[emalvick]

I think the use the lowest ISO possible is somewhat incorrect, because it is implying that the correct photograph is made with the smallest grain largest exposure latitude medium. I think the best statement would be to use an ISO that is appropriate for a) the lighting, and b) what you are attempting to achieve.

some shots look a lot better with a ton of grain, as it adds to the ambiance of the moment.

I like your comment. I also like it from the point of view as a K5 owner of 1 year now that has just realized at how much ISO I can get away with and get fantastic photos (coming from a K10d where resorting to ISO 800 made me cringe).

[philbaum]

.... I walked for an hour scouting without the tripod and then shot for an hour with the tripod. So why scout without a tripod? One of the most difficult things to do with a tripod is to move it around to get a choise of composition. By nature it is laborious work to change height and orientation. This is no task with a handheld setup where you constantly change your point of view. By first scouting handheld and repeat with a tripod you get to finetune what you have scouted handheld... Composition is king so once you have achieved what you want from the shot you can then use the tripod to maintain that decision.

i like this approach a lot. There is tendency i have to "shoot first, and ask questions later". So i may spend a lot of time trying to develop something out of a second rate scene, when there is a much better opportunity just down the trail another 100 feet. I also like the idea of doing a few handheld shots while scouting. Sure the quality may not be there in low light without a tripod, but its a place marker of a scene with potential.

...
I also liked the idea of scouting without a tripod and using one to shoot, but there is a risk to this. If I am out scouting a location, and i have my gear with me, I am most likely to take the shot hand held when I see it, because part of what makes me see the image is the lighting, and if I scout the entire location first, by the time I decide what I like and don't the lighting has changed. What you really need to do, is to learn to see the image without the camera. to know what will be interesting and go right to where you need to be. this takes time and experience...

When I travel I leave my tripod at home. I take a monopod and rely on this, plus shake reduction for support of my tele lenses. I could imagine taking a small tripod, like a table top model for holding camera plus lens only for family shots, as I fimd myself all too often not in the picture.

Same scouting idea that Zorglub has - i like it. See Travel comment below.

Well yes, but I'm not going that far, just meaning a good ballhead, that has a nice friction adjustment, that allows you to move your camera freely around to compose a frame and then be able to just let go of the camera and it stays exactly where you let go..I've had tripods for 20 years, but never really engoyed, or used one much at all, until, I got a good one....

Good comment cmohr - if one enjoys using their equipment, there's more liklihood that it will get used - and frequently. Once i got a ball head such as you described, i looked back and wondered why i spent so much time with the "other" kind.
===============

Photography isn't just about working hard, its also about working smart. This is what i mean about working "smart"

1. The beginner goes out there and shoots everything. The enthusiast or the pro, is more likely to have a specific idea in mind of the type of scenes they are looking for, and will take actions that create more opportunities for successful photographs. For example, if they are a street shooter, they may visit areas that have interesting backgrounds and lots of pedestrian traffic; if they are shooting beach scenes, they may time their arrival for lower tides; if night shooting is a possibility or they need high IQ, they will have a tripod, etc.

2. Travel: Lowell and others have touched on that. I think we're in at a time in camera history, where if one is a landscape shooter, there are new smaller camera bodies out there with larger sensors, such as the K01, K30 perhaps, Fuji's X series, m4/3, Sony's Nex series, that would lend themselves to easier portability. Plus a lightweight camera needs less in the way of a tripod to hold it steady.

3. The anticipated end use may determine whether i use a tripod or not. 3 months back, i put together a "show" for a wine shop. I wanted pictures that i could enlarge to 30" or larger. Pictures i had taken with high iso and NR, could not be enlarged that far without significant IQ loss. So i used mostly tripod pictures (and sold 4 )

Thank you to everyone that posted - an interesting discussion!

[Paleo Pete]

TaoMaas - You missed the point.

I agree completely as far as that goes, it works the same way film does, and I always shoot ISO 200, and ISO 100 when I have enough light, I want the least noise possible in my shots. But it was odd to see it noted as ASA...that was the film designation for many years, I shot loads of 100 ASA and 200 ASA film, and a little 64 ASA a couple of times. But the digital and late film designation is ISO...So I was pretty sure you were well steeped in film tradition, like I am. I still find myself almost saying ASA now and then, even though I've been dealing with ISO film designations for around 20 years. I say I started 30 years ago, but I actually re-started, I shot my first pictures at around age 8 (1963)...and "helped" my father and his friend do B&W developing by age 6 or so. He wouldn't let me touch his camera for a couple of years.

So ASA was ingrained for a long time, and it was not easy to switch to ISO. I was probably shooting either 25 or 64 ASA as a kid, but knew nothing about it then. I think 100 or 200 ASA might have been as high as you could get in 1963. I'm not sure, I was a little kid and knew nothing about it. I don't remember seeing ASA 400 till I was in my 20's using a 110 instamatic although it might have been available. I didn't have even an instamatic for several years and never even thought about photography. I got back into it when someone gave me a K1000 around 30 years ago.

Too many people shoot with a tripod with the legs fully extended and even the shaft just to get the shot at their eye level.

I often try to use my tripod sitting on a stool just so I can get it shorter, without extending the legs or central shaft if possible, for better stability. Even fully extended, my old Safe Lock is more stable than anything I've seen on years...I don't think it will do the inverted thing, none of my tripods will. That would be great for macro, but I have a very small one that will get the camera a foot off the ground when I need it. I also have a couple of mini tripods, but they will only work with light lenses like the 50mm and binocular lens rig. Those get me less than 6 inches off the ground, and I've gone that route before for macros. I have to lay around in the dirt of course, but hey if you're not getting dirty you're not living.

[JimJohnson]

I like the comment about seeing a lot of photographers, so move... This is important in general as one of my primary goals when out shooting popular locations is to take that shot that you can't buy on a post-card.

It is also really good practice to see just how close you can duplicate the image on the post card. I obviously liked that photographer's image or it wouldn't have captured my attention, so how did s/he do it? Once the smoke coming out of my ears from thinking so hard clears, I can sometimes see a useful variation that is just as good.

[Rupert]

The last couple of years I spent some time studio shooting my "girls" and started out with a tripod. I quickly learned that if you want to catch the spontaneous action and get in close or out fast, you need to hand hold. After that, I seldom set up the tripod. The results were much better without it.
For some things, it is still essential, but shooting people is not one of them for me.

Regards!