"So let's never lose that point as we talk about underwater photography, and its tools and and techniques. The real point is doing what we really love to do. And helping each other when we can"
Fred, I am in total agreement - you hit the nail squarely on the head!
May I take this opportunity to say that I actually don't think that the film vs. digital debate should/need actually be a contrversial one? Having thought about Eric's comments on where this thread was going I'd like to add a bit more waffle about what I do think is important. To create images you can either go down a 'learn by experience' route, a 'study the theory' route or an amalgamation of both (the best option?). I take on board David's comments on sunbursts but having read a lot of posts about the 'problem of digital sunbursts' would like to explain that I think that understanding what is going on might clear misconceptions and explain why the results achieved are as they are and how they can be altered. And I don't intend this to be a technical lecture, just an indication of how such technical issues might be considered and personal conclusions drawn - knowledge is after all power - in this case the power to create images how they are perceived/wanted.
Digital imaging does not handle extreme exposure intensities as does film. It is a 'linear' capture medium which has a dynamic range which is not as wide as that of film is perceived to be. Once an exposure is made digitally, any highlight above its maximum capturable level is clipped - lost, and cannot be put back by any amount of adjustment later. Often a combination of software and adjustment produces 'banding' which may be spurious interpretation of the highest levels recorded by the camera.
Film on the other hand obeys a proportionality law except at high and low exposure levels where poroportionality breaks down and tonality is produced which is actually not representative of the reality of what was imaged. This produces effects such as the apparently smooth tonality which surrounds sunbursts from underwater.
Trying to get digital capture to do this means firstly that the dynamic range of sensors has to (dramatically) increase AND that the software used to interpret the data has to present it to us in an acceptable way. Now if anyone is interested in this try HDR (high dynamic range) photography - I'm currently using a mix of photoshop and photomatrix software to experiment with it. But in order to produce an acceptable viewable image from one which has an extreme bit depth and represents a very high dynamic range means reinterpreting it so that it looks acceptable - so understanding what you are trying to achieve is essential. And my experience of HDR so far is that it can really help some images look far more as I wanted them too, but others simply will not reproduce well!
So sadly, producing sunbursts from digital which look like those from film is not simply a matter of underexposing a bit and then readjusting levels (this will only increase shadow noise).
This whole subject area fascinates me because underwater images represent an environment which is difficult to portray simply because our perceptions of what it is like when we are actually underwater are in general very different to how we portray it in our photographs of it (film or digital). Digital has the potential to change the way we actually portray the marine environment in terms of the way we might be able to record and interpret it in the future. But to do so requires that we understand what we are doing.
Can I also thank Eric and the wetpixel team for providing a forum in which people like myself can waffle on about esoteric items like this. If such prattle intrigues readers and makes them think more about their underwater photography and push it forward then that is great and what such forums are all about! At the end of the day though I accept that we all have to have a degree of acceptance that the end resulting image may represent an awful lot of thought/knowledge/etc, but has to stand on its own as an image.
I was just in Africa shooting with an old man who only uses MF rickety cameras but somehow manages to publish many books and has won more awards than I can count in portuguese. The man doesn't do email, program a vcr but carries a sat phone so his wife can call him. He told me "the camera is just a tool that allows the photographer to capture his vision and every tool has its limitations. You choose the one that allows you to fulfill that vision." I shot 1600 shots in one day, he probably managed 40. I was just sent some jpegs of them... the bastard managed to capture amazing stuff while I got mediocre sitting right next to him out shooting him 40x over. Timing and a magnificent eye beats anything and he'd have gotten awesome pics with a 2 megapixel cellphone (if he knew how to work one 
)
Another filmosaurus told me 5 years ago emphatically, he'd never go digital cos he's an old dog who doesn't want to learn new tricks. Then another more progressive photographer shot some amazing stuff with a digital camera and won awards and accolades worldwide. I spotted the filmosaurus 3 years later fiddling with a digital camera.
PGK
I would caution against using the environmentally friendly argument with digital. Think of the copper/gold etc mining necessary to get the materials to make IC and the chemicals and byproducts needed to produce entire cameras. Electronics scar the environment as well, sometimes much more.
Responsible Electronics Recycling
Trust me to turn film vs digital into an environmental issue. Still, I prefer redheads and black hair to blondes and brunettes, OSX to Windoze circa XX, digital (because I like to keep pressing on the shutter for no reason) over film, speedos over shorts, ethnic over comfort food and finally I really prefer the toilet roll rolling over the top than the bottom.
Loftus, Mike gives you special permission to send him the uncensored version of that pic. However, please do not post Mike's boobies on Wetpixel censored or not...I think Eric will back me on this one, we'll ban you for life!
Oh and Alex, no, the big manufacturers do not seem to have a housing for the F6. So your velvia days seem over, unless you don't like your sunballs.
)Another filmosaurus told me 5 years ago emphatically, he'd never go digital cos he's an old dog who doesn't want to learn new tricks. Then another more progressive photographer shot some amazing stuff with a digital camera and won awards and accolades worldwide. I spotted the filmosaurus 3 years later fiddling with a digital camera.
PGK
I would caution against using the environmentally friendly argument with digital. Think of the copper/gold etc mining necessary to get the materials to make IC and the chemicals and byproducts needed to produce entire cameras. Electronics scar the environment as well, sometimes much more.
Responsible Electronics Recycling
Trust me to turn film vs digital into an environmental issue.
Still, I prefer redheads and black hair to blondes and brunettes, OSX to Windoze circa XX, digital (because I like to keep pressing on the shutter for no reason) over film, speedos over shorts, ethnic over comfort food and finally I really prefer the toilet roll rolling over the top than the bottom. Loftus, Mike gives you special permission to send him the uncensored version of that pic. However, please do not post Mike's boobies on Wetpixel censored or not...I think Eric will back me on this one, we'll ban you for life!
