Article from Diver Mag
Posted 28 April 2003 - 11:29 PM
hehehe. yeah. it's not even worth commenting on that article.
Posted 29 April 2003 - 05:36 AM
- Col. John "Hannibal" Smith
Nikon, Seatool, Nexus, Inon
Posted 29 April 2003 - 09:38 AM
I've shot film for about 6 years, I now own a 10D, I have put thousands of frames through it, haven't shot film since I've had the camera, am now saving my moolah for the new Subal housing for the 10D....I will keep film for when I need to shoot my 16-35L full frame...but that's it....
My 2 cents....
SLS Photography, when your images matter....
Aquatica, Amphibico, TLC, ULCS (Philippines), Stix, iTorch, Magic Filter Dealer
Philippine Dive Trip Specialist
Posted 29 April 2003 - 09:45 AM
Unfortuently this is a case of asking the absolutely wrong person to write the wrong article. John is rather set in his ways, and that obviously shows. He obviously went in with some serious misconceptions, which with limited experience with the technology, he didn't get a real result. He is right the D100 Sea&Sea is a beast :-) If he seriously thinks I am no longer competing with him, then so be it.
He'll just find out who wrong he is, that is all.
Posted 29 April 2003 - 04:41 PM
Actually, I often think this, too. Depends on your setup. Enjoyment of music is very much subjective, and it has been shown (in a test I read about) that introducing tiny variations (not unlike the effects of wow and flutter) into "perfect" digital recordings can make people enjoy them more.
I bet he still thinks LP's sound better than CD's.
Off topic, but... well, I just disagree.
Posted 30 April 2003 - 03:00 AM
I agree with Bantin on a number of points. And certainly I agree that digital is not for him as a magazine pro, as he states. But I think he should have given the camera a fairer test because not all his readers work for Diver mag. I am surprised that Diver asked Bantin to do the review rather than Dan Burton, who tests cameras for them from time to time and is much more digitally experienced.
But I do agree with Bantin that for many photographers, who already own housed Nikon SLRs, the D100 does not justify the cost and effort of trading in.
I was pleased that he answered some of my questions from my D100 review in UWP Mag 11:
[QUOTE]But the final decision for magazine image use will be the art editors (who always seem to want 50Mb scans to use as thumbnails!). In two current UK diving magazines I counted up the underwater images used in features and less than 5% were equal to or above the D100 output at 300dpi. So in theory you could take 95% of the magazine?s images with this camera! But will the art editors let you?[QUOTE]
JB's article says:
[QUOTE]But most of the pictures in Diver take up less than half a page, you say. Sorry, I want to know that if I take a shot that's worthy of a 64-sheet poster (and I've done a few in the past [glad you cleared that up, John]), it will be of good enough quality ... magazine art editors without exception want the option to use only a small part of the frame. They rarely want to use a picture the way the photographer cropped it. They have their own ideas. So definition is very important.
Just to be mischievous, and I don't believe the following is true, but its a fun theory (not based on any fact).
It is fun to hypothesize that Charles Hood, who has a similar role to JB but at the UK's other big diving mag, wrote a glowing review of the D100, concluding that he would be trading in his F100 for a D100 for magazine work. So, maybe there is a swipe at the photo quality in the other mag.
Finally, those of us in the UK that read Diver regularly are well aware that Bantin is opinionated - but that is why he is fun to read. I'd rather read his opinion than a reprint of the manufacturer's press release. But you always have to remember it is just an opinion!
Posted 30 April 2003 - 03:05 AM
I intend to enter print categories at the Antibes Festival and in Diver's Image 2003 competition (which I think Bantin will be judging) with my digital shots. That's the best way to show what the cameras can do. I hope I'll be competing against lots of the wetpixel community.
Posted 30 April 2003 - 05:14 AM
This relic had his mind set before he picked up the camera.
Sea & Sea strobes
Posted 30 April 2003 - 06:30 AM
If there is one competition that Wetpixelites should try to enter it is the Antibes Festival Print Category. Click here
I enter this competition because I think that it is the most important in Underwater Photography. The print competition is excellent for us because it makes no distinction between film and digital, plus the print size is 40cm answering quality issues. The competition is v. high quality and they allow pictures that have won other comps because they want the best of the best. They get about 2000 prints (last year from photographers in 48 countries).
You have til September time...
Plus anyone who is anyone has won there in the past.
It would be an excellent way to prove how good digital cameras are.
Posted 30 April 2003 - 06:31 AM
Especially as the overall quality of the said magazines is not that special anyway to warrant any quantifiable discrimination (writing and supplying images for 10 years for 11 of them I can vouch for contributers feelings of gross disatisfaction on seeing the printed outcome from even the highest quality reversals) - Especially regarding macro work, which JB didn't discuss.
Now I do know John and have worked along side him on assignments and it is clear to see that his notoriety for expansive egoism has become legendary... He can be so single minded and often formulates an opinion well before he tries anything, but love him or hate (A bit like Marmite) he is probably the most read 'tester' in the diving industry. This singular view may be a problem associated with writing exclusively for one "We have no competitors" equally arrogant diving publication.
This is one reason the article read as it did and I think it was a mistake by Diver to allow it through until he had had more quality time to test the unit and others like it. It was far too subjective and will no doubt begin a stream of corrispondence from around the globe adding to the Marmite gene hypothesis.
As Alex said he does raise a few valid points about the end users of film cameras not seeing the justification of the expense of a completely new digital system, especially if the overall performance was reportedly not as perfected as the equivelent film SLR or for reasons of acceptance for publication (not that the percentage would ever warrant that.
This subjective reporting has gotten him into trouble on no end of occasions from manufacturers and Dive Operators - Worldwide. One that immediately springs to mind was "Lyang Lyang Stinks"
Having been a published photographer since my early teens I can appreciate that this new techno stuff is a trick beyond the old dogs capabilities when the old stuff is still pefectly good enough and in fact superior in a lot of cases.
People here are well aware of my feelings concerning areas of weakness, but I have never felt the need to run down something that has clear potential and from what I have seen and learned from this particular site has been incredibly impressive. I do however, shoot digital for Press work and for speed to web. My next assignment will see 50/50 digital on the surface and UW - Specified by those commissioning!
Posted 30 April 2003 - 06:43 AM
You may get in trouble for the following statement...It assumes anyone who has not won is a no body. Maybe they are...LOL
Plus anyone who is anyone has won there in the past. -Alex