Jump to content


DamonA

Member Since 27 Apr 2012
Offline Last Active Apr 05 2014 10:01 PM
-----

#332840 diving with a camera

Posted by DamonA on 14 June 2013 - 10:12 PM

The article was really helpful. I just signed up for this forum and have a total noob question - how much diving experience do I need before it's worthwile to attempt underwater photography?

 

I'm a competent photorgrapher on land and I've read some of the underwater photography guides - but they are much more focused on the camera skills - it almost seems like the assumption is you have to be a experienced diver before you even attempt underwater photography.

 

I've only ever dived once and I don't have my certification. I'm going to the great barrier reef and am tempted to buy a housing for my camera and see what I can do. Am I biting off more than I can chew? I remember on my last dive there were times when I would almost float to the surface or practically crawl along the ocean floor because I wasn't used to the gear.

 

My word you are, wait at lest till you have 50+ dives; it's more fun to get off on the diving skills, it will be one the greatest buzzes of your life time, the camera makes it more like hunting then observing passively and being in awe of the marine world. Best to understand what you are doing so it is safe to use a camera.




#330989 Nikon 60mm vs Nikon 105mmvr

Posted by DamonA on 07 May 2013 - 05:04 AM

Depends where the dive trip is, what the viz will be and the types of marine life at that time of year, whether or not you'll get a focus gear with it.

 

The 60mm is easier to use- but the 105 will get you shots of better scale with flighty pelagic fish or gobbies and blennies. Ambient light shots the 60mm is great http://www.flickr.co.../in/photostream

 

 

 

If your shooting tiny stuff(105mm, possibly a 5 or 10+diopter) or fish portraits(60mm and the TC)- both have a time and a place, really you need both, if you did 1 dive and noticed lots of nudi's, you'd change lenses to the 105mm for the next dive......... but as a first lens and only lens, I'd go with the 60mm- it's cheaper if you wet it :(

 

I bought one Vg condition 2nd hand on ebay for $222.50, a 105mm EXC for $390 both the D type and got the xit404 zoom knob focus gear, as I found selecting a focus point blows the shot timing and makes lots of rubbish bin shots.

 

- so many factors to think about.

 

here look at these- it has a few 35mm shots that aren't as sharp as the 60mm or 105mm

http://www.flickr.co...s/71049198@N08/




#326411 Nice story about a turtle with new flippers

Posted by DamonA on 20 February 2013 - 02:53 PM

The sad thing was- it was caught in a fishing net; not that it was attacked by a shark

 

ummmmmmm I see it as not "nice"; more of out of the frying pan into the fire!

 

To spend the rest of it's life in
captivity.............................................................................................

 

The enemy here is the fishing net that catch's turtles- then in a world that has starving people, they spend that money on a old, past it's prime turtle, Ironic really!




#325967 Solo Diving - an A to Z of operators who allow and those who don't

Posted by DamonA on 10 February 2013 - 03:48 AM

Insurance is easy for me, I live in a country with "universal" health care and due to my habit can't afford insurances anyhow, my wife would inherit all my stuff and a house free of a mortgage so thats good enough for me.







I been diving the last 4years from my own unattended boat solo(I tend to stick to the same large area that I know off by heart and has moorings set there by the dept.of P.I.), I have rules and instinct is the guiding VIBE over those logical set rules- if it don't feel right I don't do it, the shot never comes first over my safety and limitations which I stay well inside off(not that it is such a drag). I find solo-ing has made me more careful as a diver not less as the cert. agencies like to make you out as reckless or crazy.

How many then solo dive WITHOUT a independent air source; and if you do what rules do you set yourself?????

- ie: don't go into overhead enviros, don't provoke sharks or marine life, limit depth to 12m if not carrying a pony bottle, tow a bouyed flag while shore diving or set an anchored bouy on your entry/exit point.carry mirror/smb/knife/line cutter/snorkle and whistle

and the golden rule- if in trouble save yourself, not your camera

Maybe we could make a list of wise, risk mitigation measures to help the growing ranks of photogs that solo dive..........