Oh and Alex, no, the big manufacturers do not seem to have a housing for the F6. So your velvia days seem over, unless you don't like your sunballs.
Drew: "PGK. I would caution against using the environmentally friendly argument with digital" - perhaps we should be satisfied with what we use for rather longer than just waiting for the next model with xyz improvements! Problem with film processing chemicals is disposal by US - ie those who use them at home or don't dispose of them properly. And I do take your point on board re old electronics, but again responsible buying/recycling is OUR responsibility, and it can be done. As an example I don't print at home - I use a lab where chemicals are handled properly.
What an interesting discussion.
We can thank Fred for lighting the match that sparked an interesting debate.
My $0.02: Film is here to stay... just like B&W was not eliminated by colour. Digital and film are two different media with their own plus and minuses. There is not much research going in the emulsion world as opposed to digital, which has a tremendous potential when we consider that we are at the infancy of this technology.
It took a few years to 4X5 shooters to jump in the 35mm bandwagon in the middle of the last century. 4X5 stayed but eventually, 35mm became mainstream.
To me however, this is not the point. Fred has alluded to digital as being a great teaching tool... very well used by many pros also. But if digital only came to be as the quintessential learning tool that will keep people interested in learning, not about Photoshop or Capture XYZ, but about the species they photograph; and keep them into diving and the passion that it represents, just like Fred's, then digital is a true blessing.
On a related subject; we have been producing multi-image presentations since the early 80's. At the time, presenting one of these babies meant setting up, aligning, cleaning slides, etc... for hours at a time. Stephen will also vividly remember when Stan Menscher manually wound the take-up spool on his cassette deck. [See Stephen PMA 2005 thread for more on that].
As good as film was, and still is, what counts is the satisfaction expressed by the customer, i.e, the public. And the public loves digital presentations when they are well done.
With digital media, as limited as technology is, we now have the tools to produce a presentation that fits on a CD/DVD, can be presented on a panoramic screen with 3 projectors (instead of 12) and with a flexibility that makes it an extraordinary medium.
In the old days, to make a panoramic image, one had to make duplicates and literally enlarge the image to a point where quality was dropping. Nowadays, the same image can be done with a single 10-16MP DSLR capture “without a drop in quality”. I mean here that the person sitting in the audience will be as delighted if not more by the digital image coming from the projector.
Granted, the image might have been taken with a film/scan process or a DSLR, it is the digital media presentation tool ( and I am definitely not talking Powerpoint here!) that allows us to deliver it with utmost flexibility and great quality for the audience.
My partner Danielle always says that our slide images were NEVER presented with the brightness afforded by today’s digital projectors.
On our way to OWU next week, we are carrying all of our presentations on a hard drive that takes 1/10th the space of a single carrousel tray. It means we can carry not only the programs we present, but also a few spares just in case we need to step in because someone cannot make it.
This is another side to digital technology that is most exciting… and this media still happens to be in its infancy.
One thing I would never argue with Fred, nor anyone else on this thread, is that being underwater making those images is the happiest of all times spent on the planet. Before making it for a living, or simply as a hobby, we all passionately do it for the simple pleasure of being there, enjoying the moment and the greatest treasure in the universe: nature. The rest is more or less relevant.
Michel
PS: Stephen, let’s work on a digital “Waterhouse”!
We can thank Fred for lighting the match that sparked an interesting debate.
My $0.02: Film is here to stay... just like B&W was not eliminated by colour. Digital and film are two different media with their own plus and minuses. There is not much research going in the emulsion world as opposed to digital, which has a tremendous potential when we consider that we are at the infancy of this technology.
It took a few years to 4X5 shooters to jump in the 35mm bandwagon in the middle of the last century. 4X5 stayed but eventually, 35mm became mainstream.
To me however, this is not the point. Fred has alluded to digital as being a great teaching tool... very well used by many pros also. But if digital only came to be as the quintessential learning tool that will keep people interested in learning, not about Photoshop or Capture XYZ, but about the species they photograph; and keep them into diving and the passion that it represents, just like Fred's, then digital is a true blessing.
On a related subject; we have been producing multi-image presentations since the early 80's. At the time, presenting one of these babies meant setting up, aligning, cleaning slides, etc... for hours at a time. Stephen will also vividly remember when Stan Menscher manually wound the take-up spool on his cassette deck. [See Stephen PMA 2005 thread for more on that].
As good as film was, and still is, what counts is the satisfaction expressed by the customer, i.e, the public. And the public loves digital presentations when they are well done.
With digital media, as limited as technology is, we now have the tools to produce a presentation that fits on a CD/DVD, can be presented on a panoramic screen with 3 projectors (instead of 12) and with a flexibility that makes it an extraordinary medium.
In the old days, to make a panoramic image, one had to make duplicates and literally enlarge the image to a point where quality was dropping. Nowadays, the same image can be done with a single 10-16MP DSLR capture “without a drop in quality”. I mean here that the person sitting in the audience will be as delighted if not more by the digital image coming from the projector.
Granted, the image might have been taken with a film/scan process or a DSLR, it is the digital media presentation tool ( and I am definitely not talking Powerpoint here!) that allows us to deliver it with utmost flexibility and great quality for the audience.
My partner Danielle always says that our slide images were NEVER presented with the brightness afforded by today’s digital projectors.
On our way to OWU next week, we are carrying all of our presentations on a hard drive that takes 1/10th the space of a single carrousel tray. It means we can carry not only the programs we present, but also a few spares just in case we need to step in because someone cannot make it.
