Tripod "Science"

I KNOW. Photography is not about gear. Just like painting is not about the brush, or writing about how good your word processor is. They they are still always present in the process of creation. For much of my own photography, a tripod is, likewise, always present. There are certainly times when you won't or cannot use a tripod. And, with the continually improving image stabilization technology in today's cameras, there is a growing trend for photographers ) to eschew the use of a tripod altogether. But I remain a firm believer that the tripod is a fundamentally essential tool of the photographer. Important enough that I keep coming back to it as a blog topic.

Don't skimp on the tripod!

MY "GESTALT" is that you should use a tripod (or similar fixed support) any time it is possible (note that I did not say "convenient"). Yes, I am aware of image stabilization, and what it sometimes does for the efficacy of handheld shots. I read a lot about it in the numerous pages and boards on the internet. Indeed, at least one crew of users (M4/3)- or at least the majority of them - appears to me to have basically decided that a tripod is no longer a necessary accroutrement for 90% of general photography. Recently, I had a guide (I would call him semi-pro) and accomplished photographer opine that except for special uses (like very slow shutter speeds, astrophotography, and similar), modern image stabilization technology has rendered tripods essentially superfluous. While I continue to be impressed by image stabilization technology, I remain unconvinced that we have reached the point where a tripod is a special-use tool only. I still carry one whenever it is feasible. I still set it up for any shot where I am able to do so. While there may come "a time," it is not now, and I expect to continue to use my tripod(s) for the foreseeable future.

The venerable Bogen 3021 Aluminum Tripod legs

I HAVE said this before. More than once. For those of us who still embrace the tripod, this will discuss some of the ins and outs of selection of a tool adequate for their use. I do want to point out that this post is limited to only "legsets." I have blogged in the past about tripod heads a couple times (most recently here). Heads are a pretty personal thing for many users and are often dictated by the use case. Most seasoned shooters have heard the age-old story of what I will call "tripod evolution." Let's face it. Photography can an expensive endeavor (be it hobby or business). Most of us are generally faced with limitations on what we can purchase. Obviously, camera and lens (es) are always going to trump the tripod purchase.

I remain a firm believer that the tripod is a fundamentally essential tool of the photographer

UNFORTUNATELY, THIS this often begets the evolution. Many of us have experienced it. My own first camera was given to me by my dad, along with several pieces of gear (two lenses, some filters, flash bulbs - yep, you heard me right: bulb - and a tripod). The tripod was a small, rather rickety affair, and early on, was left unused. Sometime during my first year of shooting, my one-time college professor, and first photography "teacher" and inspiration, John Knox, impressed upon me the important utililty of a tripod. As I began to incorporate the tripod into my shooting, dad's quickly showed its limitations. I picked up a slightly better, newer, "consumer" tripod (but in concert with the evolution story, one of the cheaper ones I could find - I was a "poor" college student at the time). Fortunately, that was the last "cheap" tripod I purchased, but I know the story of others who have purchased several iterations before finally concluding that they should just break down and buy a decent one, adequate for the job. Adding up the cost of the essentially useless prior models, it became apparent that they had - over time - paid at least the cost of a decent model. 😞

GIVEN THE economics of some of us as beginners, a certain amount of that cannot be helped. But hopefully, those reading this will learn that it is possible to acquire a decent, sturdy, used tripod these days from sources like eBay, KEH.com, MPB.com, Adorama and B&H, and (if you can find one) often old camera shops, for some pretty inexpensive prices, if you know what to look for. Just for fun, I "Googled" them and found a number of them for under $100, including the venerable old Bogen 3021 legs. So skip Best Buy and the other big box stores and start here.