#317481 Kill sharks before they attack humans? Australian state will do just that

Posted by DamonA on 29 September 2012 - 03:33 PM

The article linked doesn't explain whats happened very well at all, seems to be just trying to bad mouth the Aussies as shark killing heathens! this article gives the rest of the quoted statement by an ABC radio journalist.

http://www.theaustra...e-1226482672726

They write of using baited drumlines to "control" beach going sharks- they already do that now!

Seems to me you could argue a case that putting set baits in the water near or adjacent to swimmers/surfers, would only attract sharks to beach areas.

Me- I would run an education regime during the whale season(articles on the ABC TV and radio in Western Australia) informing people about not surfing the dawn and dusk, not entering the water whilst fish schools are present on that beach or when whales are calfing, also get rid of the "burley lines". Banning divers shark feeding could also be thoughful. More aerial Shark monitering(small inexpensive, UAV with cameras http://www.aeronauti...r_mini_uav_muas) assign to any beaches SLSC would do more then anything else to quewl fear in the beach going public.

Heres the rest of the cherry picked article- from the australian newspaper,
"The Conservation Council of WA (CCWA) said the "guilty until proven innocent" approach was a knee jerk reaction to public concern that would harm the environment and would not protect swimmers.
"We urge the government not to use the new kill powers for sharks," CCWA marine co-ordinator Tim Nicol said.
"We are ... concerned that this policy perpetuates the fear that all large sharks are potential killers, when in fact we do not know this."
The Wilderness Society was also critical of "pre-emptive cullings", while ABC radio talkback callers flooded the phone lines, with many saying the best way to stay safe was to stay out of the shark's habitat.
Some said the strategies were vote-grabbing stunts.
Mr Barnett also on Thursday reiterated his opposition to shark nets because they posed a threat to marine life.
Instead, $2 million will go towards continuing shark tagging programs, including the use of GPS tracking systems, while $2 million will go into a research fund over four years.
Mr Nichol welcomed the research funding.
"If we want to reduce fear of swimming at our beaches, then we need to engage in research and education, not in killing with no purpose," he said.
"For example, we need to explain the times of year that are most dangerous because of oceanic events that attract large sharks to feed near shore, for example when snapper are spawning in Cockburn Sound."
University of WA, where researchers are developing shark attack deterrent wetsuits, also welcomed the research funding.
The government also pledged $200,000 for a feasibility study and trial of a beach enclosure to protect swimmers, $500,000 for extra jet skis for Surf Lifesaving WA, and $150,000 for community awareness programs, including a smartphone application."


Miguel Llanos, NBC News, should next time try to give a balanced article, not painting up Colin Barnett and Aussies as Phillistines!

Seems $hristians are more dangerous to the sharks then Colin is!

http://www.abc.net.a.../03/3560277.htm
"Talkback caller Gary feels that humans have a moral authority granted by the Bible to kill sharks.
The government is prepared to take a pragmatic view, says Mr Barnett. Sharks which are menacing or threatening should be destroyed, he believes. The government is prepared to look at shark nets and more aerial patrols.
Listen to the interview to hear the complete answers from Mr Barnett."


#313225 Loopholes in conservation of Bluefin tuna.

Posted by DamonA on 20 July 2012 - 06:42 PM

The Black Fish successfully released over a thousand bluefin tuna back into the Adriatic Sea from cages at a fish farm near the island of Ugljan.


http://www.globalani...-farming/78424/


American Company- Kali Tuna, a subsidy of the US fish farming company Umami Sustainable Seafood based in San Diego, California
Umami CEO Oli Steindorsson believes the company’s operations are helping to sustain the species. In a 2011 interview with SmartPlanet, Steindorsson says, “We’re protecting them from predators. Fish spend 80 percent of their life searching for or eating feed. We’re providing food for them, keeping them in a clean environment. For every kilo we feed the fish, they would need three to five kilos in the wild because they are moving so much more. Mother Nature will not give them fish to eat every day.” What he fails to mention that these fish are only being fed in order to kill them once they have reached a marketable size. And the only predators bluefin tuna need protection from are humans. The species has been around for more than 400 million years, making them older than the Himalayas and quite able to survive on their own.


The Blackfish- http://www.facebook....theblackfishorg