This is another side to digital technology that is most exciting… and this media still happens to be in its infancy.
One thing I would never argue with Fred, nor anyone else on this thread, is that being underwater making those images is the happiest of all times spent on the planet. Before making it for a living, or simply as a hobby, we all passionately do it for the simple pleasure of being there, enjoying the moment and the greatest treasure in the universe: nature. The rest is more or less relevant.
Michel
PS: Stephen, let’s work on a digital “Waterhouse”!
Hello again guys,
Divegypsy here again. I’m really pleased with the direction and new thoughts people are expressing since I stirred the fire a few days ago. A few more thoughts.
Dynamic range. If you want a longer dynamic capture range. And to increase the percentage of successful shots. Forget digital. And forget transparency film. Shoot negative film, which can hold a greater brightness range than either of the preceding two. National Geographic has done exactly that on several stories where the brightness range of the primary shooting situations exceeded the brightness range capabilities of transparency film. One of the stories was about people who harvested birds nests from seaside caves in Thailand. By a French photographer if I remember correctly. But NGS pictures editors HATED the workflow which required making prints of virtually every frame for the selection process. Today’s film scanners would allow the negative film to be scanned and edited more or less in the same way digital images are. And also on the negative side, transparency film has a nicer, sharper grain structure than negative film.
Following up on Alex’s comment about the British Wildlife Photographer of the Year contest. I also thought that WPoY was a very good contest when I did enter it, for two or three years. But then they changed the rules concerning their picture usage rights from five years use limited to promoting the contest, to usage for the lifetime of the copyright, ie your LIFETIME plus twenty-five years. And said that they no longer needed your permission to use the pictures for any use that involved the Wildlife Photographer of the Year contest OR associated WpoY products. Several times during the years, maybe three years total, that I entered the contest I had declined the offer of a calendar company which wanted to use contest pictures (including “also ran” commendations – I had some also-rans, too). I seem to remember the company was called Inkspot and they asked to use the picture and be guaranteed exclusive world-wide calendar use for that year. For just $100! Under the rules which took effect when I stopped entering the contest, I would not have been able to say no. And my pictures could have been given to anyone for such use in any year for the REST OF MY LIFE! Which would also mean that I could NEVER sell my own picture to a calendar client of my own choosing and guarantee them ANY kind of exclusivity for that picture in calendars that year. I would have LOST any ability to guarantee any client the kind of exclusivity many of them expect forever. So after writing to the Wildlife of the Year contest people about my objections with the new usage rules. And getting no response what-so-ever. I stopped entering the contest because I no longer felt I could enter any of my best work. I hope they have changed their rules. I haven’t looked lately.
And many other photo contests are even MORE EXPLOITATIVE of entries. I saw a recent National Geographic sponsored contest where the rules stated they could use ANY picture entered in the contest, in ANY way they wanted, without any compensation. SO if they saw a great shot and wanted to use it in the Magazine, or in any number of their books, or even for promotional advertisements, they could legally do so. And they not have been obligated to give anything to the photographer, whether or not the picture had won a prize.
I was pleased to see that the recent contests associated with WetPixel limited use of the winning picture to ONLY announcing contest results and promotion of future years of te same contest. This is the way it should be. Especially when you are required to pay an entry fee.
OK, ‘nuff said about contests and exploitation. These days I just don’t enter any.
The original topic, the Nikon F6. In addition to my excessive (5) number of F5’s, I also own one F6. I bought it for topside shooting. And like it very much for that, although at times I think it has too many focusing points. And although you can “cluster” the AF-points, they do not “cluster” in the pattern I would like best. THE F6, Underwater. Having used the camera for a while now, I am generally less excited about using it underwater than I was initially. Reasons. Firstly, NO ACTION FINDER. Some of the supplementary viewfinder optics, such as those by Seacam, are really quite good. But still not as quite as bright and clear as an action finder. And far less compact. To me, what you see when taking the picture is very important, critical. If I can’t really see exactly where the focus is, that’s can be a big problem.
Auto-focus is getting better and better. But it is still mechanical, and “unintelligent”. It doesn’t know what part of the subject is really important. Auto-focus works on contrast, brightness difference. And an animals eyes, where you usually want the focus, is frequently not the area with the greatest contrast difference. And auto-focus will “zero in” on a point, a bit in front of or behind the eye, especially if the eye camouflaged, or situated within a dark line. Because there is more contrast at that “wrong” point. This is where seeing really well through the viewfinder comes in. You can see the “miss” and correct it before the shot.
As I mentioned before, maybe the F6 has too many focus points. And switching between them would involve too much time and too many mechanical movements with the control linkages of an underwater housing. The five focus points of the F5 is good, though I think five in the shape of the five dots on a dice rather than like a + pattern might be a bit nicer. My F5 housings have been modified so that I can very easily switch between the focus points WITH the housing held at my eye. No housing I have seen for the D2X makes changing the focus points easy and fast while held at eye-level. They usually have four little spring-loaded push buttons that you really can’t reach readily while holding the camera at your eye. And you may have to push different buttons multiple times to move the foucs point from one area of the picture to another more distant one. The F6 would be equally difficult to change focus points on in a housing as it also has eleven focus points.
One type of subject matter where I think the F6 (or a D2X) might be really advantageous is shooting marine mammals where you would most often be using ambient light only exposures and a wide-angle lens. The auto-focus capabilities of this generation (F6 & D2X) Nikon are even better than that of my F5’s. In this situation, you could activate all eleven focus points simultaneously and choose the “closest focus priority” option to select between them. With the basic workings of a dome port and a wide-angle lens, where there is more depth-of-field behind the point focused on than in front of it, this could be very effective in getting the focus accurately placed on a subject type that is frequently dark and relatively low in contrast. I notice someone has said that Nexus now has a housing for the F6. Historically I have felt Nexus housing have been a bit “control-deficient”. But if I were going to shoot a lot of whales or pinnepeds, I would probably give the Nexus housing a serious look.