My first (Induro) Carbon Fiber Tripod

WHICH BEGS the question: What is a "decent" model tripod? Before I start listing makes and models, lets think about why and when we use a tripod. What are our needs? I shoot primarily landscape still images when out in the field. Most of my lenses are comparably small and lightweight. My camera body is the smallest, lightest "full frame" interchangeable lens model currently on the market. The critical issue here is that the tripod be rigid enough that no movement or vibration is translated from the ground or other factors (e.g., wind) to the camera, and therefore to the image being made. The longer the focal length, the more pronounced will be the effect. Two of my best buddies and shooting companions have substantially huskier tripods. The shoot significantly longer, and heavier lenses than I do, and need that additional rigidity. Those tripods get progressively bigger and heavier. And more expensive. At the same time, weight, size and convenience will factor into the decision. The majority of my serious landscape shooting involves travel. Often airline travel. I need to consider (especially these days) the convenience (inconvenience?) of traveling with a tripod.

MY OWN "decent" tripod with one of  the venerable aluminum Bogen legsets (in my case the model 3021). They were sturdy, relatively rigid, durable, and reasonably inexpensive (especially on the used market). And at the time, they were one of only two materials available: metal and wood. Wood tripods (like Reis) were beautiful, generally sturdy, but heavy and comparably more expensive. By their nature, they were more susceptible to the elements and therefore potentially less durable. The alumimum legs we all carried around for years were also relatively heavy, but generally lighter and more durable than wood. The weight issue was the primary reason for the emergence of carbon fiber tripods in the 2000's, although it was also demonstrated that with comparable length and circumference legs and sections, carbon fiber was stiffer than aluminum, while being notably lighter. The flipside was that  carbon fiber was also substantially more expensive. I stuck with my alumninum Bogens (had a couple of them over the years) for a long time, until a buddy of mine got me an extremely good deal on a set of fairly large Induro legs. Today, while still comparably more expensive, carbon fiber's advantages make it the tripod material of choice in my opinion. But be aware, here that you can still go down the "tripod evolution" road with carbon fiber. These days, with the proliferation of legsets manufactured in China, this is particularly a risk. A quick perusal of Amazon will reveal many "inexpensive" carbon fiber tripods. While while it might be the case that most carbon fiber materials are similar, there are still quality models and very cheap models. Do some "homework." Read the reviews. Stick with one of the known brands, or one of the up and coming quality brands. Check on the photography sites to see who is using what.

Sirui AM-324 Carbon Fiber Tripod

THINKING ABOUT the way in which I use a tripod, there are a couple variables that are important to me. First, I want something that is relatively versatile, allowing me to get close to the ground, and set it up in awkward places. At about 6'2" tall, I am a relatively tall guy and I want to be able to set it us so my viewfinder is at eye-level. Much of my photography involves travel, so I think it is important to think about the difficulty and convenience of fitting it into checked luggage, and its weight. With my most recent acquisition, I had to purchase a new check bag that would accommodate its length. For some years, I have carried a "back foldable" tripod (in my case the Sirui model pictured below), which comfortably fit my current checked bags. So thinking about your "needs" can surely involve compromises. In my case, the "deal" I got on my current legset was just too good to pass up.

Today, while still comparably more expensive, carbon fiber's advantages make it the tripod material of choice

THERE ARE any number of companies out there offering decent carbon fiber tripod legsets these days. Most of them are based in China (or at least all of their manufacturing is done in Chinese factories). While there are some very limited claims of carbon fiber being laid up and tubes made in the U.S.A., there is also speculation that the "made in U.S." claims are assembly using parts manufactured from whatever sources. I do believe that one or two of the smaller companies do some of their own machining. But these days, China is a huge supplier of castings, machined parts and carbon fiber for different uses. It just is what it is. I think that if you pay attention to specs, nearly any of the leg tubes are going to be pretty decent.

