TRIPODS ??

  I have a very basic tripod that was not pricey at all but is not brilliant as when you tighten the clamp on desired subject the more you tighten the more it goes off target. Only gets occassional use. Also have a monopod that is much more the ticket although one usually travels light so comes out at selected times. Got a gorilla in me bag had a few uses over the years.

           No one mentioned yet but as a rule it is prudent to switch off the Image Stabilisation when the camera is on the tripod as it then can work against itself. I leave the IS on though when using the monopod as there is still lateral movement unless you can make like a stone statue. 

Another very good point made re tripod use. IS goes a bit haywire if the camera is rock solid as the 'floating element' is automatically expecting movement and will adjust itself accordingly. But as to using it on a monopod is debateable as to switch it off or not unless taking panning shots, ie sport etc, when it should definitely be left on.

I hate to admit this, but I have a love hate relationship with my tripod. It gets used when I really feel there is no alternative. At weddings, it has more than earned its corn, enabling high quality images in low light. The trouble for me is the lack of spontaneity and also just lugging it about. Fine for still life and formal set up portraits, but I hate using a tripod in an urban setting. 

I should use my tripod more.  

At a wedding, the tripod also made it clear that you were the official photographer, but I do not see tripods used at weddings so much now.

The Hasselblad and tripod were de rigueur for the Pro, while the guests were fumbling around with their Instamatics and Olympus Trips. It's not so easy to tell the difference these days.

At two weddings, the tripod was a real boon. The first took place in an old church and I was given the chance to take pictures of the service from a hidden place behind the organ pipes, at the side of the church. From there I had a perfect view of the couple, plus mainly the back of the ornately robed vicar. The light was low, but the pictures worked well due to the very slow speeds required. The other time was in a church with a balcony. Once again, the light was pretty low and the tripod plus the camera and my 70-300mm lens gave me pictures that were sharp and from a viewpoint only available to me.

Certainly, the bulk of wedding pictures are taken "on the hoof" but for "the group shot" with all those there assembled, I did find the tripod good. I could stand by the camera having set it up and look at the people waiting for the right moment, rather than having the camera pressed against the Burkey visage.

The weddings I did were all different, complete with awkward people plus some lovely ones. The candid shots always resulted in the best pictures visually for me. I have decided not to take any more wedding jobs on. To do it well, you need an assistant, and be there from before the wedding until it’s all over. A visit to the venue before the big day helps a lot. Taking informal pictures of the happy couple at least a couple of weeks before breaks the ice and a good exchange of ideas can result.

So, my tripod is not my favourite set of legs, but it has “saved the day” when required. Now, where did I put that neutral density filter?         

There are some fascinating anecdotes in your post, Rod. The image of you hidden behind the organ pipes made me chuckle. I wonder whether it would have been advisable to wear ear-defenders ?

Seriously though, I know how gloomy the interior of a church can be, and slow shutter speeds are inevitable without flash, so how did you persuade the happy couple to stay still long enough to get a sharp shot?  

They remained pretty still most of the time whilst taking their vows. Not all of the pictures were suitable and were deleted, but some were fine for tge album. 

My position by the pipes was just fine and my hearing pipes were caressed by the Welsh male choir too!