Someone named Drew posted an experience about shooting in Africa with an “old man”, a Filmosaurus like me, who shot only 40 shots on a day where Drew shot 1600. Yet came up with “amazing stuff, while I got mediocre..” This also says again what I said in my post a week or so ago. Rephrased - that maybe shooting only a few shots at exactly the right moment was more important and effective than shooting hundreds. And giving the animal time to adjust to your presence and taking time to watch the animal and learn from the animal, is even more important and more rewarding. I dive with two housings only rarely. And do so primarily so that I can have two different lenses and two very different photo capabilities. Not to have 72 shots instead of 36. I would guess that on well over half of my dives, I don’t even finish the 37 shots I have in the camera. I think one of the disadvantages of digital is that you can have too many pictures. And feel you “have” to take advantage of them. When you are shooting, you aren’t really seeing and learning from the subject. Too much of the thought process is focuses on the mechanics of the camera and flash. And things like composition. Quantity is no substitute for quality.
In a more recent post Michel, AKA Manatee19, says, “..what counts is the satisfaction expressed by the customer…” Again, this is exactly the opposite of my current point of view. In the past I sometimes worked on projects that I thought would “sell” or advance my career. In reality, these projects were NEVER as successful financially, nor as satisfying, and the projects that I did, FIRST and FOREMOST, to PLEASE MYSELF. And that is how I would today. I won’t take on any project or accept any assignment that first and foremost doesn’t really interest and excite ME. And I work on a project until I am really satisfied with it or give up on it. And only when I am satisfied, do I show it or try to sell it. How can I expect anyone else to like or be excited about something that I am not, personally? And usually, in the realm of the kind on biological story that I like to do best, the basic idea is what is usually what is most important.
At a DEMA show the year after my “crinoid” story was run in National Geographic, I had a conversation with Hawaiian underwater photographer Mike Severns. He said he thought the story was nice, but that the real elegance of the story was the idea. That was because he said that he, and probably a couple dozen other underwater photographers, all had enough similar pictures to have done a similar story. But none of them had thought to put it all together in the same way. Within a year of the Geographic publication, similar pictures sets and stories about crinoids and the animals that live with them had run in about half a dozen dive magazines that I saw. It was the idea, the concept, that made the project really fun and exciting for me while I was doing it. And successful in the magazine world where my story sold not only to National Geographic, but also to German, French and Koren GEO’s, and several other big magazines.
And to many people who ask if my job is hard, I often say that taking underwater pictures isn’t really any harder than shooting on land. (For me it is actually easier) Just different. And that the hard part of my job is to think of a really good story idea and do it before some magazine editor thinks of it. Because if the magazine thinks of it first, they will simply go to one or more photo agencies until they find all the pictures they want for their story. And in that case, if I’m lucky, one or two of the pictures they use will be mine. IF I walk in the magazines door with the story idea, all done, they buy all the pictures from me.
Business aspects aside, what I really feel is most important, is to first please yourself.
Life is too short to do anything else. The image is all that really counts when sharing with others. But personally, the experience is what has real meaning.
divegypsy
Divegypsy here again. I’m really pleased with the direction and new thoughts people are expressing since I stirred the fire a few days ago. A few more thoughts.
Dynamic range. If you want a longer dynamic capture range. And to increase the percentage of successful shots. Forget digital. And forget transparency film. Shoot negative film, which can hold a greater brightness range than either of the preceding two. National Geographic has done exactly that on several stories where the brightness range of the primary shooting situations exceeded the brightness range capabilities of transparency film. One of the stories was about people who harvested birds nests from seaside caves in Thailand. By a French photographer if I remember correctly. But NGS pictures editors HATED the workflow which required making prints of virtually every frame for the selection process. Today’s film scanners would allow the negative film to be scanned and edited more or less in the same way digital images are. And also on the negative side, transparency film has a nicer, sharper grain structure than negative film.
Following up on Alex’s comment about the British Wildlife Photographer of the Year contest. I also thought that WPoY was a very good contest when I did enter it, for two or three years. But then they changed the rules concerning their picture usage rights from five years use limited to promoting the contest, to usage for the lifetime of the copyright, ie your LIFETIME plus twenty-five years. And said that they no longer needed your permission to use the pictures for any use that involved the Wildlife Photographer of the Year contest OR associated WpoY products. Several times during the years, maybe three years total, that I entered the contest I had declined the offer of a calendar company which wanted to use contest pictures (including “also ran” commendations – I had some also-rans, too). I seem to remember the company was called Inkspot and they asked to use the picture and be guaranteed exclusive world-wide calendar use for that year. For just $100! Under the rules which took effect when I stopped entering the contest, I would not have been able to say no. And my pictures could have been given to anyone for such use in any year for the REST OF MY LIFE! Which would also mean that I could NEVER sell my own picture to a calendar client of my own choosing and guarantee them ANY kind of exclusivity for that picture in calendars that year. I would have LOST any ability to guarantee any client the kind of exclusivity many of them expect forever. So after writing to the Wildlife of the Year contest people about my objections with the new usage rules. And getting no response what-so-ever. I stopped entering the contest because I no longer felt I could enter any of my best work. I hope they have changed their rules. I haven’t looked lately.
And many other photo contests are even MORE EXPLOITATIVE of entries. I saw a recent National Geographic sponsored contest where the rules stated they could use ANY picture entered in the contest, in ANY way they wanted, without any compensation. SO if they saw a great shot and wanted to use it in the Magazine, or in any number of their books, or even for promotional advertisements, they could legally do so. And they not have been obligated to give anything to the photographer, whether or not the picture had won a prize.
