75 replies to this topic

[cor]

Check out this site. It contains very elaborate tests on scanning. (see Image Detail and Scanning Film). One point I found interesting was that some digital images contained fabricated detail. Ofcourse, taken with a grain of salt like anything on the internet

I dont think it is entirely fair to compare amounts of images taken and convert that into dollar amount saved on processing. Not only do you easily take much more images than you otherwise would have (which is definately a plus for digital nonetheless), you should also factor in the expense on housings, more expensive DX lenses, much higher insurance costs, costs of a laptop or other means to view/edit your images, harddisk media, backup media, time spent on filing, time spent on modifying/sharpening and so on. I dont doubt that people that make a living with their camera will break even relatively quickly, but for amateurs I think its a bit more complicated and depends on a great many factors.

It remains an expensive hobby either way

Cor

[Craig Ruaux]

I think that this is an unfair way to the maths - as despite their quality most of that 8000 will never see the light of day.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And I would disagree with the good doctor.

My interpretation of "despite their quality, most of that 8000 will never see the light of day" would be that the files at least made it through culling to the point of being archived. So in film terms, they made it off the light table and into the slide binders...

To get 8000 images that stayed in slide pages, I would personally have shot about 80,000 frames, based on my "film days" keeper rate. I've previously calculated a per shot cost using E100VS (bought bulk from B&H) and prepaid mailers for processing (no pro E6 processing in central podunksville ) of $0.36 US, so for me to get those 8000 "so so" keepers I would probably have burned $28,000 worth of film and processing.

From my perspective, my d70 paid for itself on frame 2473, and has been working for free ever since. I fully expect my D2X to have paid for itself by the time I am settled in Oregon.

Now if you're keeping every file, like John Bantin, that does throw the math off a little. In that case you're only half way to paying for the D2X. I don't personally keep every file though.

[MikeVeitch]

Well, let me chime in once more...(this is just the best thread)

I use that same D70 underwater at least twice a week, sometimes a lot less and others a lot more. I keep pretty much every shot that i take in camera unless it is just so obviously overexposed, underexposed, or out of focus. Problem for me? I think it is damn near impossible to tell about highlights and shadows on the dinky little finder, if you just point it towards you then is impossible. I can't tell you how many shots i thought.."woohooo great exposure!" Then put it on the computer and CRAP! that is sooo underexposed. Still the same even when using the histogram.
Soo, i take 150 shots back to the computer from two dives and cull them all on the big screen. I would have 72 shots from film. This is half of digital. Computer screen = loupe
Personally i love the whole double amount of shots idea, i have more keepers it is true but not that many more.
I have always had the tendency to take 10-20-36 shots of one subject and that has not changed, i took 40 shots of one piece of hard coral today, different strobe settings, apertures, composition etc
But just like the slide table, a lot of the photos get deleted once on the big screen.
Personally, and remember i am a film defender, i think shooting dig is a saving in the developing and film purchasing side of things. For me, the single biggest hugest largest most exceedingly bestest thing of digital? More than 36 photos!
M

[Alex_Mustard]

Since I am the guineapig... the 8000 is the number I have downloaded. So it only accounts for in water editting - which I do a lot of. I have probable deleted another 2000 or so that were unneeded duplicates or not as good as I thought they were. So the number is closer to 6000 worthing keeping.

Although I will have to wait until 25th Feb to find out what the yearly rate is. I am off to Egypt on Sunday to get on with it!

Alex

[John Bantin]

Leonardo painted the Last Supper on wet plaster. I think we should not confuse the message with the medium. Concentrate on getting great pictures. When they are reduced to tiny dots of ink on paper no-one cares what kit you used. They only see the picture.

(...and Mike, please bear in mind that Stan is 26 years older than me and he will always have that many more anecdotes!)

[divegypsy]

Hi guys,

Its interesting to read how everyone thinks film is either dead or almost dead. And that may be true for topside shooting. But not in my opinion underwater.

I'm still shooting everything underwater on film with Nikon F5's in Seacam housings. My first D2X should arrive today. But I expect it use it mostly topside. I believe it will be a while longer before digital camera results can come up to the consistency of a good film camera with TTL strobes used knowledgeably. Lack of a top quality powerful digital underwater strobe is the primary reason. As yet I've heard of no underwater TTL strobe for a digital camera that can match my Hartenberger 250's and 625's on the F5 for either exposure consistency or fast shooting.

If you have to stop to look at the results of the first shot and then make exposure corrections, you often miss the best moment. And if you do a dive to 50 or 60 meters you just don't have the time to concentrate on anything but the subject in the viewfinder. If you have to check the results each night to be sure you got the shots, learning to use the camera better is the real solution, not digital.

With digital you can shoot a lot more images per dive, but in today's market there are millions of images out there and quality is what really counts.

divegypsy

[Paul Kay]

Just to throw in a comment or two to this debate:

I've read (and had the theory explained to me once and it made sense at the time) that it is better not to delete images in camera as this can lead to card corruption. I've not experienced problems myself but then I rarely edit in camera. On the same note, I always format a card prior to using it for the same reason as this is a recommendation that I have both read about and discussed.

Digital appears to require good housekeeping and my own system is to shoot on large enough cards, download via a reader, rename and backup to 2 x hard drives and DVD.

The reason for stating all this? Well I simply store ALL the images I shoot so I have no editing prior to checking them in Photoshop's browser. (2000 on my last trip).