Really Right Stuff carbon fiber tripod legs

WHAT I think separates them is the other details. Leg locks are important and some are better than others. While touted as a convenience, I personally dislike lever locks. The new trend now is the 1/4 turn click type locks. The have to have an internal mechanism of some sort. The jury is out on durability. I own a newer, Sirui tripod, and used it recently in Vermont. It was nice and convenient, but not enough so to be a deal-maker/breaker by any means. More important to me is the diameter of the legs. Generally, the specs will give you the top leg diameter. It stands to reason (and mechanics) that the larger the circumference (assuming the same number of CF layers used in their construction), the stiffer the leg will be. And each lower section will be commensurately smaller in diameter (in order to "nest"). For those reasons I would go with as large as possible top leg diameter. Though they might be slightly heavier, I don't think that it will be noticeable. The other thing that effects stiffness, is the number of leg sections. The Sirui has 4 sections. The advantage there is that you can collapse it down to a shorter length (making it somewhat more convenient for packability). The disadvantage is that the greater the number of leg sections, the more it effects overall stiffness of the tripod. The Induro legs I had before switching to the more compact Sirui models was very well built and I was pretty happy with it in terms of performance and durability. But because of its size, and design, it didn't pack well. Over time, I have done a 180 on the packability issue (my current legs do not pack well either). I have never carried a tripod onto a plane - I check them. I recently acquired a set of Gitzo legs (in a too good to be true oppportunity) that are too long for any checked luggage I owned. My solution: I got a different check bag. 😏

Gitzo 4" diameter head piece

THE MOST critical component other than the legs, in my view, is the top piece (I cannot find a specific part name, but I call it the "spider") that connects the legs together and accepts the tripod head. One of the things that made the Sirui model I had for several years more convenient was the fold-back design of that "spider." But I always also thought of it as the tripod's most potential weak point (interestingly, I had to replace it due to some breakage recently, and the new, comparable Sirui model no longer has a fold-over design. It seemed like there was a lot of flex there, partly, I assume, because of the diameter, and partly because of design. It did make it possible to pack the legs with a ball head attached, though. I had to replace it (a repair issue that I botched the DIY aspect of), and the new, comparable one does not have that "spider" design (and it appears to be discontinued). Small detail. It really isn't a big deal to just remove the head. But when I acquired my Gitzo legs, I did a side-by-side inspection and tested flex, among other things. I liken the comparison to a wood stud wall (before it is drywalled) vs. a block wall (the Gitzo being the latter). The different was remarkable. The "spider" on the Sirui is about 2" in diameter and appears to be machined. On the Gitzo, it is cast (magnesium, I believe) and is 4" in diameter. It is solid. And, that 2 extra inches allows a much wider stance of the tripod legs, contributing to stability. Those are all things to look at. The Gitzo is a 3 section (versus the 4-section Sirui).

A FINAL consideration: I noted above that I am relatively tall and like a tripod that will allow me to have the viewfinder at comfortable eye-level. When I measure that I mean from the feet to the "spider." I don't do center columns if I can possibly avoid it. On all but my very tiny travel tripod, I have always removed any included adjustable center columns. Neither current tripod (Gitzo or Sirui) are designed for center columns. That center column goes a long way toward defeating the purpose of having a rock-solid stable base.

SO. "DECENT." A relative term. Pricing on what I consider acceptable tripod legs varies substiantially from around $200 to as much as $1500! Until very recently, that lower end was higher (more like in the $400/500 range). Competition and costs have driving the bottom lower. But ironically, the high-end has not come down. So what should you do? Like any other photographic gear purchase, it is going to come down to your own circumstances. Is budget a concern? Can you be satisfied with something that works, or do you want the best in terms of durability, convenience of use and just overall utility? There is a very real tendency to think of it comparably and determine that you would rather spend the big $$ on cameras and lenses. As a relative consideration, I am in that "boat." But my advice: don't skimp on the tripod! If you buy a good quality setup, you won't regret it. If you don't, you probably will.

Gitzo G1325 MK2 (my current tripod)

THE VERY best today are going to be Gitzo, Really Right Stuff, and ProMediaGear. There may be one or two others, but these are the proverbial "big boys." They are the $1,500 models. As I have looked at them (having shot with a handful of photographers who have them), I can concede that there is a reason. When I compared my (pretty good, IMO) Sirui to the Gitzo, I was astounded at the difference. Is it a $1,200 difference? For me, probably not (but because of the opportunity presented, it was a no-brainer for me). I have always struggled with justifying $1,500 for a set of tripod legs. And because of that, I have never bought Gitzo, RRS, or comparable leg sets. And when I finally did, it was because of a "too-good-to-be-true opportunity - and it is an older model - which speaks to its durability. I can say this: if your budget allows, get one of these. It will likely be the last tripod you will ever purchase and will last a lifetime.