I was pleased to see that the recent contests associated with WetPixel limited use of the winning picture to ONLY announcing contest results and promotion of future years of te same contest. This is the way it should be. Especially when you are required to pay an entry fee.
OK, ‘nuff said about contests and exploitation. These days I just don’t enter any.
The original topic, the Nikon F6. In addition to my excessive (5) number of F5’s, I also own one F6. I bought it for topside shooting. And like it very much for that, although at times I think it has too many focusing points. And although you can “cluster” the AF-points, they do not “cluster” in the pattern I would like best. THE F6, Underwater. Having used the camera for a while now, I am generally less excited about using it underwater than I was initially. Reasons. Firstly, NO ACTION FINDER. Some of the supplementary viewfinder optics, such as those by Seacam, are really quite good. But still not as quite as bright and clear as an action finder. And far less compact. To me, what you see when taking the picture is very important, critical. If I can’t really see exactly where the focus is, that’s can be a big problem.
Auto-focus is getting better and better. But it is still mechanical, and “unintelligent”. It doesn’t know what part of the subject is really important. Auto-focus works on contrast, brightness difference. And an animals eyes, where you usually want the focus, is frequently not the area with the greatest contrast difference. And auto-focus will “zero in” on a point, a bit in front of or behind the eye, especially if the eye camouflaged, or situated within a dark line. Because there is more contrast at that “wrong” point. This is where seeing really well through the viewfinder comes in. You can see the “miss” and correct it before the shot.
As I mentioned before, maybe the F6 has too many focus points. And switching between them would involve too much time and too many mechanical movements with the control linkages of an underwater housing. The five focus points of the F5 is good, though I think five in the shape of the five dots on a dice rather than like a + pattern might be a bit nicer. My F5 housings have been modified so that I can very easily switch between the focus points WITH the housing held at my eye. No housing I have seen for the D2X makes changing the focus points easy and fast while held at eye-level. They usually have four little spring-loaded push buttons that you really can’t reach readily while holding the camera at your eye. And you may have to push different buttons multiple times to move the foucs point from one area of the picture to another more distant one. The F6 would be equally difficult to change focus points on in a housing as it also has eleven focus points.
One type of subject matter where I think the F6 (or a D2X) might be really advantageous is shooting marine mammals where you would most often be using ambient light only exposures and a wide-angle lens. The auto-focus capabilities of this generation (F6 & D2X) Nikon are even better than that of my F5’s. In this situation, you could activate all eleven focus points simultaneously and choose the “closest focus priority” option to select between them. With the basic workings of a dome port and a wide-angle lens, where there is more depth-of-field behind the point focused on than in front of it, this could be very effective in getting the focus accurately placed on a subject type that is frequently dark and relatively low in contrast. I notice someone has said that Nexus now has a housing for the F6. Historically I have felt Nexus housing have been a bit “control-deficient”. But if I were going to shoot a lot of whales or pinnepeds, I would probably give the Nexus housing a serious look.
Someone named Drew posted an experience about shooting in Africa with an “old man”, a Filmosaurus like me, who shot only 40 shots on a day where Drew shot 1600. Yet came up with “amazing stuff, while I got mediocre..” This also says again what I said in my post a week or so ago. Rephrased - that maybe shooting only a few shots at exactly the right moment was more important and effective than shooting hundreds. And giving the animal time to adjust to your presence and taking time to watch the animal and learn from the animal, is even more important and more rewarding. I dive with two housings only rarely. And do so primarily so that I can have two different lenses and two very different photo capabilities. Not to have 72 shots instead of 36. I would guess that on well over half of my dives, I don’t even finish the 37 shots I have in the camera. I think one of the disadvantages of digital is that you can have too many pictures. And feel you “have” to take advantage of them. When you are shooting, you aren’t really seeing and learning from the subject. Too much of the thought process is focuses on the mechanics of the camera and flash. And things like composition. Quantity is no substitute for quality.
In a more recent post Michel, AKA Manatee19, says, “..what counts is the satisfaction expressed by the customer…” Again, this is exactly the opposite of my current point of view. In the past I sometimes worked on projects that I thought would “sell” or advance my career. In reality, these projects were NEVER as successful financially, nor as satisfying, and the projects that I did, FIRST and FOREMOST, to PLEASE MYSELF. And that is how I would today. I won’t take on any project or accept any assignment that first and foremost doesn’t really interest and excite ME. And I work on a project until I am really satisfied with it or give up on it. And only when I am satisfied, do I show it or try to sell it. How can I expect anyone else to like or be excited about something that I am not, personally? And usually, in the realm of the kind on biological story that I like to do best, the basic idea is what is usually what is most important.
At a DEMA show the year after my “crinoid” story was run in National Geographic, I had a conversation with Hawaiian underwater photographer Mike Severns. He said he thought the story was nice, but that the real elegance of the story was the idea. That was because he said that he, and probably a couple dozen other underwater photographers, all had enough similar pictures to have done a similar story. But none of them had thought to put it all together in the same way. Within a year of the Geographic publication, similar pictures sets and stories about crinoids and the animals that live with them had run in about half a dozen dive magazines that I saw. It was the idea, the concept, that made the project really fun and exciting for me while I was doing it. And successful in the magazine world where my story sold not only to National Geographic, but also to German, French and Koren GEO’s, and several other big magazines.
