jaybee360
Posts: 13
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: 11 Mar 2009
|
tripod height
Posted: 1 Oct 2009 at 11:06 GMT
|
|
It's an interesting one this....
from looking at a lot of pano's people have various set heights for their tripod when shooting....
what I'd like to know is what are peoples reasons....
I'll start with a proviso... I shoot panos for property...
indoors I shoot at about waist height, I find this does two things, it makes a room feel airier, and It gives a different perspective which can amke people look twice (except kitchens, where I set the tripod to a height to just take in the top of the work surface)
outdoors I'll usually max the tripod, as far as I can without resorting to a ladder (I use the manfrotto 028 so I can quite happily put the camera way beyond my reach!)
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
|
Guest
|
Re: tripod height
Posted: 1 Oct 2009 at 14:33 GMT
updated: 14 Mar 2011 at 16:13 GMT
|
|
|
I shoot at eye-level (185cm / 6ft), simply to spare my back from the strain of bending down to see dials etc. No panorama is worth a broken back.
|
|
|
|
Henri Smeets
Posts: 242
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Registered: 28 Nov 2006
|
Re: tripod height
Posted: 1 Oct 2009 at 15:36 GMT
|
|
My opinion is that eye-level is best for giving a 'real' feel to the place the panorama was shot. I also shoot a lot of panoramas from 3-6 meters to give a better overview of for example an exhibition floor or outdoor area.
Shooting from waist level would seem akward, the rooms seem higher than they are and furniture will block the view.
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
PJSPhotography
Posts: 7
Location: Exeter, United Kingdom
Registered: 26 Oct 2009
|
Re: tripod height
Posted: 26 Oct 2009 at 20:53 GMT
|
|
I usually try to shoot VR halfway between the floor and the ceiling, the images seem to come out more balanced this way. Images below or above this seem to look a little odd, it depends on the room though and you can usually tell when shooting.
Pete
Peter Stephens Photography
www.peterstephens.co.uk
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Dan Moylan
Posts: 31
Location: Australia
Registered: 22 Aug 2008
|
Re: tripod height
Posted: 26 Oct 2009 at 22:02 GMT
|
|
I shoot just below eye level as I think it gives a realistic perspective. I have tried various heights but cant say Ive tried waist height. Id imagine it would give an interesting perspective. Any examples?
Dan
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
bigwade
Posts: 826
Location: Utrecht, Netherlands
Registered: 19 Oct 2005
|
Re: tripod height
Posted: 26 Oct 2009 at 23:46 GMT
|
|
I've had this discussion (long time ago) on PM with a member here.
I'm 1.93m and he's short, so what is a natural look ?
Try it this way.
Make a pano in your livingroom and one outdoor and let others view.
I'm sure the livingroom doesn't look "welcome/warm" at 1.83m 
because you are used to sit and talk with people at a much lower level.
Outdoor is a matter of taste and what you want people to see.
It's photography !!, not stupid rotating )
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Doug Aurand
Posts: 3282
Location: Albuquerque, NM, United States
Registered: 2 Jan 2008
|
Re: tripod height
Posted: 27 Oct 2009 at 0:08 GMT
|
|
jaybee360
I originally tried "eye height" when shooting homes but to see most of the room, the person viewing the scene had to tilt down a little and the perspective becomes exagerated.
I observed that when I stand, my line of sight is looking down about 10-15° and my brain corrects the perspective of nearby walls I see.
Eight foot ceilings are standard in most homes, offices, hotel rooms, etc, so with the camera at 4 feet, the viewer can pan at a level view with no exagerated perspective.
As the heitht of the ceiling goes up, you can raise the height of the camera so level panning looks "normal"
Outdoors it depends on what you want the person viewing the image to see. A far mountain landscape can have the camera on a pole 20+ feet in the air. If you'rs showing what it looks like to stand on home plate in an American baseball park, I went back to 4-5 feet
Doug Aurand
Albuquerque, NM
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
dannydesiliva
Posts: 1
Location:
Registered: 28 Oct 2009
|
Re: tripod height
Posted: 28 Oct 2009 at 7:00 GMT
updated: 28 Oct 2009 at 7:02 GMT
|
|
I am fortunate to be able to purchase a new tripod and head this month. My current combination is mediocre, at best: a Bogen 3021 tripod and a Giotto ball head with a RRS quick release plate and RRS L-brackets.
So, I am looking at Gitzo carbon-fiber tripods. As I am over six feet tall, I have been telling myself for years that my one good tripod should be as tall as possible without a center post extension. My Bogen is 53.5 inches tall without the center post extended, and with the ball head and a camera mounted, the eyepiece is at 63.5 inches. I do need to bend over a bit to see through the viewfinder.
Gitzo makes a tall-ish tripod, and a very tall tripod. The 3540LS is a 4-section tripod that is 57.5 inches tall (no column) for $650, and the 3540XLS which is 78 inches tall, also with no column, for $750.
For a lot less money I could purchase a tripod more like the Bogen -- a Gitzo 1257, which is 53 inches tall and has a 10-inch leveling column which would provide the extension when really necessary.
So, you taller photographers: what would you do? The 3540-LS, with a ballhead and camera, would put the camera almost exactly at eye level at the tallest setting -- is this good enough? Have you wished for that extra foot of height? Is the 3540-XLS so large that it's unwieldy to pack and carry? I want this tripod to be something I have with me most of the time.
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
discocandy
Posts: 45
Location: Netherlands
Registered: 26 May 2007
|
Re: tripod height
Posted: 28 Oct 2009 at 10:06 GMT
|
|
As I learned ages ago. 1.70 meter around 5.6 feet? is a good compromise for Eye sight.
The airyness as said is true at a lower angle but for real estate you really want the real thing right?
Nothing more wrong as a possible buyer coming along and thinks it looked bigger on the tour as it is in real life.
keep it realistic i always say.
But that's my 3 cent's (inflation you know  )
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
|
Guest
|
Re: tripod height
Posted: 28 Oct 2009 at 13:56 GMT
updated: 14 Mar 2011 at 16:13 GMT
|
|
Being over 6 ft as well (196cm), I have the same concerns about shooting height. For me it looks "bad" when seeing things from a lower perspective... for instance 165-170 cm. Just doesn't look "right"... and for that reason I also know that for smaller people, my eye-level is also too high.
But should we as photographers bend our backs and risk our health, just to make viewing pleasant for those who are smaller?
I don't. And I won't.
I have requested a solution for this very real "problem" from Denis (the creator of Flash Panorama Player). His reaction to the suggested solution was a positive one, and I hope it will be included in the upcoming version 3 of FPP.
|
|
|
|
Doug Aurand
Posts: 3282
Location: Albuquerque, NM, United States
Registered: 2 Jan 2008
|
Re: tripod height
Posted: 28 Oct 2009 at 14:59 GMT
|
|
Trausti
I'm 6ft too, but bend over or sideways to get a straight-on view of the camera display. Sometimes it feels like I'm doing stretching exercises
What I want in my next SLR is a flip out screen like my Nikon Coolpix 5400 and 8700 have. When I switched from my coolpix 950 (no flip out screen) to the 5400 is was so "civilized" that I could angle the screen to what was comfortable for me.
Also I could swing the screen around so I could keep my image out the picture in mirrors while still looking at the screen.
Unfortunately Canon doesn't seem to be in any hurry to add a flip screen to their SLRs
Doug Aurand
Albuquerque, NM
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