[There is an increasingly prevalent idea that . . .] modern image stabilization technology has rendered tripods essentially superfluous. I remain unconvinced, though impressed

IF THAT is not in cards, no worries. There are, as I mentioned, many decent competitors today, in the more "mid-range" market (again, that market used to be in the $4-600 range, but today I think it is more in the $2-400 range). Bogen/Manfrotto makes some pretty nice carbon fiber legs. I don't like their lever leg-lock system, but they are a venerable old company (actually owned by the same parent as Gitzo). Another old line company (SLIK) also makes some nice legs. Another old-line company is Vanguard. When the Chinese carbon fiber market opened things up, a few new companies emerged, including Induro and sibling Benro, Sirui, Three-Legged Thing, and relative newcomers like K&F Concepts, Ulanzi, and Leofoto. I have had hands-on experience recently with a couple Leofoto accessories, and I would personally look hard at that brand. My experience with those mid-range cost tripods has been excellent. There are also brands I don't recognize and missing brands that used to be somewhat popular in this market. I would tend to stay away from the all but the more established brands. I would also stay away from anything less than that $200 floor. Perhaps the one exception to that general statment would by the Sirui AM-324, which can be found for sub-$200. Because I own it and have used it, I think it is a pretty nice tripod for the mid-range market. I cannot say much about durability, as it has only seen one outing. I will finish with some repetition: Don't skimp on the tripod!

Sony Creators App

SONY's CREATORS App is a smartphone app that is available for either IOS or Android based phones (and can be freely dowloaded from the Apple Store or Google Play Store). Sony's original app was known as "PlayMemories," which was succeeded by "Imaging Edge Mobile," and now most recently, Creators App. Like so many software applications, the interdependency and inevitable evolution meant that a program designed at some point would not continue to "play well with others," as they separately evolved. This was a particular problem as the phone companies continued to roll out new models almost annually. PlayMemories was launched in 2012 and closed in 2024. By 2023, Imaging Edge Mobile had succeeded it and it appears that the Creators App is basically a renaming of it, along with some improvements. Having read a fair amount of negative commentary about both these apps, and not being much of an "app" guy on my phone, I pretty much stayed away from them, keeping my phone and cameras separate, until I very recently downloaded (somewhat serendipitously), and started playing with, the newest version of the Creators App.

Sony's Creators App is a smartphone app that is available for either IOS or Android based phones (and can be freely dowloaded from the Apple Store or Google Play Store

THE CREATORS App offers a large number of features for connectivity, including direct connection with your smartphone, connection with a PC or other similar device (tethering), and transfer of files over WiFi or Bluetooth. Most of the latter is more oriented toward special purpose, professional shooters, like high-end studio work, sports and news coverage, and the like. But direct connectivity to your smart phone is something that most of us shooters might be able to benefit from. The connectivity between your smart phone and camera is what this post addresses. Last October, when I was in Vermont, I had a mishap with my remote release, which I always use when shooting from a tripod (which is most of the time for my landscape shooting). I had "very cleverly" found a sheath which velcroed to a tripod leg and served as a handy spot to park the remote when I needed my hand for something else. I actually had one of those fleetingly self-consciouis premonitions that this wasn't really a very secure setup. And yep, you probably guessed it. That remote fell out of the sheath when I was moving the rig - probably into deep grass and nowhere to be found even though I did make a search. 😞 I was not in a position to quickly replace the remote, and so I decided to download and try the Creators App to try its remote release capabilities. I was pleasantly surprised, and ended up using it for the rest of my trip. The App actually provided me with 2 functions that I found desirable. The first was as a remote release. I have said before that it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to go to the trouble and expense of a tripod, only to defeat its purpose by having hands on the camera. I know a lot of shooters these days just set their shutter to a 2 second delay and shoot that way. For a handful of reasons, I really don't like that. The Creators App worked well as a release.

