Utterly trivial question but hand on top of below in portrait format?

sirch

sirch

Lu-Tze
Admin
Messages
105,684
Name
The other Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Naturally I would shoot with my hand above the camera but it feels more steady if I have my hand beneath the camera but then getting my finger on the shutter button is a bit more awkward
 
Left hand on the lens, takes the weight of the setup, right hand on top. My a7 has a decent hand grip for a bit of additional support too.
 
Real photographer, real action - this is the least bad way to hold your camera in portrait format, at least in my experience...

Female photographer 2.jpg
 
Being left-eyed, it made more sense to me to have the cameraa turned so that my nose wasn't squashed against the screen and my right elbow was supported by my gut.... But some years ago I decided it made more sense to leave my left elbow on my gut and have my right hand on top.
 
Snapsh0t said:
Almost. Ideally needs to kneel with right leg and have left knee raised to support left elbow like any kneeling (right-handed) shooter.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily.

It's my experience that different tools require different stances.... :naughty:

Catapult soldier.jpg
 
Last edited:
This is where grips/battery-holders on the camera that include a second shutter release for exactly this purpose, are helpful, like on my F5. Otherwise as above, awkwardness of right hand on top
 
lindsay said:
This is where grips/battery-holders on the camera that include a second shutter release for exactly this purpose, are helpful, like on my F5. Otherwise as above, awkwardness of right hand on top
Click to expand...
Even when I've had a camera with a 'vertical grip' I've still turned the camera through 90 degrees.
:D
 
sirch said:
Naturally I would shoot with my hand above the camera but it feels more steady if I have my hand beneath the camera but then getting my finger on the shutter button is a bit more awkward
Click to expand...

I use both hands... :P

Right above, with some weight of the rig being supported by the fingers curled round the built in grip and left below, supporting the rest of the weight and dealing with what it normally deals with. FWIW, I did the same before cameras were as bulky as they are now but the left hand did more of the supporting.
 
I don't like grips as they increase size and weight. I do appreciate that they make portrait orientation easier but unless you're taking a large number of portrait orientation shots I don't think a grip warrants the additional bulk and weight.

Another interesting question is what percentage of your pictures are portrait v landscape orientation. I'd guess that for me portrait orientation is less than 20% and that would probably be generous so a grip just isn't worth it for me.

For me, RH above.
 
sirch said:
Naturally I would shoot with my hand above the camera but it feels more steady if I have my hand beneath the camera but then getting my finger on the shutter button is a bit more awkward
Click to expand...
As already suggested, my first choice is a grip, but I now only have a grip for one camera.

Without a grip, I seem to alternated between hand on top and hand underneath. Neither is very comfortable, but with the hand underneath option, i sometimes change my grip entirely and press the shutter button with my thumb.
 
With the shutter button under the camera, both elbows are in the belly which I find helps stability on standing shots.
Not so easy though in some kneeling positions so I tend to gravitate to what fits my shooting position and use hand under or over.
 
I always turn the camera so that the shutter button is at the bottom. Left hand under the lens and right hand under the body.
 
woof woof said:
Another interesting question is what percentage of your pictures are portrait v landscape orientation. I'd guess that for me portrait orientation is less than 20% and that would probably be generous so a grip just isn't worth it for me.
Click to expand...
If you do a lot of head and shoulders shots, it used to be the case that you could get a 645 camera with a portrait orientation, like the Fuji GS or even the Seagull 203 (a surprisingly good piece of kit).

If you use a 6x6 camera, you don't need to turn it whatever way you want the final picture!

Hasselblad on Manfroto 222.JPG
 
Sky said:
Have a look at some of the stupid poses some photographers make:
Click to expand...
Even more fun to go out and find your own... :naughty:

Photographer leaning over backwards ExeterCathedral E-PL5 P8040003 mono.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sky
AndrewFlannigan said:
If you do a lot of head and shoulders shots, it used to be the case that you could get a 645 camera with a portrait orientation, like the Fuji GS or even the Seagull 203 (a surprisingly good piece of kit).

If you use a 6x6 camera, you don't need to turn it whatever way you want the final picture!

View attachment 361668
Click to expand...

I'm a bit of a fan of 4:3 for portrait orientation and 1:1 too and of course 3:2 has its place and charms for portrait orientation but maybe not 16:9 in portrait orientation.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
If you use a 6x6 camera, you don't need to turn it whatever way you want the final picture!
Click to expand...
My favourite format.

I loved my Hasselblads and Rolleis (Mamiyas less so). The square format was so versatile, and with the guides on the focussing screen, it was easy to frame for a vertical or horizontal ratio, when required, but use the full square when it was appropriate. Great for stock images as you only needed a single, loosely framed transparency, rather than doubling up on taking both vertical and horizontal images.

Clamped on a tripod there was never any need to re-orientate the camera. And, you got the equivalent of a bit of rising front, for horizontal pictures at least, by using the upper part of the negative.

And if you were using TLRs, you could actually see when someone blinked just as you took the picture, or if a dog walked into the background.

Plus I've always liked square prints.

The first thing I ever had published was an article, in the Amateur Photographer, on the benefits of the square format (or it might have been on TLRs, I can't remember now, and although I have a copy, I don't know where it is).

Ahhh, happy days :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sky
myotis said:
Clamped on a tripod there was never any need to re-orientate the camera
Click to expand...
Except if you forget the prism and only have the waist level finder but want the camera high, then you end up with it on its side trying to figure out which way to move it now that L/R and up/down are reversed ...
 
sirch said:
Except if you forget the prism and only have the waist level finder but want the camera high, then you end up with it on its side trying to figure out which way to move it now that L/R and up/down are reversed ...
Click to expand...
I, of course, would never have forgotten the prism :)
 
myotis said:
I, of course, would never have forgotten the prism :)
Click to expand...
There is the "Got lemons? Make lemonade" school of thought and there's the "Life is dreck and then you're dead" school of thought...

Yer pays yer money and yer takes yer choice. :naughty:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top