And to many people who ask if my job is hard, I often say that taking underwater pictures isn’t really any harder than shooting on land. (For me it is actually easier) Just different. And that the hard part of my job is to think of a really good story idea and do it before some magazine editor thinks of it. Because if the magazine thinks of it first, they will simply go to one or more photo agencies until they find all the pictures they want for their story. And in that case, if I’m lucky, one or two of the pictures they use will be mine. IF I walk in the magazines door with the story idea, all done, they buy all the pictures from me.
Business aspects aside, what I really feel is most important, is to first please yourself.
Life is too short to do anything else. The image is all that really counts when sharing with others. But personally, the experience is what has real meaning.
divegypsy
Oh for goodness sake James. Why did you have to go and bring the topic back to the original question... spoilsport 
QUOTE (divegypsy @ Jan 30 2007, 03:02 AM) 
Hello again guys ...
On the other hand, if my comments have brought new energy and new thinking into the film-vs-digital debate, there has been some positive benefit. But regardless of the recording medium, I feel that it is the final image that matters. Not how it was taken.
divegypsy
On the other hand, if my comments have brought new energy and new thinking into the film-vs-digital debate, there has been some positive benefit. But regardless of the recording medium, I feel that it is the final image that matters. Not how it was taken.
divegypsy
Very nicely stated Fred, and quite interesting contributions to the thread from all. I'm off the Raja Ampat tomorrow, but my F100 cameras and housings will stay at home, as they always do, lonely and forlorn.
QUOTE (divegypsy @ Jan 30 2007, 07:27 PM)
Someone named Drew posted an experience about shooting in Africa with an “old man”, a Filmosaurus like me, who shot only 40 shots on a day where Drew shot 1600. Yet came up with “amazing stuff, while I got mediocre..” This also says again what I said in my post a week or so ago. Rephrased - that maybe shooting only a few shots at exactly the right moment was more important and effective than shooting hundreds. And giving the animal time to adjust to your presence and taking time to watch the animal and learn from the animal, is even more important and more rewarding. I dive with two housings only rarely. And do so primarily so that I can have two different lenses and two very different photo capabilities. Not to have 72 shots instead of 36. I would guess that on well over half of my dives, I don’t even finish the 37 shots I have in the camera. I think one of the disadvantages of digital is that you can have too many pictures. And feel you “have” to take advantage of them. When you are shooting, you aren’t really seeing and learning from the subject. Too much of the thought process is focuses on the mechanics of the camera and flash. And things like composition. Quantity is no substitute for quality.
Absolutely, Mr gypsy, but it can also be the other way round. Where you want 464 shots in that one dive because of a unique situation that happens once every 50 years or something. My point is that cameras are tools. You use what fits the situation. In certain situations where the subject moves quickly and scenes change constantly, 37 frames won't cut it and you may not get another shot at it again for years, if ever.
Digital and film have their uses and everyone should choose their poison based on function. Arbitrarily discounting one or the other is just silly.
QUOTE (Drew @ Feb 4 2007, 09:43 PM)
My point is that cameras are tools. You use what fits the situation.
Digital and film have their uses and everyone should choose their poison based on function. Arbitrarily discounting one or the other is just silly.
Digital and film have their uses and everyone should choose their poison based on function. Arbitrarily discounting one or the other is just silly.
Hallejula!! (did i spell that one right?)
I'm with Drew on this one. Though I shoot 90 percent digital in volume these days and I enjoy intensely the - see what you get digital life, I get better tonality and quality with film in certain circumstances, I'm hooked on the easy feedback. I use both and I can take advantage of whichever suits the particularities of what I'm trying to capture.
I'm not certain I would prefer digital if I had a rare occurrance happening, but then I have shot film much longer than digital and I know my tool that much better - that I rarely miss with my old analog setup. ( I miss more with digital) Digital is great for much of what I do, however I still get out of the water with less than 40 exposures allmost all the time. When I don't, I haven't been thinking enough about the subject matter and I have usually not acomplished what I set out to do. For me the number of pictures never really was an issue for choosing digital. However with certain situations with fast moving subjects I can see the advantage.
Finally I hope that film gets back into fashion as some of us still use them to photograph what I percieve as more beutiful sunbursts than what I get out of my digital. (Besides I have many such beutiful sunburst shots in my portfolio to sell..) I've been told thats a personal preferance, so I'll scratch than one down as case of lacking taste by those photgraphers....
Great discussion!
Espen
Just to add my two pennyworth (OK - it isn't worth that much!):
1) Everyone must be allowed to have an opinion and to change that opinion later if they want to - especially me.
2) I changed over to digital after I calculated that I would save money on film, processing and scanning, only to find that the manufacturers have us by the short ones by continually bringing out new hardware. I still have the Nikon F2 outfit I used when I shot for Penthouse Mag in 1970 but already I am beginning to pile up obsolete digital cameras (and housings) that no-one wants to buy. (I recently advertised an S2Pro and Subal housing for £1000 and did not get one offer!)
So instead of the money going to Fuji/Kodak in materials it goes to Nikon/Adobe instead.
3) We all know what we like and Hollywood film directors usually shoot on film because they like what they call 'the filmic quality'. It's a look that we have got used to over the last 50 years.
4) There seems to be a general dumbing down of quality in the media making images that might have been unacceptable in the past quite usable now.
5) Putting aside special considerations such as action moments that need a machine-gun approach, I take a lot more pictures underwater each dive than I used to when faced with the dicipline of the 36 exposure limit. However, I am not sure my pictures are necessarily better. I see a lot of dross later.
6) What I generously attribute to Alex as 'Mustardization' (ie post processing) has been going on since the days of Rotoscope only it is economically viable for everyone now. My 'ground-breaking' advertising campaign for Guinness in the '80s using combined images was done using the die-transfer process. I have just spent about four hours giving a shot perfect visibility for publication in Diver Mag but don't expect to find the water exactly like that when you get there! (Come on Alex. What about a Magic Plankton Filter?)
