, breathe in and hold while shooting. A heavier and wider pro body helps as does an L lense. My favorite lense was the 2nd generation 70-200 IS. Never used a tripod for that except to realize it was a worthless cause to use one.

To further add to my dislike of tripods was a tipped over that caused $700 worth of damage to my M3 at Sunoco. I generally always keep it tethered even on a tripod, but out of hand, out of mind.


In low light a red 535nm laser pointer helps a lot to get a solid AF lock... where you want it.

Yes, just to be clear I'm not advocating that a camera belongs on a tripod 100% of the time.

There are plenty of disciplines that make a tripod completely unrealistic street photography being one. I shot weddings for many years and never once put my camera on a tripod. These situations are far too fluid and shots are made or missed in split seconds.

BUT... those are not the disciplines being discussed in this thread.
Architectural photography is slow and deliberate. The scene is not going to change in the blink of an eye. Honestly, theres no good reason not to use tripod. Especially when you consider the vast majority of abandonment shooting is very low light.

The below image was a long exposure shot on a tripod in near total darkness.



The light in the image is deceiving as this building had no windows and was pitch black.

At this point I'm almost embarrassed to admit that I was just making a joke about how nothing will ever look straight enough even if it objectively is, but this turned out to be a goldmine of information, so I'd say it worked out.

I feel your pain. Mine still come out crooked and I use a tripod and even have a level. I will forever have to use the rotation setting when editing.

*Groan* For a price there is a soluble that doesn't involve your soul.
Get a Canon 24-105f4L, a tilt shift lense. Never used one but if you're really bugged and the cheap fixes don't work for you... there is optical technology available to help. Personally if it's physically possible I would line it up as described. This is not always doable though and a tilt shift lense can help. So now in addition to dialing in the tripod, you'll be dialing in the tilt shift lense. Meh...