Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Wetpixel :: Underwater Photography Forums _ Digital SLRs/Housings _ Nikon F6 Underwater? (AKA Digital vs. Film, part infinity)
Posted by: Alex_Mustard Mar 22 2005, 11:54 PM
Has anyone heard about any housings for the Nikon F6?
I'm only asking out of interest. There is no way I would go back to the inferior image quality of velvia! 
Alex
Posted by: MikeVeitch Mar 23 2005, 02:48 PM
thats just cruel....my Nik V just had its feelings hurt
Posted by: Rocha Mar 23 2005, 03:44 PM
I wonder if it will fit in some F100 housing, it looks only slightly bigger. Not that I will switch, the F100 is my last film camera, and the F6 won't give me better resolution since it has the same sensor (film).
Posted by: Kasey Mar 24 2005, 01:26 AM
It'll probably be tough for a housing mfr to assign development energy to this camera. If it is the last nikon film camera, it might not be a bad idea. But to my knowledge, the F5/F100 have not been discontinued yet, and the f6 doesn't offer much more for uw purposes. I would be tempted to house this camera, however, for the new autofocus system. It is tough to shoot fish and turtles emerging from the sun with the F100, and I suspect that the F6 would handle such contrast situations better.
Now, if Nikon doesn't announce a new digital for a while, and Seacam gets caught up on the D2x housings, perhaps they will become interested in this camera. Realistically, though, it is already clear that there will be no rush to design housings.
Posted by: Ryan Mar 25 2005, 07:33 AM
Call me crazy, but I'd rather use an f5 w/ a DA-30 and manually focus fish and turtles in the sunball...
Posted by: digitallywet Mar 25 2005, 07:44 AM
crazy 
Posted by: Kasey Mar 25 2005, 12:04 PM
Don't you think the seacam/subal viewfinders are as good?
Posted by: Tom_Kline Mar 26 2005, 09:29 PM
The F6 appears to share a number of components with the D2 series such as the top plate. Some of the controls may be in the same position. Accordingly, it may be possible to put an F6 in a D2. Is the height with the vertical grip the same as a D2 and is the tripod mount in the same spot? If not possibly a spacer block could be used instead. The joystick on the back appears to be shifted in the F6 so it would not be accessible in a D2 housing should it otherwise fit.
Maybe the most compelling reason for adapting an F6 would be to use film in the same housing one might already be using. If one already has legacy film equipment, an F6 is otherwise difficult to justify.
Posted by: fdog Mar 27 2005, 08:25 AM
No removable finder...exactly why I passed on the F6...not crazy...
All the best, James
Posted by: onokai Apr 14 2005, 10:56 PM
Alex I have yet to switch to the inferior quality of digital over film so it cuts both ways. as far as a housing for the f6 without a sportfinder whats the point??. My f3's with sportfinders in aquatica's have worked well since 1984 and now f5s in subals . I can say without hesitation that most digital bodies are used less than 5 years before the new kid on the block takes over. The f5 light meters are super. The huge finder makes for viewing from afar easy. All others are a step down.The new generation of DX2 and the like look to be as good as film but the jury is out or at least mine. Yes film has some drawbacks but still has its place. Mark
Posted by: Kasey Apr 28 2005, 03:39 AM
How much time have you spent actually shooting digital? I like the convenience of film - computer processing is a chore and I'd rather be diving. The quality argument is obsolete for me because scanning levels the playing field. I gotta admit I love the look of my fujichromes. On the other hand, I've lost dozens of GREAT shots to insufficient depth of field that digital would've caught. Don't discount digital quality - we all have our preferences, but the differences aren't black and white as you imply. Even the D2x falls short of velvia in some regards...
Oh, and where can I buy a digital camera that will keep me happy for 5 years???
Kasey
Posted by: Alex_Mustard Apr 28 2005, 06:34 AM
My initial comment was tongue in cheek!
But seriously I am convinced that my D2X out resolves E6 slide film. They only way I can quantify this is by looking at scanned slides - so E6 is having to play an away fixture - against digital files. But I think that this fair because nearly all image usage these days is via computers.
Scanned slides are about 20Mpixels (55MB TIFF). So you have to uprezz the digital film to the same size. Doing this in one step in Photoshop Image Size and a quick USM on a D2X basic JPG (worse case scenario) the D2X file is sharper, cleaner and shows more detail than scanned velvia when viewed at 100%.
It is easy to check yourself and you don't need a D2X - open a 4000dpi slide scan and view at 100%. Detail is not perfect. The D2X is darn close to being.
This image shows 100% crops from the D2X basic jpg (top) and a slide scanned to TIFF (bottom), with full images shown for comparison. Sorry they are not the same subject, but both taken with the same lens. D2X uprezzed, so file size is same as 4000dpi scan. Slide film is Velvia. 
OK my scanner is only a Nikon Coolscan 5000 (which is damn fine) and it is not as good as industrial ones. But I have checked the D2X against some scitex scans too.
As Kasey implies there is far more to image quality than resolution but few now doubt that cameras like the D2X and 1DS Mk2 sit somewhere between 35mm and medium format film when it comes to useable resolution. Its easy to say a 4000dpi scan is 20Mpixels and thats more than the Canon and Nikon. But that doesn't account for the quality of the pixels.
That said there is far more to a good images - than camera image quality/resolution. And clearly film and digital are capable of excellent results way exceeding resolution for most applications - Doug Perrine won the BBC Wildlife comp last year with a 6MP D60 image which is definitely sub-transparency in quality!
Alex
p.s. I am sorry for this post. It is very much one of those "I'm not going to argue, but..." ones!
Posted by: onokai Apr 28 2005, 09:35 AM
No agument here either Alex. I agree with you on the quaily of the d2x. From what I have read this newer breed of cameras are as good if not better than film cameras. That has not been the case before now. I will switch to dig when this generation ( D2x) hits the used market most likely- when the latest dx4 or the like make the current one obsolete i'll pick one up. After over 20 years working with film one gets the details down. Yes there are more throw aways per roll but thats film. As I have shot manual since the mid 80's switching to manual in dig will be a smoother transition.
How is the viewer on the D2X compared sizewise to a sportfinder?? on say a f/5 ??.
As computer time is not what I like to do and slide shows with 2 projectors + dissolve unit are what I like dig has taken a back burner until the other issues are worked out ( quality- viewfinders- not magnifiers- speed delays ect.)These other issues are now being addressed with the newer cameras.
Kaseys comment (Oh, and where can I buy a digital camera that will keep me happy for 5 years???
That hits home as my two f/3 in aquatica housings have been working as well as when they were new -thats over 20 years of shooting..That is I have been happy with them for 20 years- anyone out there with a digital camera who can say this??
The newer f/5 in the subal should work for as long also..I like getting new stuff as much as the next guy but replacing whole cameras and housings ever 1-2 years seems abit much. That said I have 2 boats that seem to take a bit of $ to keep up. so I want my gear to last awhile.
Film has its place and for me its in a housing underwater shooting for now and has been since 1982. I'll move into digital when this newer d2x and the like are around awhile.
Did not mean to ruffel so many feathers. Mark
Posted by: Alex_Mustard Apr 28 2005, 10:25 PM
I still think there are areas where the look of a film shot is special and looking at a digital shot on a monitor is never as nice as seeing a tranny on a lightbox. Even if digital is slightly out resolving film nobody is going to say that a film shot is not good enough in quality terms. So my argument above is academic.
What has surprised me is that I have lost motivation to shoot film. When I was in Cayman shooting the freedivers I had both my D2X and F100 on the boat with 10.5mm and 16mm lens on. Both in Subal housings with domeports, both ready to go.
But despite being in the water for about 3-4hours I never wanted to take the F100 in. I returned to the boat several times and could have easily grabbed the F100. But I didn't. I took about 300 shots that day with the D2X. That roll of slide film is still sitting in my F100!
http://www.amustard.com/?page=pro&ext=free&subpage=news&size=s
I think that the D2X is too expensive unless you are shooting a lot. But with luck Nikon will bring out that sensor in a cheaper body within 12 months.
Alex
Posted by: tomeyer Apr 29 2005, 03:57 AM
I have used film for 10 years and until recently prefered film to digital. After planning my next trip with my friends I pointed out to the dive shop owner (who is a film freak) that Palau Aggressor will no longer be processing slides. Representatives at Aggressor said the will continue unsure unsure until the processing unit goes down but will not replace it. We came to the understanding that the writing is on the wall and both of us are now moving to digital. It would be a disappointment to go on an expensive dive trip and find out that my light meter was playing games with me all week. While there may be some questions about the quality difference, I have trouble distinguishing between the two unless the print is over 11X14. I feel if I want to continue improving im my photography digital is the way to go.
Tom
Posted by: onokai Apr 29 2005, 08:14 AM
My favorite size print is a 14x20.
I will slowly make the change.
When the d2x is the old kid on the block.
And the many have moved on to the latest greatest
meanwhile Im headed off to the banda sea- sorong to bali for 26 nights on the sea safari 111
with 150 + rolls of velvia 50 -provia 100- velvia 100 and kodak vs100. @ f/5's subal and aquatic f/5 housing and a topside body. I'll take a dig for land shots as well.. This boat still does e-6 process.. to check results now and then as boat processing is always subpar.Mark
Posted by: Kasey May 21 2005, 01:51 PM
I handled the F6 yesterday - what a nice camera to hold!!! Lighter and smaller than an F5, but a little bigger and more contoured than my F100. Very nice camera.
Posted by: divegypsy Jul 25 2005, 07:06 PM
Hi Guys,
At the PMA show in Orlando last February I handled both the D2X and the F6. They are extremely similar in their position of shooting controls, but the one control I really couldn't check adequately was the exact position of the focus point selector. However, my impression then was that if some housing manufacturer were really enterprising. He could make a housing which shared the same front, and if necessary had two possible backs, so that you could choose which camera you wanted to use on which dive. If my impressions were correct about the controls, any difference in total camera heights could probably be easily compensated for with two camera saddles. There is also the possibility that the add-on AA battery pack for the F6 might even the height difference. And with a second addition to that battery pack you can also sue the same battery that the D2X uses.
