Comments on: Tripod Stability Tests: on Shutter Speed http://regex.info/blog/2007-09-20/578 Not a photo blog, but sometimes I play one on TV Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:36:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.12-alpha by: Mark Wood http://regex.info/blog/2007-09-20/578#comment-9220 Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:48:23 +0000 http://regex.info/blog/2007-09-20/578#comment-9220 Thanks for taking the time to do all of this! It's a huge undertaking with a very technical audience. From what I can tell (and your detailed description), it looks like your methods are valid and I'm interested as to what you plan on looking into next! As a member of the "cheap tripod owners association" I'm beginning to realize that I can now blame all my blurry pictures not on user error, but on equipment malfunction and therefore, justify the purchase of a better support system... or not. Anyway, thanks for the neat series! Thanks for taking the time to do all of this! It’s a huge undertaking with a very technical audience.

From what I can tell (and your detailed description), it looks like your methods are valid and I’m interested as to what you plan on looking into next! As a member of the “cheap tripod owners association” I’m beginning to realize that I can now blame all my blurry pictures not on user error, but on equipment malfunction and therefore, justify the purchase of a better support system… or not.

Anyway, thanks for the neat series!

]]> by: Alexander Kiel http://regex.info/blog/2007-09-20/578#comment-9213 Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:55:05 +0000 http://regex.info/blog/2007-09-20/578#comment-9213 Ok Jeffrey you have convinced me. The combination of your unusual test chart and shutter speed now makes sense to me. But you must understand the reader. You presented in your first post a test which is build on this unusual technique. In such a case I think it would be better to first introduce this new technique, explaining why you had chosen it and comparing it to the old. <span class='jfriedl'>I fully agree that I should have presented it differently. As I said in this post, I didn't realize at the time that what I was doing was unusual, since I didn't really know of the common practice. In my first posts, I just assumed that the validity of the method would be apparent. —Jeffrey</span> I think the comparing part is important if you care about quality of doing experiments. You have the theory, that your way is superior of the usual and you did explain why. But like in physics you have to proof this by experiment. This said, it would be nice if you take a usual test chart, did a exposure at the most sensible shutter speed and compare the results with yours of the TFT test chart and long shutter speed. Ok Jeffrey you have convinced me. The combination of your unusual test chart and shutter speed now makes sense to me. But you must understand the reader. You presented in your first post a test which is build on this unusual technique. In such a case I think it would be better to first introduce this new technique, explaining why you had chosen it and comparing it to the old.

I fully agree that I should have presented it differently. As I said in this post, I didn’t realize at the time that what I was doing was unusual, since I didn’t really know of the common practice. In my first posts, I just assumed that the validity of the method would be apparent. —Jeffrey

I think the comparing part is important if you care about quality of doing experiments. You have the theory, that your way is superior of the usual and you did explain why. But like in physics you have to proof this by experiment. This said, it would be nice if you take a usual test chart, did a exposure at the most sensible shutter speed and compare the results with yours of the TFT test chart and long shutter speed.

]]>