<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Handholding: Making Sense of the 1/f rule</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.photocrati.com/handholding-making-sense-of-the-1f-rule/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.photocrati.com/handholding-making-sense-of-the-1f-rule/</link>
	<description>Photo Wordpress Themes</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 19:45:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Decker</title>
		<link>http://www.photocrati.com/handholding-making-sense-of-the-1f-rule/comment-page-1/#comment-6485</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Decker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:16:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.photocrati.com/?p=8217#comment-6485</guid>
		<description>Fried:  Indeed, it&#039;s only a starting point.   I think the 2 and 3 belong in the denominators, not the numerators, though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fried:  Indeed, it&#8217;s only a starting point.   I think the 2 and 3 belong in the denominators, not the numerators, though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fried</title>
		<link>http://www.photocrati.com/handholding-making-sense-of-the-1f-rule/comment-page-1/#comment-6479</link>
		<dc:creator>Fried</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:43:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.photocrati.com/?p=8217#comment-6479</guid>
		<description>The 1/f rule assumes that both you and the subject are not moving relative to one another (or at least moving slowly). Obviously, if at the time of shutter release both are moving at the exact same instantaneous velocity (magnitude and direction), then the motion blur is zero. However, if there is signifcant relative motion then the rule needs to be modified. For example, shooting a boat traveling 20 mph from another moving boat bouncing around in it&#039;s wake requires modification. I&#039;ve found on the water, that 2/f works if one or the other is stationary, and as much as 3/f can necessary if both are moving moderate speeds. There are some motion blur calculators on the www that allow you to calculate allowances depending on the speed and relative motion of you and the subject.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The 1/f rule assumes that both you and the subject are not moving relative to one another (or at least moving slowly). Obviously, if at the time of shutter release both are moving at the exact same instantaneous velocity (magnitude and direction), then the motion blur is zero. However, if there is signifcant relative motion then the rule needs to be modified. For example, shooting a boat traveling 20 mph from another moving boat bouncing around in it&#8217;s wake requires modification. I&#8217;ve found on the water, that 2/f works if one or the other is stationary, and as much as 3/f can necessary if both are moving moderate speeds. There are some motion blur calculators on the www that allow you to calculate allowances depending on the speed and relative motion of you and the subject.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Decker</title>
		<link>http://www.photocrati.com/handholding-making-sense-of-the-1f-rule/comment-page-1/#comment-4173</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Decker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:32:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.photocrati.com/?p=8217#comment-4173</guid>
		<description>Tony:  Technique is definitely part of the equation, too, of course.  Even when using the same technique, though, individual photographers seem to vary by an even larger margin.  As a result, I think it&#039;s important for people to practice and critically assess their own abilities to handhold in different situations before a critical opportunity comes up, because &quot;Oh look, a polar bear!&quot; is not the time to be relying on untested technique.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tony:  Technique is definitely part of the equation, too, of course.  Even when using the same technique, though, individual photographers seem to vary by an even larger margin.  As a result, I think it&#8217;s important for people to practice and critically assess their own abilities to handhold in different situations before a critical opportunity comes up, because &#8220;Oh look, a polar bear!&#8221; is not the time to be relying on untested technique.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tony Ilardi</title>
		<link>http://www.photocrati.com/handholding-making-sense-of-the-1f-rule/comment-page-1/#comment-4164</link>
		<dc:creator>Tony Ilardi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2009 01:00:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.photocrati.com/?p=8217#comment-4164</guid>
		<description>I think the &quot;rule&quot; is generally wrong.  For many years (generations?) it was generally accepted that a normal lens (50 mm on a 35 mm camera) could safely be handheld at 1/30 of a second, halving the time for each integral multiple of focal length (i.e., 1/60 for a 100 mm lens) and doubling for a wide angle lens (1/15 for a 25 mm lens).  Over four decades, I have found this to easily work, but you have to know how to hold your camera.  I see too many photographers, including professionals, holding the camera the wrong way.  Their left hand is over the lens, not under and supporting it, as you would, say, if you were holding a rifle, and as shown in  many camera owners manuals.  Think about it:  you pick up a whole stop merely by paying attention to how to hold the camera.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the &#8220;rule&#8221; is generally wrong.  For many years (generations?) it was generally accepted that a normal lens (50 mm on a 35 mm camera) could safely be handheld at 1/30 of a second, halving the time for each integral multiple of focal length (i.e., 1/60 for a 100 mm lens) and doubling for a wide angle lens (1/15 for a 25 mm lens).  Over four decades, I have found this to easily work, but you have to know how to hold your camera.  I see too many photographers, including professionals, holding the camera the wrong way.  Their left hand is over the lens, not under and supporting it, as you would, say, if you were holding a rifle, and as shown in  many camera owners manuals.  Think about it:  you pick up a whole stop merely by paying attention to how to hold the camera.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Supaya foto tidak blur</title>
		<link>http://www.photocrati.com/handholding-making-sense-of-the-1f-rule/comment-page-1/#comment-3951</link>
		<dc:creator>Supaya foto tidak blur</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:38:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.photocrati.com/?p=8217#comment-3951</guid>
		<description>[...] Joe Decker dari blog foto Photocrati mengenalkan faktor baru yaitu ukuran piksel sensor mempengaruhi blur. Katanya, kamera yang berukuran sensor sama, tapi resolusi gambar tinggi, memerlukan kecepatan rana yang lebih cepat karena ukuran piksel yang kecil lebih sensitif dalam mendeteksi getaran. Kalau teori ini benar, maka kamera yang berukuran 15 megapiksel akan lebih rawan blur daripad kamera yang berukuran 6 megapiksel. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Joe Decker dari blog foto Photocrati mengenalkan faktor baru yaitu ukuran piksel sensor mempengaruhi blur. Katanya, kamera yang berukuran sensor sama, tapi resolusi gambar tinggi, memerlukan kecepatan rana yang lebih cepat karena ukuran piksel yang kecil lebih sensitif dalam mendeteksi getaran. Kalau teori ini benar, maka kamera yang berukuran 15 megapiksel akan lebih rawan blur daripad kamera yang berukuran 6 megapiksel. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