I am hoping that maybe I can encourage Harald at Seacam in this direction. Seacam's optical finders, the 45 degree and 90 degree, are the best I've seen yet and even if you had to have two different backs, you'd be able to switch fairly easily and have the best of both worlds.
I continued on this idea further and the Nikon Tech reps told me that the F6 functioned fully with both the older (like underwater strobes) TTL and the new i-TTL. I then asked the tech reps if I used two different lenses on each camera (say a 12-24mm on a D2X and a 17-35mm on an F6) to get virtually identical framing and set up an i-TTL multiple strobe shot, would the F6 and D2X give me the very same result. The tech reps said they had never done that test, but by Nikon's specifications, the answer should be yes. To which I then asked, "So in that kind of circumstance you could use a D2X to provide a really good "polaroid" for the F6?" And again they said yes.
Why would you want to use a D2X as a polaroid for a film camera? Alex Mustard claims that the D2X has higher resolution than even Velvia. And he then goes on to say you can even compare the Velvia scanned at 4000 dpi (I'm guessing he means on a Nikon Coolscan) to the D2X. Let's get serious about the comparison. If you want to do a really fair comparison, why limit the film scan to the results from a cheap consumer scanner. why not compare the absolute best results you can get from the identical lens from each? I think that if Alex compared his D2X to a really top quality scan, like those produced by an Imacon, or even better, by a drum scanner, at 8,000 dpi, it would be a "no comparison" contest in favor of the film.
All this is not to say I am against digital. I'm not, and just picked up a D2X last week. I also just ordered and F6 today so that I'll also be able to take advantage of the similarities between the two cameras. And will soon get rid of the last F100 I have. But I'll certainly be hanging on to my F5's and action finders in their Seacam housings, because for now, the F5 + TTL strobe combination is something I'm not willing to give up.
divegypsy
Posted by: shchae Jul 25 2005, 09:23 PM
Wow....is good idea & hope manufacturers listen to this. You can order custom made housing to company like DIV or Zillion in Japan but, just no one ever ordered one.
I will be also, interested to see the result of film/digital competition . I love my Seacam F100 & will keep it for a long time & also love my new D70/Nexus setup ....
Sam
Posted by: Alex_Mustard Jul 26 2005, 01:04 AM
Unfortunately, I don't think that the manufacturers share your enthusiasm (although it is up to underwater photographers to lobby them). Despite the fact that the F6 is pretty unanimously regarded as the best film camera ever made, I doubt we will ever see a new underwater housing for a film camera, again.
Alex
Posted by: Kasey Jul 26 2005, 02:52 AM
Agreed. 1) It would be tough to sell an alternative back for a D2x housing when a complete F100 and housing can be had for under 3k. 2)Any future film housings would be chasing a very specialized market.. Expect the price to reflect that low volume! Would you be willing to spend 50% more to house an F6? 3)I've never done any drum scans with my slides, but they would have to be FAR better than my Coolscan results to match my D2x. So far in my experience the D2x has been tough to shoot on land - many have commented that the small pixels make it succeptible to hand shake. This all goes away under water - especially with flash only exposures. The detail and color are better than a projected slide, and no scan can better that! Once you've dived your 2x you'll agree!!!
Posted by: Alex_Mustard Jul 26 2005, 03:55 AM
Re-D2X: its no surprise that Signore Skerry has been using two for National Geographic UW assignments this year.
p.s. Its great to read your enthusiasm for this camera, Kasey. Glad you are so happy.
Re F6: The alternative for housings is to go to a manufacturer like UK-Germany who accept commissions.
Alex
Posted by: Michael Jul 26 2005, 04:33 AM
Hi guys,
I think absolute statements (e.g., better, far superior, film is dead, digital rules, etc. etc.) from both digital and film camps just reflect personal preferences.
Some people like Toyota and others Honda. Both make good cars and get you to your destination. The same can be said about photography. When you see an outstanding photograph, who cares if the shooter used film, digital, Nikon, Canon, or a disposable camera? As long as the image is not a fraud, the technology behind it is irrelevant. Comparisons between digital and film files have so many variables that it's hard to make an apples to apples analysis.
The F6 looks like an amazing machine, another tool like the D2X. If somone makes a housing for this film camera, I can see myself buying it. The F6 raises eyebrows because the momentum of the digital wave is huge, and the launch of a top end film camera today counters this momentum. The digital adoption rate is enormous, but apparently not suffocating.
regards,
mpo
www.mpostock.com
www.batfishbooks.com
Posted by: MikeVeitch Jul 26 2005, 04:54 AM
Michael, i couldn't agree more. I still love film and would shoot it more if i had some access to E6. But i don't so my Nik V and 15mm is gathering dust at the moment...
I still have a half roll in it too!!! oops
Quick question, mostly for Divegypsy i guess. You state you are getting the F6 even though you have two F5s. What are the advantages for you over the F5 which you already have? If i recall correctly the autofocus is faster? Obviously it is smaller as well. What other advantages does it have in your opinion over the F5? I haven't looked into it myself so am being lazy and asking questions instead 
Thanks
Mike
Posted by: Michael Jul 26 2005, 05:31 AM
Dear Mike Veitch,
I'm still shooting three N90s in Aquatica housings - I'm not using F5s. Looking to upgrade/update in the near future (next 12 months or so).
E6 processing is readily available here in Florida. All my images are then professionally scanned and submitted digitally.
Best regards,
mpo
www.mpostock.com
www.batfishbooks.com
Posted by: MikeVeitch Jul 26 2005, 05:50 AM
Sorry for the misunderstanding Michael, there was a poster on the previous page who owns F5s and stated he just purchased an F6.
However, i have a nice N90s sitting in a closet back in my parents house if you are interested in a 4th?! 
Mike
Posted by: Kasey Jul 26 2005, 08:51 AM
I also have an n90s + Aquatica housing + lots of Aquatica extensions/ports/etc. I'll never use them again and they can be had for a bargain.
kaseycanton@mac.com
Posted by: divegypsy Jul 26 2005, 03:05 PM
Hello Again,
Mike has asked what I might hope to gain from an F6 that I'm not getting from the F5.
The actual fact is that I own three (not two) F5's and Seacam housing outfits. And doubles or sometimes even triples of the lenses and seacam ports and extension rings I use most. Why three? I usually travel with only two, but the third set is there in reserve in case one system disappears in transit (read about one guy's loss of stuff on trip to and from Bonaire) or is lost in some kind of boating or diving mishaps. I feel that if you are trying to do underwater photography professionally, you have to have back-up for your gear that are immediately, or nearly immediately available. (Ever ordered a housing, or port, or strobe, or lens and had to wait and wait for it to come? As a pro I don't feel you can just make excuses to a client)
This "reserve back-up" is all the more necessary because I often work with one or two machine shop guys to make special parts for or modifications to my housings. My F5 housings have all been modified to all the following capabilities and features: (1) a double o-ring seal system on all my ports and extension rings, (2) a modified focus point selection control that I like better than Seacam's own, (3) a port lock so that certain ports and extension rings cannot "twist" off accidentally causing a leak or flood, (4) a modified SCM auto-focus mode control that automatically disengages from the manual focus gear on the lens when I switch to S or C. (This means I don't have to try to pull the manual focus knob outward against water pressure, which becomes difficult to impossible as you go deeper, (5) and a simple lever that pushes on the lens release button so that I can easily change lenses, whether or no they have large, complex gears, just by taking the port off and without taking the camera body out of the housing. It would be impossible to have all these things added economically on a "rush" basis. So the "reserve" housing is the best solution for me.
What would I hope to gain with an F6?
One - the F6 does (as confirmed by my handling it at PMA) have better auto-focus which would make it a better camera to use under low contrast situations where the F5 still sometimes has trouble, such as near night and night conditons. Or very large subjects without much contrast. And on faster moving subjects and groups of subjects. And the extra auto-focus points and multiple-point capability would also allow me to try different things.
Two - if both cameras can be make to fit into the same housing, it would allow a choice on cameras on each dive without having to have travel with totally different housing for each camera type. Imagine traveling with just two housings, into which you could put either a pair of F6's if a particular client preferred film, or a pair of D2X's if he preferred digital, or one of each (see also Three). The best of both worlds.
Three - And if there ever is a good i-TTL underwater strobe, the D2X could then be the "perfect polaroid" for the F6 if I bought two of those housings. And would let me try to put together more complex lighting on special occasions. And "pre-test" unusual new optical rigs more quickly. I will still be able to pre-test many combinations with a housed D2X and shooting the strobes on manual. One example of that is the rig I use for higher magnifications (larger than 1:1 and up to 4.4x lifesize) which consists of camera, Nikon AF-S converters (1.4x or 2x), Kenko auto extension tubes, and the Nikon 105mm micro-nikkor. I use the Nikon AF-S converters because my tests indicated they give me better sharpness than di the Kenko converters. But it took a few days of testing to prove this to my satisfaction when I had to shoot a roll of film and wait for processing to see results before shooting another. I could have gotten much of the testing done in a single day with the D2X. And I fully expect to use the D2X for many initial tests in the future, despite the fact that it is not full frame and thus not totally equivalent.
divegypsy
Posted by: divegypsy Jul 27 2005, 05:23 AM
Hi Guys,
A few more thoughts on the various film cameras and digital. I'm the guy using primarily F5's and wrote that I had just ordered an F6. F6 still on order, but the D2X has arrived. I feel that digital has finally come to the point where it offers some advantages over film - mainly the immediate feedback and more shots on a big CF card. Alex's contention that the D2X has better resolution than film is unshared by any magazine I have been in touch with over the last two years, which included National Geographic, German Geo, Terre Sauvage in France, and the publications of the National Wildlife Federation. However, virtually all of them are willing to accept digital images (but rarely Nikon Coolscan 5000 scans) if they are from a top quality digital camera. The Canon 1Ds was most mentioned and to be expected as the Nikon D2x had not yet appeared. When its been around a while I would expect it to be also acceptable. I think the choice between film and digital still comes down to the use you want to put the final images to and which camera offers the most chance of successful image shooting of the subject(s) you are hoping to shoot on that particular dive. Pick the best tool for each job!!