transfer of the actual files, it turns out, wasn't really the plus for me, here

THE SECOND function that I found very handy was the ability of the app to transfer images from the camera to the phone. At first blush, this didn't really interest me, as I do that transfer with a card reader and cable, to my computer and/or backup drive every day at the end of the shoot. But transfer of the actual files, it turns out, wasn't really the plus for me, here. When I am in the field, I usually shoot from twilight to twilight, leaving little time or energy to try to do any processing during that time. At the same time, I travel very light, using a Microsoft Surface tablet as my only computer during the trip. It really isn't (in my opinion, at least) the best tool for the serious work of archiving and processing digital images. But I often want to take a quick snap of a scene and post it on social media when there is a break. As smartphone cameras have gotten better and better, I have, more often than not, made an image or two of the areas I was shooting, rather than waiting until I got back to my base of operations and trying to do "quick and dirty" processing of a couple for posting to social media. That worked well. Except that the habit hadn't really gotten ingrained in me, and too often, I would find myself lamenting that I had neglected to make cell phone shot for posting.

HERE IS where the Creators App comes in. In addition to controlling the camera remotely, it also allows you to control what happens with the recorded image files. I only record raw files (I don't do the raw + jpg thing, because I would find myself deleting the jpg images anyway, without really using them - just one more thing to deal with and more space taken up on drives). But what the Sony Creators App allows me to do is set my camera up so that in addition to remotely controlling the camera, it can be set up to create and send a small jpg copy to my phone. For what I think are fairly obvious reasons, I do not want to be sending my 60Mp images to my phone, so they continue, as they always have, to be stored on the cf card in the camera. But that small jpg is another story. Now I don't need to remember to make a separate cell phone snap. The camera has already done it for me, and it is there on the phone for me to see and post.

IT IS not exactly the same thing as making the image with the cell phone. The phone cameras and software are pretty well optimized for out-of-the-phone, postable jpeg images. But with the software on my phone it is pretty easy to do some quick adjustments, and post some images out there. Then, at the end of the day, I can delete the bulk of them so they don't fill up my phone's limited memory. Pretty cool!

So much for backward compatibility

THE APP is only going to work for you if you have one of Sony's somewhat newer cameras. Currently, it works with models designated ILCE 2.0 and later That means older A7 and A7R camera owners (A7 series, i, ii, and iii) are not going to work with this newest app. So much, I guess, for backward compatibility. While they seem to have maintained an industry leading position on the development of their camera technology, Sony has, unfortunately, not done as much with marrying that technolgy to wireless and telecommunications technology. It remains to be seen whether the Creators App will be the one that we can ride into the future. For now, it is working well for me with Samsung Galaxy S24 plus and my Sony A7Cr. The only minor issue I have with it is that when the phone or the camera "rests," the bluetooth connection seems to drop. Fortunately, re-connecting it is a matter of a couple taps on the phone screen and a very fast re-connect. Maybe 2-3 seconds in all. The connection is through WiFi and Bluetooth, so you don't necessarily have to be in cell range.

The app is only going to work for you if you have one of Sony's somewhat newer cameras. Currently, it works with models designated ILCE 2.0 and later

SETTING UP the Creators App on your phone and connecting with your camera is really easy. First, download the free app from either the Google Playstore, or the Apple App Store. Once you downloaded and installed it, open the app, turn on your camera, make sure your camera's WiFi and Bluetooth are on and then go to the "Network Options" Tab (globe), and then to Connect PC/Remote/Smartphone Connection. From there, you will kind of tag team back and forth between the camera and the phone. Just follow the prompts. At some point, it will try to get you to log onto a WiFi server, so you may need your password for that. Or, you can do like I did, and skip that step. I really only want to use the phone as a remote control for my camera. Once you go through the steps, you will get a screen for the app. You shouldn't have to do this again. When you turn on your camera and open the Creators App on the phone, it will recognize any camera(s) you have registered on the app.

