The Value of a Tripod

White Trees, Series 1, No. 10

Is it me, or are fewer and fewer photographers using tripods these days?  Since image stabilization has become a mainstay of lenses and digital cameras, I suppose a tripod no longer really is necessary to stabilize the camera in the way that it used to be for things like landscapes, architecture, and abstracts (the subject matter I tend to photograph the most).  I guess I can appreciate that working without a tripod must confer some advantages, such as being able to work more quickly, not having to carry around its bulk and weight, and so forth.

Even so, I use a tripod almost exclusively, pretty much on every shot.  I think there’s two reasons.

First, it allows me to compose the image more precisely.  I can place the edges of the frame exactly where I want them, and they stay there.  I can study the composition in the viewfinder, and if I think moving the edges of the frame would improve it, I can do so, and they’ll stay put in the spot where I moved them to.

Second, I like that the tripod makes me work more slowly.  Setting up a tripod and placing it takes time, and requires you to be very deliberate in where you position the camera.  The tripod slows you down and reduces the number of images you can make, which is a good thing.  Every release of the shutter feels like a bit more of an investment, and I’d rather have fewer captures, each of which I feel more invested in, than more captures, each of which feels a bit more “throwaway.”

I tend to work slowly and deliberately anyway, so maybe a tripod is just naturally a good fit.  But truly, I can’t imagine working without one.