Film camera thoughts related to underwater. Short of a Seacam optical finder, nothing comes close to Nikon's own action finder. The action finder also has the advantage of NOT being 3D Color matrix. Why advantage? Because according to Nikon's own literature the color matrix applies different exposure values to different colors, and different algorithms. I want whatever I point the spot meter at and center at 0.0 exposure to be rendered the same density value on the film. I don't want someone else's feelins about how much lighter blue ought to be rendered, because its usually a sky (not blue water) reading, to be factored in. And this is why I would buy the action finder for the F5 rather than use even Seacam's optical finder. But why I will miss an action finder with the F6. A reasonable second choice to the Seacam 45 and 90 degree finders is Subal's new optical finder, which despite not giving quite as much magnification, is considerably more compact and much less expensive.
F5 vs other Nikon film cameras. The F90. F100, and F5 share virtually identical TTL technology and in my tests, primarily on land, I could find no significant differences. What was significant to me is that the F5 has an action finder, the F5 (and also F100) has multiple focus points, and the F5 has custom functions that allow me to shoot differently than I would be able to do with the F100 or F90. On the plus for the F100, that camera is much less expensive and with a good housing is smaller and lighter. A good optical finder reduces the money difference to almost nil though. And although the F100 is significantly smaller and lighter in its housing alone, that in my opinion diminishes in significance when you add a large dome port (such as Seacam's superdome), and a pair of big, strong strobes (such as Ikelite 400's, or my preferred Hartenberger 625's) at the end of extended strobe arms. Given big strobes on long arms, sometimes a larger housing mass at the center makes for a more stable and easier handling total package, especially in stronger currents or surge.
If the weight underwater of a more compact macro rig is too negative underwater, make and add a custom block of marine styrofoam, with which you can easily achieve true neutrality if that is what you want. You don't HAVE to use any of these housing just as they come from the box. I believe you should make any changes you feel will make the housing easier to use and get good pictures with.
Years ago Ike looked at the multiple changes I'd made to an Ikelite housing and said, "What did you do to my housing?"
I replied, "I did nothing to YOUR housing. The moment you took my money, it became MY housing and mine to do whatever I liked to!"
divegypsy
Posted by: Alex_Mustard Jul 27 2005, 06:38 AM
Thanks for taking the time to share you experience, Fred.
I think just about everyone would agree with your central argument (that I have quoted above). And I think many differences of opinion over equipment come from why people take pictures, what they photograph and who they sell them too.
I look forward to hearing what you make of the D2X once you have take it on a serious shoot UW.
Alex
Posted by: divegypsy Aug 2 2005, 05:43 PM
Hi again Guys,
Talked with Harald at Seacam the other day about the F6 and his D2X housing. Harald told me that he hadn't really looked at the F6 because although he had about 80 D2X housings on order, I was the first person who had ever even asked about the F6. He also said that even though the D2H and D2X are built almost identically, the D2H doesn't match up really well with the D2X control linkages. So he wasn't too optimistic about an F6 working in the housing as is.
I'm willing to buy the housing if it works perfectly for the D2X and I can change a few minor things when I change to an F6. An continue to hope that with the assistance of a good machine shop guy that will be possible.
Another reason for wanting this possibility is that I read carefully my new warranty with the D2X and cleearly Nikon is not willing to give any of their digital cameras the same kind of support they do the film cameras. (D2X has a one year regionally-limited warranty vs three year world-wide warranty on the F6) See the new topic on this subject in the digital SLR forum.
divegypsy
Posted by: james Aug 2 2005, 05:58 PM
That sounds like a good move Fred. I haven't tried to fit a smaller alternative Canon in my 1Ds housing, but now I'm thinking about it.
Cheers
James
Posted by: pgk Aug 3 2005, 05:45 AM
Just a few comments. Firstly on digital vs. film capture. I find that one of the biggest problems is in the printing stage. Many designers and printers do not seem to want to understand digitally derived images are now better than scans (could this be to do with a loss in scanning fees???) if shot on the lkies of the EOS1DSI/II or D2X. Regardless of the arguments (and I for one would argue that the cleaner, smoother image quality of these digital cameras outclasses 35mm film) digital is very much here to stay and magazines will undoubtedly start accepting files or find their image options ever decreasing from now on. (On the scanner note, I scan on a Coolscan 8000 when I need to and haven't had any problems provided the printer doesn't know).
Secondly, fitting an F6 inside a D2X housing may well be possible but bear in mind that Seacam will realign an EOS1DS housing to allow a 1DSMkII to fit - although the cameras are close, they are not identical - and the rotating on/off switch won't work if this isn't carried out - from my observations we are probably talking in fractions of a millimetre here. The adjustments required are small and must require a high degree of accuracy, so I would say that such a conversion may be fraught with irritation!
Lastly, I suspect that the warranty situation is more to do with a policy of ensuring that significant price differentials don't occur worldwide. In the UK it was actually possible to extend the EOS1DS's warranty for an additional 2 years at a cost of around £700 ($1000+) which I haven't bothered to do, so there clearly is a risk of failure. Given the decreasing value of any digital gear (EOS1DS cameras are roughly half their new price now) I'm not convinced that this is as important as it might be with a lower volume unit like the F6 which after all uses very tried and tested technology and so should be expected to be very reliable.
Posted by: onokai Jan 18 2006, 11:10 PM
Divegypsy said
(
Film camera thoughts related to underwater. Short of a Seacam optical finder, nothing comes close to Nikon's own action finder. The action finder also has the advantage of NOT being 3D Color matrix. Why advantage? Because according to Nikon's own literature the color matrix applies different exposure values to different colors, and different algorithms. I want whatever I point the spot meter at and center at 0.0 exposure to be rendered the same density value on the film. I don't want someone else's feelins about how much lighter blue ought to be rendered, because its usually a sky (not blue water) reading, to be factored in. And this is why I would buy the action finder for the F5 rather than use even Seacam's optical finder. But why I will miss an action finder with the F6. A reasonable second choice to the Seacam 45 and 90 degree finders is Subal's new optical finder, which despite not giving quite as much magnification, is considerably more compact and much less expensive.)
I knew there was a reason I loved these finders so much.
Is that true that the nikon D2x does not have a Full Frame finder (LCD)??
Mark
Posted by: John Bantin Jan 29 2006, 11:00 AM
I am sorry Alex but comparing a digitally captured image on your D2x with one from film scanned on a 4000dpi scanner is simply not fair (I know because I have a 4000dpi scanner) because film scanned properly on a drum-scanner, in my opinion, beats it well into second place.
If you want to see what I mean, take a close look at the main image used on the Dive 2005 Show Guide. Chris Boardman's face represented a minute area of film yet it is so sharp the hairs on his chin are obscene!
However, when all is said and done, the quality either way is good enough.
Posted by: pgk Jan 29 2006, 11:25 AM
Sorry John but I've just had a series of prints made from immages off both the EOS1DS and a Contax 645 (shot tripod mounted on Velvia) which are printed to A0! The digital files from the Canon are marginally better than those of the high quality scans from the Contax (which is a cracking camera and has stunningly sharp Zeiss glass). The images are landscapes for use in a foyer and have to look good, and have been printed on a digital solvent based printer. Today's 10MPixel+ digital SLRs deliver cleaner, tonally better and far more versatile image files than 35mm film does.
Posted by: John Bantin Jan 30 2006, 12:54 AM
You might be right Paul. I speak only as I find - but then there are a lot of professional advertising photographers (earning in excess of £3000 per day) in London getting it wrong!
How are you making those prints from film? Are you making an interneg with unsharp mask or are you using notoriosly unsharp reversal paper? Both methods are fraught with disappointment.
You might well get a better print direct from your digitally recorded image but if you had the film properly drum-scanned (and I stress the word properly) you might have been surprised!
If your sole aim is to make prints yourself, then digital imagery keeps you in control. If your stuff is going off to be reproduced elsewhere, the story is very different. It is not just sharpness either. I have got some vary variable repro from digital files in this months mag (see green dolphins and a disappearing whaleshark) from digital shots that looked perfect at my end when I am always happy with what they get from film.
Posted by: pgk Jan 30 2006, 06:51 AM
Hi John
The problem is twofold. First is that GOOD digital photographers produce stunningly good digital files but poor photographers produce files which are all over the place. For most of us there has been and incredibly long learning curve (most of us are still at the bottom of it) BUT we are probably far beyond most other sectors in the image handling industry because we're at the sharp end. The quality issue when it comes to publication is a very significant one. There is a real belief that all digital files are the same and they most certainly are not. I have a friend who runs a graphic design and print business - he can produce superb prints from scans (he has a high end scanner) or digital files, but has to explain that poor files/scans simply won't print up well!
Second is that printers SHOULD treat every individual image differently and adjust the files (including unsharp masking) before using their conversions which are taylored to their own print system. Many do not and this is a cause of some problems. But it is always easier to blame a poor scan or digital file than it is to admit that you didn't spend enough time adjusting them.
Of couse, since printers no longer make money from scanning, are usually working to a cost and deadline and won't admit to shortcomings the result is usually less than perfect.
In the past I've never been totally satisfied with prints from transparencies but today's prints from digital files are getting far closer to what I want to see.
Posted by: Alex_Mustard Jan 30 2006, 08:21 AM
I agree that John is right about many studio pros still shooting film. Many have bought and tried nearly all the digital camera (and a good number have switched) but some have stuck with film. One of the reasons for this is that they have a workflow (with film) that works for them, plus the look of their favoured film stock and printing is important in defining the look of their images.
Heck if you are earning 3000 quid a day, it certainly ain't broke, so why fix it. Except for the fact that the film companies are slowly abandoning more and more of their products. I guess they don't appreciate these guys' business!
The problem I see with scuba magazine printing is a lack budget and time and therefore a lack of proofing. AFAIK most dive mags are pretty small productions and don't have money to waste at repro-houses colour proofing the whole mag before going to press. They may do the cover and a few important DPSs, but most stuff is batch converted to CMYK and is not colour corrected file by file and certainly not after viewing printed proofs of each file. All diving mags run on limited budgets and wasting this sort of money on their production costs would not be a sound management decision (despite the fact that as photographers we would like them too). As a result there is no lack of examples of poor printing of both slides and digital files in scuba magazines around the world. But most of the time decent files = decent results.