IT IS pretty impressive. There are features in the camera and the app that will facilitate FTP transfers, uploading directly to "the cloud," "streaming," or connecting to a computer or server wirelessly or with a cable. For many, this may be very useful. But for my purposes, the only one of these things I will be using (and therefore covering here) is the use of the phone as a remote release and camera control and saving a small jpg copy of each image to the phone. Whenever you open the app, there will be a "button" to tap to connect to your camera (it should say "operate your camera") and once you do that, you will get a message that says "connected via Bluetooth." Beneath that message there are a couple more boxes. The one we care about in this instance says "Remote Shooting" and has a remote commander icon. When you tap that box you may get a choice between Bluetooth and USB. Tap "WiFi" (unless you want to use a cable), and then an image of whatever the camera lens is seeing will populate the phone screen in the top 1/2 of the app. On the bottom 1/2 you will have the primary settings like shooting type (M,A,S,P), focus type, WB, exposure/compensation, ISO, drive mode, etc. You will also see the typical, round "button" that most smartphone cameras use as the trigger. The screen doesn't just show those settings. You can control, adjust or change almost every thing you could do on the camera itself, including those settings you see on the phone screen. You can drill down to additional pages by pressing the MENU button at the bottom left and see a number of additional settings choices. Be aware that these settings changes are being made on the camera and will apply to subsequent shots unless the settings are restored to your original settings. I probably will make it a habit to change most of these deeper settings only on the camera.

YOU WILL also see the focus/focus area square on the phone screen. Tapping anywhere on the phone screen will move that to the point where you tapped. This works even though I have my touch features completely turned off on the camera! There is also a (green) playback button. But beware here. This does not play back the primary images that you have saved on the camera. By default, each time you tell the camera to make an exposure using the phone as a remote, as it does so, it also sends a small jpg copy to your phone! As I noted above, that's a pretty cool feature. But know that the "playback" button on the phone screen is playing back the small jpegs now on your phone; not the original images saved on your memory card. When you are finished shooting, pressing the back button/arrow on your smart phone will take you to a message telling you remote shooting will be ended (you can say o.k., or cancel, if you didn't want to end the session).

Be aware that these settings changes are being made on the camera and will apply to subsequent shots unless the settings are restored to your original settings

CAUTION! THERE are a couple areas in the app that are not crystal clear. After connecting your phone to the camera, in addition to the remote shooting "button," there are 2 other buttons on the bottom of the screen. One of them is "Import," which I am pretty certain refers to the process of moving files (not sure whether they are copying or moving, but I think probably copying and you will have some opportunity to determine what form the copies will be in  - i.e., jpg or raw). I don't plan to use that feature at all, so I haven't really delved into it. But the third button: "Update," is one I would treat with caution. When I first saw it, I assumed (you know what that means 😏) that it was referring to the Creators App software. It is not! It is actually feature that would let you update the camera system firmware! In the past there have been different options for doing that, and some have reported varying results, all the way from "smooth sailing, no problems," to "it bricked my camera!" I have personally upgraded one camera, one time (a Nikon DSLR several years back). I studied all the resources I could find, followed the guidelines very carefully, and sweated through the whole process. It turned out fine. But I would only do it again if I was convinced it was necessary, and that I could do so safely. I most certainly will not be blithely tapping that "update" button and following the prompts. And I want to be crystal clear that I am not recommending that you do it either.

IN THE Camera menu, the settings aren't so totally clear. On the menu there are a couple confusing (to me) setting choices following "Smartphone Connection," which, once you have intially set up Creators App in your camera, you shouldn't need to use again unless you change phones. I believe "PC Remote Function" pertains to setting up a tethered PC with the camera. I have left that to the default settings. "Select on Cam and Send," I believe pertains to sending images from the camera to a server somewhere. I have, likewise, left those settings on their defaults. I wouldn't touch "Reset Transfer Status," since we have not set up any transfers. "Cnct (connect) while Power OFF" is a setting which, I understand, allows you to transfer files or other remote activities from your phone, even if the camera has been powered down. Frankly, I don't see any good reason to do so in my circumstances (or yours, for most people) and I really cannot see a lot of good that can come out of being able to remotely power up my camera. Thats me. But I think its probably a wise approach. In a similar vein, I never ever use my camera as a file transfer device (connecting a cable to it and using it to transfer files to disk or other space). From the very beginnings of digital cameras, it has been considered "best practice" not to do so. I have always removed the memory card from the camera and inserted it into a separate transfer device for moving files. I don't want to take the risk of a problem with my multi-thousand dollar camera, when I can buy a card reader for just a few dollars. But again, that's me. As the currently popular saying goes, "you do you." I am not going to.