Intriguingly, whilst I still see a lot of film being shot underwater, I no of very few people who don't intend going digital when possible. There may well be a lot more film housings for sale in the near future but whether prices will go much lower is something else. That said, several photographers I know simply see no point in selling at silly prices and even lend them out rather than get nothing for them

[Veloswimmer]

That's very cool. I'm new to underwater photography and learning a lot at WetPixel. Thanks.

[fotoscubo714]

The cost of Evolution. If we had stayed with exposing silver-plated glass we would never had any underwater pics. (BTW, when was the first underwater picture taken and how?)

I think it is more about if the photographers are willing to evolve with the options of technology. I remember and still do occasional "old school" film shooting and self-processing. It has "zen" and has much personal satisfaction. I just learned to see the whole world through 25-64 ASA through F-1 sportfinder eyes (I miss this feature the most), and often guessed right without that lightmeter. Manual Light adjustment? Push or pull the flashhead, from repeat experience and days of pool tests you knew what strobe distance gave in F-stops with 64Film. You mastered the film and equipment and created your style. It took decades for revolutionary automatic camera features to be introduced and just confused the serious amateurs then at first. There was little pressure for the photographer to evolve.

Fast forward 40-50 years to the present. Digital as immediately satisfying and environmentally-friendly it has become, now requires me to be besides the photographer, computer programmer, lab-technician, art director/editor, plus now film producer, director, director of cine, focus puller, sound recorder, video/sound editor, post production editor, product marketing and project closer. I'm sure I have left out many other functions and positions. I apologize to all whose job I excluded and omitted for with my new 7D I will have to do all of your jobs now, with the evolution and options given to me by Canon.

The camera used to be the limiting factor, now it is my brain and time to learn it all. I often wonder if the "old school" days of film developed "Mastery of limitations into creativity" while current plethora of options/features create more confusion and difficulty in style direction. Although many here on Wetpixel blow me away every week and prove otherwise.

I still love shooting film, but I also love to evolve and grow in my image capture. I love my old film camera collection, although it means nothing but only to a few (I sold a complete Rolleimarin system for $2K to a collector on E-bay last year). But I'm excited and looking forward to learning to use all of my new 7D features. As old as I'm getting, this new camera is keeping me young and stimulated, excited and proud. There is no possible price tag on that. Although it is getting cheaper by the day....LOL

Bo

[Rocha]

Check this out:

http://cgi.ebay.com/...I...355672&rd=1

$862 for a full Sea and Sea NX100 setup, INCLUDING fisheye dome and macro focus port... un-freaking-believable...

Cheers
James

James, believe it or not, I sold my NX100 setup (which was identical to the one above) back in 2005 when I bought my D2x for $1,200!! And back then I thought it was a good deal!

[StephenFrink]

You know i will never consider giving up my Nik V and 15mm lens. It is the single most amazing piece of glass for underwater. The DOF of is and the sharpness around the edges is incredible and just can't be replicated by a housing.

And there are just so many uses for the manual focus lens. So many times feeding different creatures off the back of a boat i just put it on min focus and hold the thing underwater and snap away when said creature gets close, no focus problems ever. Same thing for extremely fast stuff, the fact you don't need to use autofocus when composing could mean the difference between getting the shot and not.

I use it still and will never, ever give it up.
Sure, digital has huge advantages in different areas but in certain situations the 15mm lens just can't be beat by anything.

I would like to hear if Steve Frink is still using his Nik V's as well as his digital stuff, last time i saw him he was but that was two years ago so could have changed. There are very few people more prolific in underwater media (if any) than Steve.

Sure film can be a pain in the butt these days for such things as decent E6 processing but it is not all that hard to digitize the capture afterwords.

Me? keeping the Nik V and 15 and still using it and am pround to say it! (In fact i can lean over and touch it right now if i wanted to...)
Mike

Hey Mike - Thanks for the kind words, but I don't think I've shot any film for 6 or 7 years now. (Time slips away) I did shoot some test images with a Nikonos V and 15mm to compare with my Canon 1DsMKII (at the time) and 16-35 II lens with Seacam superdome and PVL57.5 By the time I got the Nikonos images scanned and looked at them in Photoshop, I didn't think the corners were any better than my wide-angle zoom, and for sure it wasn't even remotely as sharp in the center. If my world was confined to a Schneider 4X loupe and lightbox I'd still be a fan, but recognizing that anything I use needs digital delivery these days, the hassle of scanning, possibility of scratching, expense, difficulty even finding an E-6 lab, and relative marginal quality makes film untenable for me.

Having said all that, I still keep my Seacam F100 housing and several Nikonos V bodies with 15mm lenses. They are worth nothing, and you never know

Wait - I just saw that Mike's original post that I responded to was 2005! I'm surprised to see this thread out of hibernation.

Edited by StephenFrink, 31 October 2009 - 01:53 PM.

[Rocha]

Wait - I just saw that Mike's original post that I responded to was 2005! I'm surprised to see this thread out of hibernation.

Haha, I didn't see the date either and thought it was a current thread

[MikeVeitch]

I still have my Nik V and 15mm

[John Bantin]

I still have my Nik V and 15mm

Mike
I like you so much. next time I see you I'll give you mine. Just keep in touch and tell me where you are! Gosh, I should give it to someone from Lembeh when I'm at DEMA. Quick, tell me what friends you'll have there.
JB

Edited by John Bantin, 01 November 2009 - 01:19 AM.

[MikeVeitch]

i have friends?!?

Umm... anyone from Lembeh! its a small place.. And some good sharp cheddar if you can as well

Cheers

[John Bantin]

i have friends?!?


Cheers

Yes, Mike. You got me!