Anyway, these publications have been used to working with scans for many years and their batch CMYK conversions must surely be tailored to scanned slide characteristics? Digital camera files have slightly different characteristics, but slowly CMYK conversions will be adapting to suit them as digital files already dominate editorial submissions. In a few years it will be the scans that are printing badly and the digital reliably well.
I agree with Paul, that the failure to print digital files well (whether scans or camera files) is often a failure in the RGB-CMYK conversion stage. This failure is often determined by budget and time, rather than an inherent problem with the original files.
One example I have from my own work is the goatfish that is on Rob Galbraith at the moment. I took this shot with the D2X and it was used on the cover of the Divequest brochure (UK readers may well have one knocking about). The CMYK conversion used there was not nice at all and the image looks flat and washed out. The blue water printed so badly that they actually painted in a cyan background instead (that still doesn't look great). This picture is also in my book, and when properly converted into CMYK at a good repro-house it prints wonderfully and looks better in the proofs than the screen version does on Galbraith! In fact I didn't ask for any adjustments on that image from their standard conversion. Anyway both were exactly the same RGB - TIFF file!
Alex
Posted by: John Bantin Jan 30 2006, 09:54 AM
Getting back to the F6. Why did the Nikon company bother to spend the money developing and manufacturing it? Because they think it has a market. Now I am just a poor working class lad who certainly cannot afford to flood such expensive hardware (film or digital), and I guess that no underwater photographers are going to think otherwise about the F6 either. But someone obviously is going to buy it so there must be a reason to make it - or have the guys at Nikon simply got their sales projections wrong?
Posted by: james Jan 30 2006, 10:58 AM
You all may find this article useful and interesting:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml
Compares the P45 Digital Back to drum scanned 4x5
Cheers
James
Posted by: pgk Jan 30 2006, 11:39 AM
John
I have a friend who owns 2 x F6s and a D2X - he remains unconvinced about digital, but I suspect that this is because he can extract every last nuance of quality out of fine grained film and probably does not want to undertake the severe learning curve to enable him to do the same with digital. Switching to digital is not an easy option and many photographers I know are loath to do so BUT this does not mean that 10MPixel cameras cannot produce images that surpass 35mm film in terms of sharpness, smoothness of tone and nuance of detail. Problem for film users is that digital is not merely not going to go away but is forecast to thoroughly dominate photography in a very short time. Sticking to film will, as Alex says, reduce options. Printers MUST sort their workflows out, and hopefully will. If they don't then we will see a reduction in quality of imagery just as we have a better image taking system.
Posted by: John Bantin Jan 30 2006, 10:48 PM
By the way, in case you think I am a Luddite who wants to stick with film at all costs, I gave up shooting film some time ago! But that was more to do with working practises than final results. Yes, digital underwater is very easy!
Posted by: divegypsy Apr 30 2006, 12:56 AM
Hi Guys,
Once again I feel compelled to rebut Alex Mustards contentions concerning his digital D2X vs film. As I posted quite a while back, I went to the 2005 PMA photo show where Nikon showed both the D2X and F6. And subsequently bought one of each. And took comparison shots taken with both cameras of the same subject - tripoded, on land, identical framing with 105 micro-nikkor @ f16 - with D2X and Velvia 100.
If I "settle" for a Nikon Coolscan 5000 full resolution scan of the Velvia shot, the D2X image does look a little bit sharper on my Sony Artisan monitor. BUT if I go to a higher dpi quality scan such as that made by an Imacon scanner or a drum scanner the film image is now rendered sharper. One also has to consider that the raw image from the D2X camera when processed by most programs like Nikon's own software is sharpened digitally to look sharper than the actual sharpness captured by the sensor. And the image scanned by a scanner like the 5000ED can also be sharpened to equal that of the D2X.
But there are other issues than sharpness, like color. A quality scan of the velvia film image has better color because the D2X has only 10-bit color capture which is then interpolated up to 16-bit by photoshop or nikon's software.
And interpolated data, whether sharpness or color, is not as good as true original data.
But believe whatever you want. I have made my living ONLY from underwater still photography for the last 20 years. Not from teaching workshop, not from leading trips, not from selling underwater camera equipment. ONLY from the pictures I shoot and sell. And in my opinion the single most important issue is pleasing the client. And among mine have been magazines like National Geographic, National Wildlife, GEO Germany, GEO France, Terre Sauvage, and many others.
John Nuhn, the picture editor at National Wildlife, in a discussion we had last year, said it best. Digital images are fine for the magazine to use. BUT they can only be used to a size where the camera provides 300 uninterpolated pixels per inch of the image size as printed in the magazine. And if you take the size of a double page spread - 17" wide - none of the regularly housed digital SLR's, not the Nikon D2X nor the Canon 1DsMkII provides enough pixels to do this. This means that National Wildlife will not use images from either of those cameras for a double page spread under normal circumstances. And most double page images need to be even bigger to allow some cropping, bleeding and trimming. So you would probably need a digital image of about 24 megapixels to be really satisfactory for most of their double page uses.
Sharp 35mm film images, drum scanned, are regularly. And used even when cropped to about 75-60% of full-frame size if hte original is really sharp on the film. NWF insists that their images look sharp on the printed page. And whether you can add enough sharpening to make it look OK or even great on a computer monitor is not a viable solution.
And if you are in business you have to live with a philosophy similar to, "The customer is always right." Especially if you want to keep that customer and stay in business.
Divegypsy
Posted by: John Bantin Apr 30 2006, 01:53 AM
A good pro will always beat a good amateur and quite frankly there is not enough financial reward in the world of underwater photography to attract many good pros. What am I saying? Nikon quite rightly have decided that the amateur market has gone entirely digital, but the REAL professional market (Not ordinary wedding photographers for whom speed is an important criterion!) still uses film. Check with AFAEP members in London if you do not believe me!
Posted by: pgk May 1 2006, 11:28 AM
Quote "a good pro will always beat a good amateur" - depends what you mean by beat John. I have amateur friends who can spend far more time getting a shot than I can afford to! And some are very, very good - but they don't have the same pressure to work to.
As for 35mm vs digital well quite frankly I can get BETTER images out of my Canon EOS1DS than 35mm - END. The raw conversion process is simply far more versatile and can produce better corrected images than 35mm film can when scanned. If we are discussing differences then there are some. But qualitywise then digital cameras over 10MPixel quite simply produce better images. Extrapolation of a digital image whilst not ideal IS possible to a surprising degree simply because the image is digitally originated.
As an example, I recently had an underwater shot printed at 36" x 24" - it was made from an EOS1DS file - excellent quality! It would rival a 50 ISO Velvia scan BUT it was shot at ISO 400 equivalence and I would not have been able to shoot it on Velvia 50!
As another example, look into the corners of an underwater macro shot which contains bright hard edged detail in them. Almost certainly you will see some chromatic fringing (due to shooting through a thick bit of glass/plastic) which you cannot correct. This fringing can be minimised and sometimes virtually eliminated during the raw conversion of the digital file.
Problem is that we - DIGITAL photographers - are at the cutting edge - until the other links in the chain catch up (editors, designers, resizers, seperators, printers, and more) then older, traditional methods will still be considered to be 'better'.
You can rebut contentions but you can't argue against actuality.
Posted by: John Bantin May 3 2006, 04:17 AM
I'll see your 36x24 prints and raise you a twenty or more 64-sheet posters!
Of course, underwater photography has one enormously limiting factor and that is water.
So we are like two stupid old men swimming under the surface of a bowl of minestroni arguing who can see the furthest!
Posted by: Rocha May 3 2006, 08:19 AM
Film is better than digital!
LOL!
Posted by: pgk May 3 2006, 08:29 AM
Cleese you are wrong!
Posted by: John Bantin May 3 2006, 09:51 AM
Paul, I admit it. You made me laugh!
Posted by: divegypsy Jan 24 2007, 10:14 PM
Digital Photography is the refuge of those who can't get it right on film and need to correct the pictures they take because they don't get it right when they take the shot.
After several years of saying how life is using flash without TTL, Alex Mustard, in a recent article in Underwater Photo Magazine now says TTL is a capability he wants to have available all the time. Welcome back to film camera technology, Alex.
Next he'll be telling us that it is better to let the subject get used to the photographer's presence, get back to acting naturally, and pick just the right moment to shoot. And then he'll need to shoot only two or three dozen shots per dive rather than just machine gun the subject to death.
I just bought a brand new F5 body with its 3 year warranty for $750. And a used action finder for $200. How much will Alex's new D3z digital camera cost (and necessary new housing) when his D2x becomes professionally obsolete after the next generation of digital SLR's reaches 20Mp and photo agencies raise their submissions bar to a minimum of 15Mp?
There are still no magazines at the top level - National Geographic, National Wildlife, GEO, etc - which won't take a story shot on film. But images on digital cameras of the 6Mp generation, only two or three years old, have become virtually unacceptable. How many of the Digital Photo Pros actually make enough money to live on from the sale of their pictures as opposed to running trips and teaching classes.
Those that can do, those that can't do teach, those that can't teach?? Run trips?
Posted by: james Jan 25 2007, 05:46 AM
Hi Fred,
No need for a personal attack - you're welcome to keep using whatever system works for you. I'm glad you enjoyed Alex's article and if you'd like to discuss it in a constructive way, I'm all for it. I'll even participate as I have some pretty strong opinions about TTL too.
But saying that Alex can't "do" is laughable. I think you should apologize.
Cheers
James Wiseman
Posted by: Scuba_SI Jan 25 2007, 06:47 AM
Ouch! Is someone a little jealous of all the expose Alex is getting at the moment!!??
I think Alex's magic filters are great, and those will work much better on a D2x than on an F6 
Posted by: Scuba_SI Jan 25 2007, 06:53 AM
I would also imagine that Alex gains a great deal of satisfaction from helping people learn to take pictures underwater. His enjoyment in helping others is probably why he is so active and well respected in this community, and why he likes to go on trips with other photographers and help organise them.