Alas, trick photography is so common now that we need to suspend belief in what we see. (The movie True Lies was the first I remember seeing that had stupendous stunts that were not performed by conventional stuntmen.) The camera does not lie but the computer does - whether you gather the original image on film or by an electronic method.
I have spent hours watching pigmy seahorses waiting for them to jump and do aquabatics without succcess but Alex seems more lucky! Similarly, my mantas swim in a much more untidy way than Mike's.
So what's reality got to do with it? Did man really land on the moon or was it just a film set?
I used to spend hours disguising the pimple on a girl's bottom. Now, all you have to do is to click a button for Chrissake! (Which is acceptable? Wart or Wartless?)
My biggest problem is that all the skills I learned are now obsolete and any young whippersnapper can take a good picture now - so they are virtually worthless along with all my 35mm film kit. Just call me a grumpy old man!
1) Everyone must be allowed to have an opinion and to change that opinion later if they want to - especially me.
2) I changed over to digital after I calculated that I would save money on film, processing and scanning, only to find that the manufacturers have us by the short ones by continually bringing out new hardware. I still have the Nikon F2 outfit I used when I shot for Penthouse Mag in 1970 but already I am beginning to pile up obsolete digital cameras (and housings) that no-one wants to buy. (I recently advertised an S2Pro and Subal housing for £1000 and did not get one offer!)
So instead of the money going to Fuji/Kodak in materials it goes to Nikon/Adobe instead.
3) We all know what we like and Hollywood film directors usually shoot on film because they like what they call 'the filmic quality'. It's a look that we have got used to over the last 50 years.
4) There seems to be a general dumbing down of quality in the media making images that might have been unacceptable in the past quite usable now.
5) Putting aside special considerations such as action moments that need a machine-gun approach, I take a lot more pictures underwater each dive than I used to when faced with the dicipline of the 36 exposure limit. However, I am not sure my pictures are necessarily better. I see a lot of dross later.
6) What I generously attribute to Alex as 'Mustardization' (ie post processing) has been going on since the days of Rotoscope only it is economically viable for everyone now. My 'ground-breaking' advertising campaign for Guinness in the '80s using combined images was done using the die-transfer process. I have just spent about four hours giving a shot perfect visibility for publication in Diver Mag but don't expect to find the water exactly like that when you get there! (Come on Alex. What about a Magic Plankton Filter?)
Alas, trick photography is so common now that we need to suspend belief in what we see. (The movie True Lies was the first I remember seeing that had stupendous stunts that were not performed by conventional stuntmen.) The camera does not lie but the computer does - whether you gather the original image on film or by an electronic method.
I have spent hours watching pigmy seahorses waiting for them to jump and do aquabatics without succcess but Alex seems more lucky! Similarly, my mantas swim in a much more untidy way than Mike's.
So what's reality got to do with it? Did man really land on the moon or was it just a film set?
I used to spend hours disguising the pimple on a girl's bottom. Now, all you have to do is to click a button for Chrissake! (Which is acceptable? Wart or Wartless?)
My biggest problem is that all the skills I learned are now obsolete and any young whippersnapper can take a good picture now - so they are virtually worthless along with all my 35mm film kit. Just call me a grumpy old man!
I have pheromones the mantas dig...
Who's the dodgy looking fella in the attached photo??!??!!
Who's the dodgy looking fella in the attached photo??!??!!
QUOTE (MikeVeitch @ Feb 11 2007, 04:46 AM)
Who's the dodgy looking fella in the attached photo??!??!!
A bloke that owns mvKairos (live-aboard) - with a wart!
(Come on Alex. What about a Magic Plankton Filter?)
Alas, trick photography is so common now that we need to suspend belief in what we see. The camera does not lie but the computer does - whether you gather the original image on film or by an electronic method.
I have spent hours watching a pimple on a girl's bottom. Now, all you have to do is to click a button for Chrissake! (Which is acceptable? Wart or Wartless?)
n!
[/quote]
I prefer mine wartless and smoooth.......
Alas, trick photography is so common now that we need to suspend belief in what we see. The camera does not lie but the computer does - whether you gather the original image on film or by an electronic method.
I have spent hours watching a pimple on a girl's bottom. Now, all you have to do is to click a button for Chrissake! (Which is acceptable? Wart or Wartless?)
n!
[/quote]
I prefer mine wartless and smoooth.......
Hi John
"Hollywood film directors usually shoot on film because they like what they call 'the filmic quality'" - oddly enough, the film Corpse Bride was actually shot on digital still cameras (Canon EOS1DMkIIs with Nikon Lenses I believe!) rather than cine film.
My 'ground-breaking' advertising campaign for Guinness in the '80s using combined images was done using the die-transfer process." You killed it?!? Terminal warts?
"any young whippersnapper can take a good picture now". Ah, that would be using the auto-composition function I assume. This is, I assume, still evolving - soon we'll have a "Cartier-Bresson", "Ansel Adams", "Daguerre" and other custom assigned versions. Perhaps even the "headless snapshot" for when we really want to mimic reality? (A friend once showed me a nice pic of his back lawn which was fine and I couldn't understand what he thought was wrong with it - it should have had his two children in it but he'd missed!).
Tools don't make a photographer I'm afraid - technique (pre or post processing) still isn't everything (how many pix of pigmy seahorses do you see with the polyps still expanded? - ie undisturbed) - I reckon that knowing your subject and being able to portray it in the way it was envisaged remains the photographer's craft/art/skill/whatever you wan't to call it. Technology can help creativity but can't mimic it.