HOW TO set up to automatically send copies to smartphone is less clear. Niether of the two third party books I have give any clarification. Both treat the several and complex menus and settings on the A7C cameras only superficially. Yikes! for now, for me, I am going to leave everything at its default setting.

I never use my camera as a file transfer device

ONE YOUTUBE video I watched stated that the small jpg sent to your phone is the default behavior of the Creators App software. I didn't change any settings on my camera, and it automatically started sending jpg copies to the phone, so I would be inclined to believe that. To use your phone as a remote release and have copies sent to the phone in addition to storing on the camera/cf card, go to the Remote Shoot tab under the "Network Options/Cnct/PC Remot/ and select Remote Shoot Setting. There you have choices for file type and size to be sent to phone. They are relatively intuitive.

CONTRARILY, I suppose, I did replace my Sony RMT-P1BT Wireless Remote Commander. This time, I bought a colorful lanyard to connect it to and probably hang around my neck. I am an "old school" creature of habit, and will probably continue to use that tool as my everyday remote release - but will keep using the Creators App along with it, if just to create the jpg images on my phone. The Sony Remote costs between $80 - 100 new, depending where you find it. The Creators App is free. Most of us have our cell phones on our person most of the time, so if you have a compatible phone and camera, it could be worth trying for you.

Focus Stacking; Does it Live up to the Hype?

I FIRST began writing this post a few months back. Timing is everything. At the time I saw what I believed to be an inordinate amount of "focus stacking" commentary. It seemed like every other image I saw posted on the various sites I frequently visit would have a comment in the caption about focus stacking (e.g., "12 shot, in-camera focus stack," or similar). On an awful lot of them, my immediate question was: "why?" It appeared to me that they were altogether too often rather normal (what I would call) "landscape" images (nature, citiscape, buildings, etc.). 

Almost as if it was a hot fad that didn't last very long

THESE DAYS I don't see it (at least not commented on) nearly so often. Almost as if it was a hot fad that didn't last very long. Of course it isn't a fad at all, and properly used can be a very useful tool to achieve desired depth of field throughout an image. The concept of "stacking" images is ages old, even dating back to the days of film. Stacking can serve a myriad of purposes, and for me, since Photoshop introduced "layers" (really just a stacking concept) it has been an absolute delight to use. Not just for focus, but for other things we would like to adjust in an image (e.g., exposure).

MY FIRST exposure (see what I did there 😃) to depth of field image stacking came some years ago back in the early 2000's when third-party software and eventually mainline software (I use Photoshop) added the feature to their softwares. It was, of course, automation and it was certainly possible to "focus stack" manually, but the results were often not very good and the amount of work necessary was burdensome. I first used a stand-along software (now a plug-in) called Helicon Focus. It allowed for a series of "identical" shots (from a fixed position and a very still subject) to be loaded into it and it did the focus stacking by choosing the parts of each image that was in sharpest focus and blending them together to make one image that was presumably sharp from front to back. I didn't use it very much. Still don't. I get into why not below.

The concept of "stacking" images is ages old, even dating back to the days of film

TODAY, AUTOMATED focus stacking capability has been built into a few higher end camera bodies. An even smaller subset of those allow the processing to be done in-camera, with a focus-stacked result right out of the camera (although one should keep in mind that this processing ultimately renders a jpg image). If you are going to be doing a lot of focus stacking, I suppose this might be a pretty handy feature. For those who applaud the technology, it is - so far - only found in a handful of high-end cameras. There are a few others that will create the stack for you by making a series of exposures, focusing at intervals, but do not do the "work" of blending and combining them (which must be done in post-processing, using a software that is capable of that). Personally, at least until it can all be done as in-camera raw and raw output, I prefer it that way. And it may that I will still prefer it that way even if the raw working capability is someday found in-camera. I am a bit of a control-freak when it comes to my processing (in and out of the camera) and like the amount of control I have over the end results by doing my stacking in post.