Posted by: Alex_Mustard Jan 25 2007, 06:57 AM
I am loathed to get dragged into this one (despite all the messages I have got encouraging me to), but I would like to make a few of points.
First, I flattered that I am so regularly in your thoughts, Fred.
More importantly, the reason I wrote that article was to stand up and admit that my past opinions have now been overtaken by the technology and are out of date.
Moreover, if we are not prepared to reappraise our opinions on the kit and techniques of uw photography, and admit to being wrong when we are, how can we learn and how can we improve? I am always striving to improve my photography.
Finally, I would happily admit that the time I spend teaching or running trip are probably my most enjoyable diving weeks during the year. Putting other peoples images first means that these weeks are not personally very productive for photos. And I can only justify doing one or two weeks of teaching a year. But they are immensly rewarding, especially seeing how thrilled people are with the images you help them produce.
You should give it a go sometime.
Alex
Posted by: loftus Jan 25 2007, 08:18 AM
And those that can't run trips, just shell out cash to go on them I suppose. 
Anyway I'm glad that all those folks who can't 'do' like Stephen, Eric, Alex, Mauricio etc take us on trips, 'cause I get to go on those trips. I'll guess I'll never get to learn anything from the guys who supposedly can 'do' it.
Posted by: echeng Jan 25 2007, 09:09 AM
I've given up arguing about film vs. digital. One side is following Moore's law, and the other is flat.
One day, film guys will wake up and realize that they are totally out of touch with a technology has been improving exponentially in quality every couple of years for the past 10. This all might be OK, because most of those who refuse to have an open mind will be old and ready to retire, anyway. And their kids can continue to program their VCRs for them.
So why argue? Just wait.
Anyway, what I really meant to say is that there are absolutely two sides to the story here. Both film and digital have their advantages at the moment. My point is that one side is improving, and the other is not. I choose to put my efforts in learning and improving my own photography on the side that clearly has a future.
OK, it's back to running trips -- and this website, whose sole purpose of existence sprouted from the urge to teach and share knowledge through community.
Posted by: loftus Jan 25 2007, 10:23 AM
The last 'quality' area where I still think film behaves better is the area of gradation intense and specular highlights. Underwater of course this is with sunballs, and topside in contrasty light, particularly with figure work. I think film still provides a nicer more even gradation in Zones 9-12 than digital. This can be overcome to some extent by underexposing, and then bringing out the shadows in post-processing. I guess this is the digital version of changing the processing in a traditional darkroom to get the negative in the 'Zone'.Probably the 1DS, 5D, and D2X are ahead in this area, though from what I can see, just not quite there yet
Posted by: StephenFrink Jan 25 2007, 11:09 AM
First, I flattered that I am so regularly in your thoughts, Fred.
More importantly, the reason I wrote that article was to stand up and admit that my past opinions have now been overtaken by the technology and are out of date.
Moreover, if we are not prepared to reappraise our opinions on the kit and techniques of uw photography, and admit to being wrong when we are, how can we learn and how can we improve? I am always striving to improve my photography.
Finally, I would happily admit that the time I spend teaching or running trip are probably my most enjoyable diving weeks during the year. Putting other peoples images first means that these weeks are not personally very productive for photos. And I can only justify doing one or two weeks of teaching a year. But they are immensly rewarding, especially seeing how thrilled people are with the images you help them produce.
You should give it a go sometime.
Alex
Having been fortunate enough to spend a few days with Alex on Grand Cayman during Digital Madness I was greatly impressed by his willingness to share his knowledge about photography with his guests. He was extraordinarily generous with his time, and his passion for imaging was infectious. Plus, his slide shows were very informative and entertaining.
None of which diminished his own ability to get stellar shots when they were all in the water together.
Posted by: pgk Jan 25 2007, 11:35 AM
"Digital Photography is the refuge of those who can't get it right on film and need to correct the pictures they take because they don't get it right when they take the shot. "
I often shoot in very low contrast conditions - in Scottish Sea Lochs and suchlike sites where visibility is poor, light levels low and where some fascinating creatures live! Digital allows me to shoot raw and adjust files to produce vibrant, interesting images of these creatures which were IMPOSSIBLE on film! And I'm not going to argue this one. Film certainly has its positive aspects but to ignore its limitations and suggest that digital is an 'easy option' is simply not correct. Getting it 'right' on digital can produce stunningly good images and whilst digital does enable the production of acceptable results from less than perfect image captures this is hardly a negative side of the technology.
Lastly, I've worked with several advertising photographers all of whom are shooting digital - because their client's require it, and the cost of their shoots are substantial. I doubt that high fees are paid in order to use a technology which is not as good as film.
I haven't been on one of Alex's trips but whenever I have attended one of his talks (NUPG will be in touch again Alex) I have found him to be inspiring and very willing to share his ideas and techniques).
Posted by: davidrodkeller Jan 25 2007, 11:41 AM
I enjoy shooting digital and am committed to digital capture, but I know that film in some ways offers a better final product. It simply cannot be argued away, nor can a condescending attitude towards those who continue to believe film is a better product change that.
My hope is that digital capture becomes so good, that reliance upon gross post processing is not only rendered moot (for a good photographer) but also considered highly improper as a means for rendering a significant image. A digital photographer will always claim that the same photographic skill sets are required of both formats, but I think we all, on both sides of the fence, know that isn't true. Changing the hue of background water in post isn't a photographic skill, hence it is very hard to argue that Microsoft Blue ocean water was a uw photographic capture. It isn't wrong, nor is it dishonest, but it isn't necessarily photography. And therein lies the true separator between film and digital aficionados....no matter how much either side wants to argue about capture quality.
Posted by: Rocha Jan 25 2007, 11:47 AM
Very interesting discussion... It is very easy to throw accusations like that, and I really think that making generalisations like this:
"Digital Photography is the refuge of those who can't get it right on film and need to correct the pictures they take because they don't get it right when they take the shot. "
...are not very useful. Just to set the record straight, most of the major photo competitions (including the ones that Alex won, like Antibes and wildlife photographer of the year) require that photographers submitt untouched RAW files, which are not different than slides.
Anyways, as said before, those are two different technologies, one is advancing the other is not. If film is your technology of choice and serves you better (for whatever reason), that is great, but I think it is very wrong to claim that "digital photographers" lack the skill that "film photographers" have. To me, it is the same as claiming that I can photograph better with a Canon than with a Nikon, and that is simply not true. All that matters is what is behind the camera...
Posted by: Rocha Jan 25 2007, 11:52 AM
Exactly! And that change in hue can be done either with an image obtained by a digital camera or with an image from a slide scanner. Modern post-processing and manupulation can be done with *any* image, and while no magazine will reject film submissions, all of them (including Nat Geo, etc) will scan your slides and manipulate them before printing.
Posted by: dhaas Jan 25 2007, 12:30 PM
What Hogwash
Film shooters cheat as much as digital allows today, changing film hues (Kodachrome, dead to my knowledge) Fujichrome Velvia, Kodak E100 VS, etc. I did it, Fred has done it over his career, Chris Newbert did it......Blah, blah, blah. Not trying to be nasty guys Just let's get real......
I respect anyone trying to portray the UW world, but film guys have been taking underwater 2,3 to 12 cameras for years at 36 shots / roll to guarantee they got the goods.....First time I met you Fred, was 1984 and you were coming ashore on Bonaire with 3 cameras!
No one has a lock on what blue water looks like....Whether digitally adjusted, choice of film adjusted or darkroom filter adjusted. You can debate specs forever, it just ain't as important with today's technology as many would try to have you believe.....
All the debate about purist capture is BS, too.....No scanned slide, negative or digital file sees the light of print unless manipulated. Any high end BUYER of photography is working with digital shooters who can make this technology sing.....Just Google any of the Nikon big names and Canon Explorers of Light pros.....Anyone want to tell them they "can't do" ?
Finally, enough about the sunballs.......Stick your silhouetted subject in front of it, jack up the shutter speed and shoot. Enjoy this incredible technology and don't be so anal about things viewers will never notice.....
But hey, JMHO
dhaas
Posted by: pgk Jan 25 2007, 12:33 PM
"Let's face it, no sunball or sunburst looks right."
Hmmm. Not sure on this one. Firstly you can't actually look directly into the sun (I am assured of this by an opthalmic surgeon who has experienced the results of people doing so - they not nice), so any representation is just that, and cannot mimick what we envisage/cannot see. Secondly, we've become conditioned to accepting a sunburst representation on film as 'correct', but in fact it only reproduces the way it does because of failure of the reciprocity law at extreme exposure intensities - a technical inexactitude. Thirdly, if we'd never had film capture then would we notice the 'deficiencies' in the way digital appears to handle sunbursts?
I'm not saying that digital is better or worse than film at dealing with sunbursts, but I am saying that accepting one over the other without questioning why isn't necessarily the best thing to do. Tastes, and perceptions, change!
And blue (or in my case green), water is also a matter of taste. Reproducing what the eye/brain system thinks that it perceives is a notoriously inexact science. Arguing about reproducing reality assumes that 'reality' is a known quanta and I'm far from convinced that it is. After all changing film types is clearly a manipulation of the 'original' colours.
Posted by: loftus Jan 25 2007, 02:04 PM
It's not just sunballs as I said; it's any time where one has specular highlights, blending into highlights where detail is desired. This can occur with very contrasty lighting such as afternoon sunlight, or even a picture such as the one I've attached (juicy bits censored) with a broad density range from deep shadow to very bright highlight. If the tonal range of the photo is narrow, then it is easier to shift the exposure in camera or levels to accommodate the full tonal range; when it is broad as in this example, then it is more difficult to do without blowing out highlights and/or loosing shadow detail.
Posted by: james Jan 25 2007, 03:19 PM
Loftus - if you ever need an assistant to aid you with your specular highlight testing - Mike Veitch is your man!
Cheers
James
Posted by: loftus Jan 25 2007, 04:01 PM
Yeah, but he may blow out more than the highlights!
