Rocking and rolling

[drmike]

Not really but shaky floors.

I was in a hop processing plant in the one of the upper floors with a wooden floor. Not much light so an exposure of half a second on a tripod was about right but the machinery caused the wooden floor to shake so that's no good.

What's the usual solution to a problem like this? What I did was pump the ISO open the aperture and hand hold at 30th or so allowing my body to soak up the tremors. Sometimes handy being a bit hefty.

Mike

[Rand47]

Gyro stabilizer?   

Rand

[drmike]

Well I suppose so, but I left mine on top of the cupboard at home

[graeme]

Not really but shaky floors.

I was in a hop processing plant in the one of the upper floors with a wooden floor. Not much light so an exposure of half a second on a tripod was about right but the machinery caused the wooden floor to shake so that's no good.

What's the usual solution to a problem like this? What I did was pump the ISO open the aperture and hand hold at 30th or so allowing my body to soak up the tremors. Sometimes handy being a bit hefty.

Mike

Best I can suggest:

Highest ISO you find acceptable
Widest aperture you find acceptable
Image stabilisation on ( if you have it )
Set the shutter to a continuous ( High or low speed ) mode, hold the shutter button down & take a sequence of shots. You'll only be pressing the shutter button once which will put less movement into the camera. You might find a sharp image amongst this burst of shots.
Using mirror lockup or live view might take a bit more vibration out of the process ( ignore this if you have a mirrorless camera ).
While you're holding the camera against your body try leaning against a wall or other solid structure.
I have read that that pressing the shutter button while breathing out can help you take steadier handheld shots but I can't personally vouch for this.

Good luck & let us know how you get on.

Graeme

[homedoc2k]

Hi,  here's a thought based on the physics of the situation. A better word than "shaking' to describe the movement of the floor would be "oscillating".  Think of the motion of a vibrating string. I think the trick will be to place the camera on a tripod at a location on the floor that is "in phase" with the subject. You need to determine this by trial and error. Puck a reference point on the subject and take a frame. Then move the camera a couple of feet further away from the subject, zoom in the lens to compensate for the change in position, and take another frame. Compare the level of blur in the two photos and move the camera further in the same direction if the blur in the second photo is less than in the first. Otherwise move the camera two feet closer than the original position, adjust the zoom and take a third frame.  The blur should be less.  If so then keep moving the camera a bit closer to the subject and taking frames until the blur is neutraluzednot move the camera back by one foot so it is only one foot forward from the original position. The blur should be less or zeroed out.

The wavelength of the oscillation will be in the range of about 3 to about 20nfeetbdepsnding on the material of the floor, the construction of the building, the weight of the objects on the floor, etc. As you can properly conclude the oscillation wavelength is much easier to find using this experimental technique than trying to figure it out using mechanical engineering equations. Hope this helps.

[drmike]

All very scientific but the floor is wide and slatted wood and does the oscillating. The walls are stone and don't move, the machinery is the size of a small house and creates the oscillation but I'd doubt it's in the same phase. All that said in another context your suggestion is rather clever.

[Justinr]

I have faced a similar dilemma with quarrying machinery and found that 1/250th is about as slow as I can go and still maintain sufficient sharpness. However, being outside there is usually sufficient light so that probably won't help you much.

 

[degrub]

Couple ideas
Shoot when they are not running the equipment
Shoot at reasonable iso and shutter speed to freeze the motion, many shots, then use an old astronomy photo trick of stacking enough images to accumulate photons until you get the right exposure. You need a number of  lighter points (think stars) to align the images.

[drmike]

I guess those are options although the only access I have is when the machine is running, added to which I want some hint of movement in moving parts so a high shutter speeds doesn't really hack it.

[D Fuller]

Not really but shaky floors.

I was in a hop processing plant in the one of the upper floors with a wooden floor. Not much light so an exposure of half a second on a tripod was about right but the machinery caused the wooden floor to shake so that's no good.

What's the usual solution to a problem like this? What I did was pump the ISO open the aperture and hand hold at 30th or so allowing my body to soak up the tremors. Sometimes handy being a bit hefty.

Mike

I don't think there is a "usual" solution to this sort of problem that doesn't involve shutting the machines down or bringing strobes.

I guess those are options although the only access I have is when the machine is running, added to which I want some hint of movement in moving parts so a high shutter speeds doesn't really hack it.

So perhaps it becomes a compositing job. Here are some thoughts:

Method A:

Step 1 (alt 1) - Find the highest ISO that gives you acceptable noise levels, then shoot a long series, as fast as the camera will let you. At some point in that cycle, you are likely to be at the extreme of the oscillation for the exposure, so the machine will be sharp. But the motion blur of the moving machine is likely not to be there.

Step 1 (alt 2) - Use degrub's method of exposure stacking to get your base exposure. Again, the motion blur will not be there.

Step 2 - shoot the scene at an exposure that gives you the motion blur you want from the machine.

Step 3 - layer the images in Photoshop and mask the parts of the blur image you don't want. Experiment with blending modes and transparency to find what combines them best.

Method B:

Bring strobes. Shoot rear-curtain flash sync to get a combined sharp/blurred image.

Method C:

Find a way to mount the camera to the stone walls: Pipe? (I don't think you said how big the room is.)

Method D:

You say the walls are stone, and don't move. If so, there is also likely to be something structural overhead that is solid, and to which you could mount the camera. Clamp to that and drop a rod or pipe to which you can mount a tripod head. If possible, tie off to the walls as well, for stabilization. The camera will be upside down, but should be stable, though not rigid, so use graeme's method of shooting a sequence of shots with mirror lock-up in case there is movement from the long hanging arm. This will work better if you have a remote trigger.

Method E:

Rent a gimbal. They're kind of made for this sort of problem.
---

If it were me, I think I'd use method A or B. But you never said how your hand-holding solution worked out.

[drmike]

I think that strobes would probably be the answer but far too much complication for the value of the results.

Interesting idea to hang the camera from a solid structure. the rooms are large and to be honest I didn't think to look up, but I think it would have been a wooden structure as the 'barn' is over 150 years old so I'd expect a bulky wooden rafter. Who knows if that would move.

One amusing side story is that while I'm not local nor is my family my uncle Geoff was farm manager at this place during WW2 and was there when the owner whose daughter he subsequently married burned the farmhouse down having fallen asleep while smoking. It's a small world. I could tell them more of the history of their farm than they knew (or possibly wanted to know). I could tell them even more having consulted my aged mother of 96 and my cousin who started life there. We have agreed that next hop harvest we will go and torment them together

What I have gained from asking the question is ideas for when a similar situation arises in the future which was the purpose of asking really!

So, thanks to all who advised!

Mike

[BobShaw]

What you are trying to do is not really different to photographing out of a helicopter, except that you have the option of using flash. What do you mean by "not much light" specifically. What ISO, aperture and shutter do you need?

You need to get way above 1/30, like 1/250 or better unless you use flash. If the walls are stone then bolt the camera to them.