Jump to content

- - - - -

Confused about Digital for U/W photography

  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 carl_goodier



  • Member
  • Pip
  • 32 posts

Posted 08 February 2003 - 06:33 PM


Well, I guess there are gonna be alot of sensitive people around, but here goes the questions. I am shooting using slide film ( mainly Velvia ) and was thinking if I should move to Digital or not, Although convenience of immediate feed back is a benefit, I am just wondering what the other benefis are. For example:

1. my computer screen resolution ( and most comuters in the world) is about 1000+ pixels accross and about 800+ ( I think ) down. Thus even a 6 gazillion megabit file can only be seen of a max resolution of about 2 Meg on the screen. Same goes for LCD projectors ( if you want to do a photo night )

2. I rarely print out film based pictures as I prefer the quality of the slides, and prefer to view them through a viewer. When I do, I will enlarge them to ( at times) A1 with stunning results.

3 I get a 3D effect on velvia which I have not yet seen in digital.

4. My general theory is I dont want to spend hours 'doctoring' my pictures. If they are great, ok, if not, then so be it...and I got some home work to do then. ( to be honest, i just could not be bothered applying make up for hours on end to and less than perfect face )

5.If I show people my pictures, I prefer to show the slides as it usually make a more dramatic impact.

6. For Pro's, I can see the benefits and convenience as time to market is quick, and modifications are easy. ( no doubt )

7. For those ready to jump on your high horse, get off. This is a polite question, and I am not looking for controversy, rather trying to understand what added benefits i will get. As an example, I have found my F80 ( yuk say some ) to be good for underwater photography, as there is little use for fancy features underwater.

Thanks for your views

#2 carl_goodier



  • Member
  • Pip
  • 32 posts

Posted 08 February 2003 - 07:13 PM

hey guys,

lots of views, not many replies.............

#3 scottyb


    Eagle Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 357 posts

Posted 09 February 2003 - 06:07 AM

Hey Carl, I think you will find a lot of former and current film shooters, like myself, on this site. I do not intend to get rid of my Nik V bodies yet, but the results for shooting macro, have been convincing to me. I agree with you on a few things but disagree with you on others.

As far as the economics, see your other topic. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

#4 craig


    Full Moon Rising

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2826 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, TX

Posted 09 February 2003 - 08:33 AM

If you desire your end product to be a slide, then you need to shoot slide film. Digital won't be very good for that. In your case, you (1) prefer to view slides over prints, (2) rarely produce prints, (3) see no value in hi-res digital versions of your shots, and (4) prefer showing slides to an audience. There is no argument that you should stick to slide film, so why are you confused?

Other people feel different. There are good reasons for wanting high resolution, obviously. Most people don't shoot with their ultimate destination being the computer screen. They want the option to produce large prints. Some , like me, are interested in manually correcting (as opposed to "doctoring") our photos to achieve the best possible results. Some don't want the hassles and recurring expenses of film. The biggest argument in favor of digital is that it drastically flattens the learning curve. Ultimate quality is not the strength of digital, although that will come with time.

There is no doubt that film is capable of superior results compared to digital, but to suggest that film is capable of 3D is just silly.
I love it when a plan comes together.
- Col. John "Hannibal" Smith

Nikon, Seatool, Nexus, Inon
My Galleries

#5 tshepherd


    Great Hammerhead

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 880 posts
  • Location:Westfield, NJ, USA

Posted 09 February 2003 - 08:40 AM

, I have found my F80 ( yuk say some ) to be good for underwater photography

If that's the case, and you're happy with your system, then stick with film. If shooting UW is second nature to you, then I can see why you might stick with film.

I personally have found myself to be much more successful using digital than film when you consider the number of "keepers" I come home with. I also feel that I have learned a lot quicker with digital than film. I also can't stand slide projectors and all those carousels, but that's preference again. I love the ability to browse through my photos on a laptop as I'm stuck at 34K feet in a cramped seat wishing I was diving...

Just my $0.02


#6 scottyb


    Eagle Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 357 posts

Posted 09 February 2003 - 04:31 PM

Hey Carl, you asked for it, good constructive conversation. I think everyone that replied is or was a film shooter. My situation was that I was about to make the plunge to a housed camera from a Nik V, and with the availability of several affordable DSLR's, I saw the opportunity to go digital.

#7 james


    The Engineer

  • Super Mod
  • 9969 posts
  • Location:Houston TX

Posted 09 February 2003 - 07:56 PM


If you shoot the F80 underwater, then you will probably LOVE the Fuji S2pro of the Nikon D100. They are basically the F80 with "digital bits" inside.

I have made many prints at 8 x 12 and friends of mine have even gone to 13 x 19 and we get GREAT results.

I am really happy to have a digital system as it has allowed me to learn and try new things without having to get film developed. Since my camera records all of the information about the photos I take INSIDE the photo, I am able to review my shots with ease and learn from them.

If you are curious about digital, I suggest you rent a digital camera for a day or two and try it out at the Zoo, or a local public aquarium.

Canon 1DsMkIII - Seacam Housing
Dual Ikelite Strobes
Photo site - www.reefpix.org