Posted by: MikeVeitch Jan 25 2007, 04:16 PM
Come on now guys, living in Yap I see more bare breasts on an average day than most people see in a lifetime!
But yes, I can certainly be your assistant..
Posted by: davidrodkeller Jan 25 2007, 04:19 PM
Hmmm. Not sure on this one.
I am a dedicated digital guy, my film cameras and housings have not been out of the photo closet for over 3 years now, but that does not mean I don't recognize it's deficiencies. It only means that I appreciate it's upside more than I do film's, and that I believe it's future will at least minimize some of these weaknesses.
Digital sunballs/bursts look like crap......is it really possible that digital photographers don't accept this as fact at this point in time?
Posted by: herbko Jan 25 2007, 04:36 PM
As one who's never shot film, I can't give a proper comparison. However, I think the problem of shooting sunballs is over stated. I certainly don't avoid taking these shots. Here's a few samples from Wakatobi, my most recent trip.
Posted by: davidrodkeller Jan 25 2007, 04:40 PM
Nah, this has always been overstated by *some* digital people to cover-up their own somewhat guilty pleasure of gross manipulation. First of all film guys never manipulated in the darkroom to even a distant approximation of what digital guys do now in post and secondly, you cannot manipulate a scanned slide in even close to the same degree you can a digital capture. There are many limitations, including your reference to color and hue.
There are people right here on this forum for whom digital capture may be even more pure than emulsion capture. A couple required manipulations in ARC and away they go. There are people who take a singular pride in coveting pure capture. Your suggestion that everyone does oetherwise is the BS. This isn't a matter of film vs. digital but rather a matter of how one satisfies their own particular philosophy of what is right and what is wrong----FOR THEM.
Posted by: davidrodkeller Jan 25 2007, 05:14 PM
Herb, if those are beautiful to you, then that is all that matters. On a personal level I don't find that any digital camera renders sunballs pleasing at all, let alone equal to film. My D2x s a nice camera, but I leave the sun out of almost all wa shots I make. Sometimes a little sunlight is worth the effort, but I always know a shot of a sunball will ruin whatever success I might have otherwise had with that image.
Posted by: davidrodkeller Jan 25 2007, 05:22 PM
"Digital Photography is the refuge of those who can't get it right on film and need to correct the pictures they take because they don't get it right when they take the shot. "
...are not very useful.
Posted by: herbko Jan 25 2007, 06:08 PM
Perhaps I haven't seen enough good film sunballs shots to be much of a judge. If you think they are inferior to film shots, I really would like to know the details and perhaps have something to work on the next time out. Which cameras have you tried to shoot sunballs with? It seems to me to that before making a statement like "digital can't do sunballs" one should have tried a wide range of cameras and techniques.
Posted by: EspenRekdal Jan 26 2007, 02:19 AM
Hi All!!
Cool discussion!
Here's some rambling from a flu-infested underwater photographer.....
I can agree and take allmost any stand in the arguments presented here (maybee its the fever?).
I think what divides people is mostly who has a history with film and who does not. If you had sucess with film allways got good results and produced good stuff you might be a little intimidated by the wast crowd producing good stuff out of the box. You were used to be the best at what you did. Now, you might even call digitalphotographers inferiour photographers?
Now if you never actually got to grips with film and never got those good results but had an amazing comeback with digital you might call film dead or inferiour technology?
Some facts:
Film still has more dynamic range than digital. (Yes I know you can increase this with a rawconverter and a few layers in photoshop but not right out of the box).
Digital is much easier for a photographer to develop with (faster learning curve) than is film, thus the choice of all if not most new photographers starting out. And the technology is developing faster.
Less known fact:
The expression of film and digital is very different. Weather or not you like the one or the other is a personal preference. As with the sun balls.
A person that says film is dead, is repeating what was said during the onset of photography - painting is dead. I think as long as digital looks digital and film looks like film there will be both. Which look you like more is personal preference.
Another interesting bit is the change of tecnique that came with digital. More blue water, less higlights in the shots. Seems to me there is a film niche there in the future if not digital gets there first. Who knows!
Fire away!!
Espen
Posted by: loftus Jan 26 2007, 03:21 AM
I think it's just a matter of time till film is dead; like CD's and vinyl. (And I love vinyl because nothing sounds like it). Here are some reasons why:
There are very few young photographers taking up film, and the old ones will die.
I think digital technology will advance to the point where it significantly surpasses film even in dynamic range.
Digital will continue to get better and better for the same money as all tech stuff has. Even medium and large format digital backs etc will come down in price. One only has to look at computers in the last twenty years for this; any of you young guys seen or know how to use a slide rule, and if so would you use it?
As far as the 'look' of film vs digital - this will only be a concern of hobbyists who produce images mainly for themselves. For commercial photographers who make their living from the viewing public it will make no difference, as the public cannot tell the difference.
Posted by: dhaas Jan 26 2007, 04:32 AM
Amigos,
davidrodkeller is right about one thing.......Shoot to make yourself happy. If he is unhappy with his $4K Nikon D2X he can keep shooting film until he can't get it developed anymore.
As far as stating film shooters don't or haven't manipulated images, I'd challenge that. Ansel Adams did it for crying out loud.....Debating how much and what parameters makes no difference, as it violates the "purist" mindset I hear from film advocates.
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!
Herb, Your sunballs look great, practically what they look like when swimming at depth looking up a wall.
I guess that is why we have these forums, to each his own. On THAT, we can all agree
dhaas
Posted by: davidrodkeller Jan 26 2007, 07:28 AM
Posted by: dhaas Jan 26 2007, 11:55 AM
DavidRodKeller,
No worries, I wasn't trying to be confrontational.....
I did read where you have not used your film cameras for 3 years, have a D2X and are using it, but still seem to be lamenting over not using film. I just couldn't read into your posts ardently defending the technical specs, etc. of film as to why you choose to use your digital system. Unless it is the tonal / high contrast issues you believe are insurmountable with even a $9,000.00 full frame sensor dSLR and software.
It seems many, many professional shooters outside of the UW world are extremely happy with their dSLR cameras and the images from them. Even comparing them to medium format film. Not me, but as I previously mentioned the Canon Explorers of Light shooters. I doubt they would change from film if they felt limited, constrained, or whatever.
This thread was started by divegypsy, who I "think" is Fred Bavendam, a very, very talented photojournalist and artist. I wholeheartedley respect his vision and opinion. I just don't agree tat film is viable for anyone starting to shoot underwater today.....Digital has advanced so fast that 99% of new shooters will be more than satisfied with their results. Especially for fun
So let's just agree to disagree
dhaas
Posted by: davidrodkeller Jan 26 2007, 02:55 PM
But I really do believe gross manipulation of images is predominently the realm of digital shooters. It would be foolish for someone to shoot film for that purpose. Minor adjustments yes, but heavy manipulation, I wouldn't think so. So when film guys say digital shooters are people who rely on manipulation to render quality images they are not far from the truth. But they unfortunately paint digital shooters who prefer to remain more pure, with the same brush too. But in either case there is, at least, a minimum of post required if you shoot digital.
I am happy with digital, but mostly for the wide work options it offers underwater rather than the nice segue into post that it allows, or because I adamantly believe it betters film in **all** respects.
I am one of those people who do not believe in gross manipulation. Much of what I see on this website. that receives high praise, would not cut it for me on that point. And even though I refuse to judge others by it, I am not comfortable showing my shots to people unless I am secure that I have stayed within honesties I lived with when I shot film. If I did this for money then anything would go, but I am fortunate to do it for fun and satisfaction so I can set limits on what I believe represents my photography and what I think is a step too far for making that claim. Changing background water color isn't my photography, eliminating backscatter in post isn't my photography, those are the kinds of things that if done, leave me no measure of satisfaction in the resulting image. Obviously more intrusive post measures are even more egregious....FOR ME.
I am off to Lembeh and then Raja late Feb into late Mar. and really want to do more fish-photo and WA in Raja this time....so avoiding sunballs will be a priority
I hope you have some good diving in the near future as well.
Posted by: echeng Jan 26 2007, 02:59 PM
dhaas
Fred, called out!
I'm happy to have Fred on board with us here on Wetpixel. It's great to have so many veteran photographers and photojournalists participating in lively discussion!
Posted by: herbko Jan 26 2007, 10:28 PM
dhaas
The two of you can't even agree to disagree.
Posted by: Steve Jones Jan 27 2007, 01:03 AM
I shoot predominantly digital now, but my film cameras still get used.
Here's why:
- Whilst I appreciate the many advantages of digital, I understand that film still has a number of benefits, namely: full frame (I shoot Nikon) so I can use the 14mm as it was meant to be used, TTL when I need it, and it's my preferred media for capturing sunbursts (my personal view is that it's far easier to get a sunball right on film than digital)
- My film system is practically worthless, yet it enables me to carry 2 cameras underwater - 1 equipped for wideangle, 1 for macro. A second digital system would be an enormous expense and would not give me the advantages above. The F100 is still a lot of camera for the money if you consider its second hand value
I'll only switch to 2 digital systems if/when a lightweight D200 class camera comes out that's full frame and beats film performance in all aspects, and I've got absolutely nothing better to do with my money. Or, of course, if they ever stop making film.
Until then, my F100 will still get a regular workout, all be it a lot less than my digital system.
And for anyone who's noticed that I'm selling an F100 system, I actually have 2 - the second one I will definitely not sell.
Incidentally I am eternally grateful to digital for one thing in particular - Forcing me to shoot manual flash again. Years ago I always used to shoot manual flash with film. Then as I began to trust TTL I grew lazy and drifted into the nasty habit of relying on TTL to light my images rather than giving the light balance from the 2 strobes adequate thought. The result was my images became flat. Shooting manual flash again has really improved my lighting.
That said there are times, when I really miss TTL on my digital camera - particularly when you've only got one chance to get a particular shot!!
I guess you can't have it all ways - yet
Steve
Posted by: pgk Jan 28 2007, 10:15 AM
"Paul, .... are you suggesting that you are not sure, not certain, not absolutely convinced that digital does not render high contrast areas as well as film?"