"Hollywood film directors usually shoot on film because they like what they call 'the filmic quality'" - oddly enough, the film Corpse Bride was actually shot on digital still cameras (Canon EOS1DMkIIs with Nikon Lenses I believe!) rather than cine film.
My 'ground-breaking' advertising campaign for Guinness in the '80s using combined images was done using the die-transfer process." You killed it?!? Terminal warts?
"any young whippersnapper can take a good picture now". Ah, that would be using the auto-composition function I assume. This is, I assume, still evolving - soon we'll have a "Cartier-Bresson", "Ansel Adams", "Daguerre" and other custom assigned versions. Perhaps even the "headless snapshot" for when we really want to mimic reality? (A friend once showed me a nice pic of his back lawn which was fine and I couldn't understand what he thought was wrong with it - it should have had his two children in it but he'd missed!).
Tools don't make a photographer I'm afraid - technique (pre or post processing) still isn't everything (how many pix of pigmy seahorses do you see with the polyps still expanded? - ie undisturbed) - I reckon that knowing your subject and being able to portray it in the way it was envisaged remains the photographer's craft/art/skill/whatever you wan't to call it. Technology can help creativity but can't mimic it.
QUOTE (dhaas @ Jan 26 2007, 05:32 AM)
I'd also like to know what dive boat you've seen this plethora of dedicated film photographers who can't bear the "gross manipulation" that will be required to make decent shots. Plus the "weakened composition" strictly assigned to digital photography?......I can't remember the last time I saw a film shooter at resorts or on a live aboard boat!
Im not going to name names, but ive been on several trips where this has happened. The interesting thing is that a lot of people out of that group (i was one of only 2 digital photographers out of 20) would approach me in private to learn about what digital could do for them, but in public the peer pressure would take over.
Im the type of person that lives and lets live. Ive shot film for many years, and loved it. Now I shoot digital, and love it. What bugs me a lot is that now that I shoot digital, in the eyes of many film photographers that dont even know me, ive suddenly become unethical. On one of the above mentioned trips, I had a histogram open on my screen to judge the exposure as I dont trust my laptop screen. Behind me I could hear someone whispering I was manipulating my photos. And you see it right here in this thread. It's often not about technology but about ethics, and thats why I think these discussions become so heated.
Not every digital photographer has no clue about film.
Not every digital photographer shoots 500 photos per dive.
Not every digital photographer spends 6 hours a day in photoshop.
And.. not every film photographer is a dinosaur.
Not every film photographer is at the end of his or her career.
All these types of remarks are merely causing polarization. If you are happy with what you're doing, be it film or digital, if you are selling, or just having fun, more power to you! But leave others to their thing, and perhaps learn something from the other. I find the most interesting trips are those where film and digital photographers are happily mixing and loving each other's images.
Cor
QUOTE (pgk @ Feb 11 2007, 07:03 AM)
"Hollywood film directors usually shoot on film because they like what they call 'the filmic quality'" - oddly enough, the film Corpse Bride was actually shot on digital still cameras (Canon EOS1DMkIIs with Nikon Lenses I believe!) rather than cine film.
Hi Paul,
I never found that film Corpse Bride to be particularly realistic looking!
My point about wart free photography was that it was always possible - if you had the budget!
I note you did not argue that I was NOT a grumpy old man!
QUOTE (pmooney @ Feb 11 2007, 05:55 AM)
I have spent hours watching a pimple on a girl's bottom...I prefer mine wartless and smoooth.......
Somehow Peter, I believe you would do spend hours watching a pimple.
QUOTE (John Bantin @ Feb 11 2007, 09:26 AM)
I never found that film Corpse Bride to be particularly realistic looking!
John
I could name you over 20 films and more TV shows now shot in HD. The best movie I've seen made in HD is Sokurov's Russian Ark... a movie with just one long master shot, the world's first unedited movie. Impossible to shoot on 35mm film.
And yes they do try and try to make HD look more like 35mm film, then directors like Michael Mann say that HD gives a look that film can't have... VIDEO! Just like on TV. Problem is that all those blemishes so well hidden in film come right out in full detailed glory on HD. Why do you think so many actors in their late 20s and early 30s can still play teens in movies?
QUOTE
I note you did not argue that I was NOT a grumpy old man!
Since I've met you a few times John, I can vouch you are not grumpy at all.
John
You sussed the flaw in my Corpse Bride argument! But BBC's Planet Earth used underwater time lapse sequences shot on digital stills! Which is not a bad accolade in itself.
Digital can lower retouching costs.
"Grumpy" is not a description which I would apply to you.
F6s are starting to come up on the used market quite cheap - this might tell us something (OK I am stirring things a bit).
You sussed the flaw in my Corpse Bride argument! But BBC's Planet Earth used underwater time lapse sequences shot on digital stills! Which is not a bad accolade in itself.
Digital can lower retouching costs.
"Grumpy" is not a description which I would apply to you.
F6s are starting to come up on the used market quite cheap - this might tell us something (OK I am stirring things a bit).
Glad to see the disscusion on dig vs film . I know that film is not well respected here but it is where most of us older u/w guys started. As a film shooter of 25 years underwater with nikon f-3's and now 2 f-5's in subals i have not yet switched to dig. But that said I will get a used dig system in the next few years as guys sell off the old stuff for nickels on the dollar. I feel film still has merits.Yes 100 shots on a dive sounds sweet.
The real qusetion that was asked is f-6 got a housing yet?? and the answer is yes-but with no sportfinder why would anyone house one??. I think film as well as dig both have there place. I still have very mixed feelings about fixing images later. Mark
The real qusetion that was asked is f-6 got a housing yet?? and the answer is yes-but with no sportfinder why would anyone house one??. I think film as well as dig both have there place. I still have very mixed feelings about fixing images later. Mark
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.