Jump to content


Member Since 11 Dec 2002
Offline Last Active Dec 03 2018 11:05 AM

#355805 Full Frame SLR wide angle corrector port tests

Posted by StephenFrink on 25 December 2014 - 07:01 PM

Alex - how does the field of view compare to dome, all else being equal? Size of tiles in comparison shots suggests to me the corrected port may reduce FOV. I know you said distances were variable, but I'd be surprised not to see some FOV compression with your test port. Depth of field and corner performance look promising though. Good luck with your project.

#352119 New Canon 16-35 f/4 IS

Posted by StephenFrink on 29 August 2014 - 01:24 PM

No more in the way of conclusions than what I stated above. Have stayed with the 55mm port extension, which is what Seacam HQ recommends for the 16-35/2.8 II lens but not what Stephen Frink recommends for it. Looking forward to S.F.'s analysis of the 16-35 IS. 16mm is stretching it a bit for the superdome, which was designed for 18mm. Have not shot any other Canon made UWA rectilinear lenses so comparison not possible. The new lens is to replace my Sigma 20 and 28mm f/1.8 lenses. The new lens does appear to focus faster than these. Have you read Roger Cicala's reports? Here is a more recent shot. Done at f/8.


Tom - That's a really lovely shot ... congratulations!  I haven't done any testing on the new 16-35 F4, and have no reason to doubt the port extension suggestions that SEACAM Austria suggests.  I personally have the 16-35 II, and Canon Professional Services didn't have loaners on the F4 version last time I asked.  But, I'm off the road for a while now so maybe I can put the testing back on my radar. BTW ... the Superdome is a far better solution it appears (and we would expect) than the wideport.  Thanks for sharing Tom.

#327764 Help choose the next cover of Alert Diver

Posted by StephenFrink on 13 March 2013 - 07:11 AM

We are trying to decide between two wonderful cover images, each submitted for the Ocean Views Photo contest (run as collaboration between Nature's Best magazine, Wetpixel, and Alert Diver).


Here are the shots, but the links are not live here.  You'd have to go to http://www.alertdiver.com to vote.


Screen Shot 2013-03-13 at 11.05.30 AM.png

#327601 Anyone tested D800 and Nikon 14mm/2.8

Posted by StephenFrink on 10 March 2013 - 05:34 AM

Just to comment on the Canon 14 mentioned above. We use a 20mm port extension on SEACAM superdome. Port extension is very specific to diameter of dome.

As for the Nikkor 14mm with a dome port, it was bad in the film days and will fare no better on a D800.

#315322 Underwater photography - The professionals

Posted by StephenFrink on 27 August 2012 - 05:42 AM

While I don't disagree with the points raised above, I'll take a more positive attitude for the sake of the discussion. And explain some of how I made it work in the early days of this career and then try and make some general comments, not using myself as an example. Most of this is entirely logical.

First, it is not impossible. All the same arguments were made to me when I considered "going pro" a decade ago, but ultimately I was able to make it work. I will never be rich, but I now earn several times more than I did in my previous job in the university. I am very happy with my life and current income. Although the sporadic nature of earnings means that income does not feel as disposable as being on a salary.

I eventually took the gamble (in 2004) at a time in my life when I had nobody else depending on my income. Also I was already a known name in the UW photo community and publishing regularly. The first year, in particular, was tough financially. I actually did 3 months without a camera + housing because I had to sell it for cash flow reasons. And even so I did most of the next 5 years with just a single housing and body (I couldn't afford a second D2X). Having no backup means you are very careful with your o-rings, but the camera and Subal never let me down in over 100,000 underwater photos (if they had I would have probably gone under)!

The key to survival in those early days was being careful on expenditure. So I didn't own all the camera gear I lusted after and I have never been able to travel to all the places I have dreamed. I've never been to the Galapagos (despite always wanting to go) and I still have not yet swum with a whale. To make sure I operated in profit, I travelled where I could afford to go - the places where I was offered hosting/support. And typically this means the big, mainstream dive destinations - as these are the ones that have enough bums on seats to spend money on supporting a photographer who will bring them publicity (and ultimately bookings) in the future. Out of the way, small or new operations will rarely have this budget. So being a pro rarely means going to all the hot new places (that is really the realm of the well funded).

Anyway, to talk more generally, once you are operating without serious expenditure then sales become profit. As both Eric and Walt have stated above, the income from an editorial photo sale is greatly reduced these days. But then it is much simpler to process images and deliver to clients (there is no way I could deliver the amount of images I do these days as slides in the post! Especially when the same image is going to several magazines in different parts of the world). But ultimately the loss of editorial earnings has big consequences.

As a result you see photographers diversifying, as Walt describes above. There are few businesses that are still earning their money in exactly the same way as they were in the 1990s. And this is very true of underwater/nature photographers. I note that Art Wolfe is running a workshop tour in Europe this autumn - presumably because even his picture sales are not as lucrative as they used to be. Multiple income streams also protect you from the unpredictable nature of image sales.

So what are these streams? When people ask me about making money in underwater photography, I direct them to look at two of the most financially successful underwater photographers currently operating and to study their portfolios of activity: Michael AW and Stephen Frink. Although I know both of them, I've tried to make these observations (below) as an outside - basically what you can learn from looking at their websites.

First, both work very hard (this is a very important point and the one most commonly overlooked by many wanting to "go pro"). The money is always earned out of the water not in it. And they always seem to be doing at least several things at once.
They both sell lots of images and do commissioned shoots. You always see their images in magazines, books and adverts. They also both run magazines (Ocean Geographic and Alert Diver) - where presumably they get paid for being editor/publisher roles and also have an accessible outlet for their own images. They both have done lots of books. The both run workshops and tours. Both sell underwater photography equipment (Seacam, as it happens). And much more.

Of course, you can't start up and expect so many things to be a success. Workshops, tours and gear sales are unlikely to work for you unless you have already built a reputation for taking fabulous photos and respect in the UW photo community. But hopefully these examples give show a successful business model to aim towards.


Thanks Alex. You are very gracious, indeed. Your comment "The money is always earned out of the water not in it" is especially astute. The in-water work is a passion, but a means to an end as well for the commercially motivated shooter. Many who travel with me have done very well in their chosen careers, and enjoy UW photography when they have the opportunity to get wet (which is quite often for some of them). They shoot "pro quality" images, but have chosen a different path in their lives. Others hope to make it a career. You are living proof that someone with talent and dedication and an admirable work ethic can still carve out a viable niche in UW photography today. Good on 'ya.

#313283 Opened cover of Alert Diver and found MY picture

Posted by StephenFrink on 21 July 2012 - 08:20 AM

Congratulations, Pam. Lovely image!