No David, not at all! I was saying that we perceive the way digital capture records sunbursts as incorrect whereas it is film which actually captures sunbursts incorrectly! At extreme exposure levels film behaves differently than it does at 'normal' capture light levels - so it produces sunbursts with smooth tonal edges (that we are all used to) as a result of a technical failing. My point was that if we had never had film we would accept the digital capture of sunbursts as something which was technically correct and would simply expect that banding issues will probably change as the dynamic range of digital capture increases. The same is true of the perceived deficiencies within specular highlights and other problems which I could go on about - digital capture as it stands is far from perfect. If we don't like banding issues and colour fringing then technological solutions should be sought to reduce these, be they software or hardware. Some exist already - I've been using HDR software to see how effective it is and it can produce surpringly good results. Hardware will improve if only because the marketting guys will dictate that it has to to sell it on its specification.
But arguing that digital capture is anything other than different to film capture is pretty irrelevant - or so it seems to me. Both have their own strengths and weaknesses, and both require significant skills to utilise at a high level. This said, I will concede that a poor shot on digital can be significantly improved whereas a poor shot on transparency is far harder to improve - I'm not sure that this is a deficiency of digital though!
Being ruthlessly honest about this, I don't think that many people except those really delving into the detail of photography would notice most of the problems we are discussing (sadly). And having spent two weeks scanning transparencies I am very aware of the deficiencies of film at the moment, believe me.
Lastly, I'll make one last comment about film. Quality colour emulsions are sophisticated and expensive to produce - it is the economies of scale which make them viable. They also utilise some not so nice chemicals to process them and safety/environmental legislation will inevitably become stricter and more costly to adhere to. I suspect that any arguments over digital vs. film will be decided economically. Given the absolute dominance of digital already I am far from conviced that film has a long future ahead of it, and I also doubt very much that high quality colour films will be viable to produce on a small scale - I would like to be proved wrong though, but only time will decide this.
Posted by: pgk Jan 29 2007, 12:09 AM
Just to add to the above. I suppose that my overall point is that we (people in general) don't like change. We get used to the status quo and complain when things are different, whether they were 'correct' or otherwise! The benefits of a new technology cannot be denied by considering its adherents to be in some way inferior to those who remain bedded to the old technology, nor by over accentuating its (inevitable) shortcomings whilst it develops, nor by considering the adjustments ity allows for to be immoral or unfair. What is extremely important is to understand both technologies and use them to their best advantage when and if appropriate.
All this said, I can see using film so rarely, that for me it is to all intents and purposes now basically irrelevant! I consider the advantages of digital to be far too significant and its output quality (for underwater use) to be far better than film. Above water I have shot formats from 35mm to 5"x4" professionally so I do understand film and yes, there are times when I fancy using a larger format film camera on land, but for underwater - no! Alex's images speak for themselves - he clearly understands and uses digital to extremely good effect indeed. For myself I find digital to be an incredibly useful tool in temperate waters which allows me to shoot images that I could not have done on film.
Back to the topic - are there any F6 housings???
Posted by: EspenRekdal Jan 29 2007, 04:16 AM
There are very few young photographers taking up film, and the old ones will die.
I think digital technology will advance to the point where it significantly surpasses film even in dynamic range.
Okaaayy...
Firstly, didn't know I was that old...
I hope so! But I think that availability of film will be a problem before we have a digital with out of the box dynamic range like film.
To answer Paul.. Nexus has a F6 housing.
Cheers,
Espen
Posted by: davidrodkeller Jan 29 2007, 11:18 AM
Being aware of that premise: how I perceive an image is what determines what is and what is not correct for me. Whatever technical standard you reference when you say digital does it right and film does it wrong is irrelevant to me. Film records sunballs/bursts with a comparative nuance that pleases me. It doesn't drag your eye away from the subject and plant it squarely in the middle of an overexposed, harsh bit of blazing chromatic fringing and blooming. Digital does in most cases.
My apologies if this seems a rather simple and elementary response to your comments, but I just don't care what is right and what is wrong (this assumes your assertions are correct in the first place). I care what my eyes see and how my mind reacts to it.
Posted by: davidrodkeller Jan 29 2007, 11:32 AM
I shoot, D2x and Seacam (my Seacam ports and accesories from F100 setup all fit D2 housing), but savings resulting from no film purchases are very close to paying for those two pieces. Film cameras never get to the point where they "pay you back" in a similar way. In fact it could be argued that the longer a film shooter waits, the more money he pays for his digital system even considering lowering prices for digital bodies.
But I understand money is not the only, or even most important, matter for you.
Posted by: pgk Jan 29 2007, 12:02 PM
"I care what my eyes see and how my mind reacts to it."
Fair enough, but I for one won't shoot film simply because it may produce nicer sunbursts - the other advantages of digital outweigh ALL the advantages of film as far as I am concerned - cost not taken into account either!
If anyone is interested, there is an excellent book called "Visual concepts for photographers" published by the Focal Press back in 1980 (so its probably based on film!) which is fascinating in its delving into the way we preceive images and their content. It has some information on tonal reproduction and our perception of it!
Posted by: echeng Jan 29 2007, 12:08 PM
Is this thread going anywhere? I'm going to rename the topic title so that the subject more closely relates to the content.
It seems that we're just announcing our subjective opinions -- perhaps with a bit of fact thrown in every once in awhile. And then, the facts are dismissed because they don't matter when subjectivity is king.
Posted by: davidrodkeller Jan 29 2007, 12:28 PM
Posted by: pgk Jan 29 2007, 01:10 PM
Hi Eric
Perhaps it isn't on track anymore but its creating a lot of interest judging by the number of views!
And I'm fascinated by the different opinions shown here.
Aren't forums sometimes supposed to be for discussing subjects which, whilst perhaps wandering off topic, might spark people to think about what they expect to achieve through their image making (of whatever type) and thus improve/enhance their own photography?
Posted by: echeng Jan 29 2007, 01:18 PM
Paul -- yes, that's what they are for. As long as readers are still getting something out of this thread, I'm all for letting it continue the way it has been going. Plus, I've updated the subject title, so now it's clear what the thread is about.
The Film vs. Digital debate is one that has the potential to rage on forever, much like Mac vs. PC, Blond or Brunette, etc.
Game on!
Posted by: loftus Jan 29 2007, 01:54 PM
Speaking of which, do you know what you get when three blondes do a headstand........
three brunettes!
Posted by: davidrodkeller Jan 29 2007, 04:39 PM
I never perceived this as a film vs. digital debate. That description implies far more than what has actually been discussed here (outside of the guy who took a few pokes at Mustard). But when it comes to these two formats most opinions are all or nothing. For some reason it is difficult for film shooters to agree that digital offers some major photographic advantages and for digital shooters to admit that film continues to manage some situations better than digital does.....so in the end it is a "Film vs. Digital" debate rather than a simple discussion regarding specific truths.
It's a shame it always ends up this way. But film people fear digital and digital people are uncomfortable with the ease their system allows them. Fear and guilt....the perfect recipe for defensiveness.
Posted by: segal3 Jan 29 2007, 05:38 PM
We are?
As one who has never really known film (save for the occasional instance when my parents have handed me their film Rebel, and told me to take a photo of them on a vacation
), I see digital as a medium that has provided expression to those who would otherwise be mired in film processing costs. That, and the quickest way to learn about photography, instant feedback being what it is...Without digital...I doubt I would be diving as much as I do, and certainly not engaged in underwater photography. Being able to - that's what counts.
Posted by: divegypsy Jan 29 2007, 07:02 PM
Hello again guys,
First of all let me say that what I wrote a few days ago was never intended to be or intended to be construed as a personal attack on Alex Mustard. It was mostly intended to point out the fact that after saying for months (or years) that manual strobe shooting was as good as TTL, even to the starting of a topic called TTL anonymous (not unlike alcoholics anonymous) Alex had crossed over to the “dark side” and was suddenly embracing TTL, which I had said a long time ago was one of the major reasons I was still staying with film. And which (Alex’s change) I found rather ironic, considering the ehthusiasm with which he had previously said that TTL wasn’t of particular value for digital.
Secondly, I have not and do not attack digital as a capture medium. It is merely another capture medium, not unlike the sea change that took place when Velvia was first introduced challenging Kodachrome’s dominant place in the film market.
I absolutely believe that digital has many things to offer, particularly to the new photographer. And especially for the new underwater photographer. Digital is a great teaching medium because of its instantaneous feedback. And great for news and other places where immediacy is a vital issue. But I also feel these is no substitute for really learning how to use the camera properly and not to depend on the feedback of digital. Too many good shooting opportunities come along just once, and for a brief moment. And to take the attitude that you just make a close guess, and then correct on the second shot or on the computer later is, in my opinion, a philosophy that just doesn’t work in the real ocean.
My comment about those that do – do, etc. Was meant to be just a parody on Woody Allen’s comment in the movie “Looking for Mr. Goodbar” in which he said, “Those that can do. Those that can’t do teach. And those that can’t teach, teach phys. Ed.” At the time I was married to a teacher of physical education who didn’t really find Woody very funny either. And in the age of political correctness and having seen how the topic on shark feeds degenerated to the point where the topic was closed, I should have been more cautious.
Again, I want to apologize to Alex if he took any of what I wrote as a person attack. I also know that many people appreciate the educational cruises where there is a resident pro to help provide guidance and assistance. I do sometimes go on dive boat cruises. And on the cruise I go on, or virtually whenever I meet other underwater photographers, I have been willing to share any of the technical information or techniques that I use. And I tried to do just that almost a year ago when I suggested the quick two-shoot TTL fill flash technique I use that gives me professional quality satisfactory results over 90% of the time. And as quality TTL finally is achieved by strobes for digital cameras, this technique should work equally well.
As background for everyone. My name is, as was suggested by either Eric or James, Fred Bavendam. I am now 60+ years old and was recently, two years ago, in a car accident that came very close to ending my diving forever. Fortunately, it did not. I still make my living just shooting underwater pictures, which I sell directly to magazines myself, or through photo several agencies. I have done this for the last twenty years. But my main motivation isn’t making a lot of money or being famous. I simply love being in the water so much there is nothing else I can think of that I would rather do. And having been able to do only that for twenty years makes me one of the luckiest people in the whole world. I love being in the water so much, and watching all the fish and other animals that there are times that I think I am a fish that was born into the wrong body.