SHARPNESS, OF course, is directly related to a lens-based concept known as depth of field. Without getting into the weeds, suffice it to say that a shallow depth of field means less of the image will be in "sharp" focus from front to back. Depth of field is largely a function of focal length and aperture on camera lenses. Generally, the smaller the aperture and the shorter the focal length, the greater the depth of field. Another variable is the distance from the lens to the subject (or the part of the subject you wish to be in sharp focus). Given those things, for years, most of us have worked with these time-tested principles to set up our shots in a manner that will give us maximum front to back sharpness - when that is what we want (it is often a goal to actually have parts of an image out of focus). In my judgment, for my own work (when I do it correctly), I have found that to yield very acceptably sharp results without any need for focus stacking. I don't engage in the proverbial "pixel - peeping," as I know 99.99% of viewers of my work don't either.

it is quite possible to actually introduce inacuracies into the process

SO. DOES focus stacking really assist in the depth of field endeavor? The answer to this depends on a number of variables, both objective and subjective. As we said, focus stacking consists of making a series of "identical" images, using different focus points from front to back, and then combining, registering, and blending them. Because this cannot be done instantaneously, it is quite possible to actually introduce inacuracies into the process. The subject (or camera) may move during or between frames, making it impossible to register two or more of the images precisely. Ironically, rather than enhancing sharpness this may well have the opposite effect of rendering the image to appear out of focus. Light conditions may change between frames. This can create visual issues which can make the image appear less sharp and well defined. Some commentators have also observed that, in their judgment, a focus-stacked image can look artificial (too sharp throughout). It is also possible that if the intervals (focus distances) between frames are too wide, the process can just simply fail to improve the image.

TO MY way of thinking, this limits the utility of this "device" to a few applications. True "macro" photography, including (and perhaps especially) product photography is the one area where I see some real gains in image quality. In close-focusing macro images, it can be impossible to have an entire subject be in sharp focus with a single image. Focus bracketing in these cases can be a real hero. But like any "tool" at our disposal, I like to follow the old adage of using the proper tool for the job. And, in my mind, a corollary to that adage is that you should not use any add-ons to the basic lens unless there is a good reason. If it doesn't truly address a specific concern or issue, and could possibly introduce negatives, don't use it. This is the same approach I take to filters, for example, on the front of the lens. 

GIVEN THESE observations, I am skeptical of the benefits of focus stacking except for some very specific uses and circumstances. Most of the time I can make a nature or building shot very acceptably sharp from front to back using traditional depth of field principles. And at the same time, I wonder if using the focus stacking features in the cameras is worth the trouble. I have played with it for landscape shots, even with something relatively close in the foreground, and comparing the results with my "standard" technique, have not really been able to see an appreciable difference. It seems to me that image management is a pretty significant part of the process, both in camera or out. I briefly tried the function in my Sony A7cr to save "stacked" images into a new folder. Sounds simple. Not. Instead of creating a new folder only for the stacked images, it then creates another brand new folder when you resume shooting. And so on. It was an organizational nightmare when I ingested the files into my archive system. Not doing that one again, with several folders on the card without any way to easily recognize what was where.😓For Sony users, the newer system does have one pretty cool feature. I allows you to insert a frame in front and back of your "stacked" (or e.g., panoramic shots so you can identify where the begin and end. I always though the shot of my finger pointing was kind of awkward.

I USE Adobe Bridge as a viewer and organizational tool, and I do like the feature that allows you to mark files and save them into a stack. But I do that pretty infrequently. In my view, I will pretty much ignore the approach and process of focus stacking for 99% of my shooting. I personally think it has been lately overused (to little avail) and often misunderstood. If I was shooting lots of macro images, it would certainly be a tool I would embrace. There may be the ocassional landscape image that calls out for its use. I haven't found it yet.