I did briefly own a Nikon D2X. And a Fuji S2 before that. But I found that digital did not offer enough advantages to ME to justify the expense of switching to digital for underwater shooting. I gave my S2 and its Ikelite housing to a friend and sold the D2X to a friend who uses it topside and loves it. Digital, at this time, just requires too much time on the computer to suit me. I would rather spend my time traveling, diving, and meeting people. I also bought my first cellular phone a year ago but rarely use it.
Just call me DAD – Digital Age Dinosaur
I own three SeaCam F5 housings, which, at the time I bought them (before George Bush destroyed the value of the US$) cost me only a little more than one SeaCam for the D2X would cost today. I now have 5 Nikon F5 bodies with action finders and multiples of all the lenses I use most. I usually travel with two complete sets of housings, strobes, ports, and F5’s. In set in separate check-in pieces of luggage so that if the airline loses one of the check-in’s, I arrive with enough gear to keep shooting. I try to hand carry the lenses and film.
I would be much more interested in digital, particularly for my topside shooting, if Nikon offered a full frame digital camera similar to Canon’s 1Ds MkII. But currently, the lenses offered for the smaller digital chip interest me much less. I didn’t find Nikon’s 12-24 f4 lens was as "usable" as the 17-35 f2.8. And there is nothing even remotely similar to the 70-180 Micro-nikkor for the digital chip. And there is nothing on the market that I know of that offers the perspective of the 60mm Micro-nikkor.
What interests me the most, equipment-wise at the moment, is that Zeiss starting to offer lenses in the Nikon mount. And I might mention that Zeiss says that one of their new lenses has resolved over 300 lines per millimeter ON ACTUAL FILM, at ideal apertures. The D2x has 182 sensors per millimeter, and because the digital image has to be magnified 50% more linearly to fill a particular size print or page, that means a theoretical maximum resolution of 120 lines. Fuji says Velvia, Provia, and Astia can resolve 150~160 lines.
But all this is just lab numbers, not the real world. Each recording medium has its own advantages and its own disadvantages. And it is up to the photographer to decide what is important to him, or her.
Nikon has just introduced a new 105mm, at double the cost and weight of the older model. But on the digital chip it acts like a 158mm, which means even greater water distance between the photographer and the subject. And a different perspective visually. 105mm was first popularized as the virtually perfect people portrait lens. Good perspective rendition, no noticible forshortening (ie nose too big) without flattening the features too much. Nikon's 180 f2.8 never really caught on for portaits because of feature flattening and an excessive working distance in the studio. So why a new 105mm? Why not 70mm, the digital chip equivalent unless maybe (I hope) Nikon is seriously thinking full-frame?
Again, I meant no offense to Alex or anyone else personally. And offer a sincere apology if my comments were taken as a personal attack.
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
Posted by: divegypsy Jan 29 2007, 08:04 PM
Hi again guys,
Divegypsy (AKA DAD) here again. I reread what I just wrote and although it contains more misspellings and an occasional mis-word, I hope the meaning comes through loud and clear. NO OFFENSE WAS INTENDED.
OK, 'Nuss said on that.
As I said, I consider myself a DAD. So if anyone wants to contact me to ask just about ANYTHING to do with underwater photography, technical, business, or just philosophical, please just write to me at fbavendam@hotmail.com. And I'll reply when I get the time. I really haven't learned a lot of the technical aspects of the computer life and age. So a straight email is best I do. No live talks (except on the telephone or in person), and a few pictures sent as an email attachment.
I prefer to spend my time traveling and diving and meeting real people as opposed to learning the next version of Photoshop, Lightroom, Noise Ninja, etc, etc. And often refer to the computer chip as the silicon parasite that we humans have infected ourselves with. I probably use my laptop more for watching DVD movies while traveling than anything else when I am not at home. And sometimes still miss the old days when I could just tell people "I'll be off diving for the next six months and unreachable", vs today where so many people expect that I will be checking my email two or four times a week. Do they really think I'd rather skip an afternoon or evening's dive to check email? Especially if that means hunting for and paying for time in an internet cafe? This, to me, is not what life is about.
Life is about experiences. About what you do and what you believe. And though I make my living as an underwater photographer, my cameras and pictures are not my goal, my purpose. They are only my ticket. My ticket to the ocean. They pay for my travels and my time watching all the great critters and things that happen in the ocean.
Film vs digital. Simply different recording mediums. Much like different painters used different palattes of paint colors. Digital is simply the new "flavor" of the day. And that too will pass. The image, what you show and share with others is all that really matters. Digital has a lot of advantages. To me what interests me the most is that it MAY be greener. No used and thrown away film. No processing chemicals. But what about the production of the actual digital chip? A Fuji photo guy told me that the dark, and relatively unknown side of digital, was the amount of very toxic chemical used in making the chips and the disposal of them later. Can't verify its truth. And manipulation. Its gone on for almost as long as has photography. Ansel Adams zone system was simply a means of manipulating the contrast and tones to match a preconceived notion. And filters? Polarizers. Velvia (better than real) vs Kodachrome colors. Even what constitutes reality is only in the eye of the beholder.
In the movie "Don Juan DeMarco" (a really god move in this beholder's eye) Johnny Depp says to Marlon Brando, "There are only four questions in life of any significance." "What is sacred? Of what is the spirit made? What is worth living for? And what is worth dying for." "The answer to all four questions is exactly the same." "ONLY LOVE."
And that is why I travel, dive, and take underwater pictures. I love being in the ocean.
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.
divegypsy
Posted by: Alex_Mustard Jan 29 2007, 11:56 PM
Thanks for adding some more well argued points to the debate, Fred. As Eric says Wetpixel is all the richer for having the views of very experienced underwater photographers, like yourself.
The one thing I have learned from being involved with the digital vs film debate over the years here on Wetpixel it is best to stay out of things! Those who are intrenched on either side are not going to change their opinions with well argued reasoning! But once again I can't resist sticking my neck out.
As I am sure Eric has, over the last few years I have got many, many emails from experienced and well known UW photographers asking about their own transition to digital. And contrary to what many might think I do not immediately tell them to switch - it is important for each to consider their own investments, work flow and clients (film remains perfectly acceptable - certainly when scanned - to every publication). Although I also send most photographers who ask a JPG of one of my shots at the same rez as one of their 4000dpi slide scans - for them to compare to their best professional scans - which has persuaded many to swap!
The other common subject in this debate is manipulation. With digital a degree of post processing is inevitable. To get the best quality out of a digital SLR we must shoot RAW. And RAW is set up to produce rather flat images - in the knowledge that post processing can add contrast, but not detail. Therefore it is important for digital images that want to be considered as wildlife pictures to adhere to strict rules.
For this reason I like the Wildlife Photographer Of The Year submission rules - which allow for RAW adjustment and levels but not change to the content of the frame - and no selective adjustments within the frame (requesting the RAW files to verify this). I believe that one of the reasons that this competition remains so popular with the public is that they like to know what they looking is a real photo.
As a result it is also easy for film vs digital to incorrectly become a non-manipulation vs manipulation. First digital images can be regarded as straight photos (well, at least within the terms above) and second since all printing is digital now - film shots are often manipulated before submission or publication. IMO - the best underwater photo collection of the last 10 years is Laurent Ballesta's amazing book - Planet Mers, published in 2005. But Laurent is happy to admit that while he shot it entirely on film some images have had many many hours of work in photoshop.
I think the manip vs enhancement vs straight shot debate is VERY VERY important. But it is very wrong to make this a digital vs film debate.
One final and curious point: I believe those photographers who stick with film may see an increased demand for their work. As we all know film has a distinct look to digital - and I think that photographers whose work is characterised by the look of film will stand out from the crowd in the future - probably making their images more desirable to publishers.
Alex
p.s. Worryingly I still have more awards from the Antibes Festival taken on slide (4) than on digital (2)! Maybe this digital thing isn't all it is cracked up to be!
Posted by: pgk Jan 29 2007, 11:58 PM
"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.
Posted by: Drew Jan 30 2007, 10:00 AM
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.
http://www.thegreenguide.com/doc.mhtml?i=118&s=takebacks
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.
Posted by: pgk Jan 30 2007, 11:17 AM
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.
Posted by: manatee19 Jan 30 2007, 05:17 PM
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”!
Posted by: divegypsy Jan 30 2007, 06:27 PM
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
Posted by: james Feb 2 2007, 10:45 AM
Here you go guys - a Nexus housing for the Nikon F6:
http://www.anthis.co.jp/top.html
Cheers
James
Posted by: Craig Ruaux Feb 2 2007, 10:53 AM
Oh for goodness sake James. Why did you have to go and bring the topic back to the original question... spoilsport 
Posted by: StephenFrink Feb 3 2007, 09:42 AM
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.
Posted by: Drew Feb 4 2007, 11:43 AM
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.
Posted by: EspenRekdal Feb 4 2007, 01:07 PM
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
Posted by: John Bantin Feb 11 2007, 12:25 AM
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!
Posted by: MikeVeitch Feb 11 2007, 03:46 AM
I have pheromones the mantas dig...
Who's the dodgy looking fella in the attached photo??!??!!
Posted by: John Bantin Feb 11 2007, 03:57 AM
Who's the dodgy looking fella in the attached photo??!??!!
A bloke that owns mvKairos (live-aboard) - with a wart!
Posted by: pmooney Feb 11 2007, 04:55 AM
(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.......
Posted by: pgk Feb 11 2007, 06:03 AM
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.
Posted by: cor Feb 11 2007, 07:02 AM
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
Posted by: John Bantin Feb 11 2007, 08:26 AM
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!
Posted by: Drew Feb 11 2007, 02:36 PM
Somehow Peter, I believe you would do spend hours watching a pimple.
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?
Since I've met you a few times John, I can vouch you are not grumpy at all.
Posted by: pgk Feb 12 2007, 09:17 AM
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).
Posted by: onokai Mar 3 2007, 04:23 PM
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
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)