BoatMoney

If there is revenue to be realized in checked bags I don't think the airlines are going to allow much "abuse" in the carry-on rules anymore. There was a time when they allowed massive carry-on abuse because it lowered their cost of handling checked bags, but now that the checked bags are revenue producers you can pretty much bet carry-on regs will get more attention and tighter control. To be honest, compared to what I paid domestically 20 or 25 years ago, airline seats today are really inexpensive. Myself, I don't have to much issue with the baggage charges. It's either pay more or have fewer airlines, flights and options. That's tightening up already. In my view flying across the country for a few hundred buck, or now for a few hundred bucks and a couple baggage charges is a steal. And if I have an emergency or don't book early enough to get decent prices...well that's just the the way the ball bounces

I guess we all make the assumption that enhances our position, but I have to ask anyway: how do you know that? For all we know it could have caused zero disturbance, it could have been highly damaging or any point in between. And for that reason arguing the merits, or lack thereof, of DD's actions seems pointless were it only about the handling of the nudibranchs. In my mind what happened to the nudis or the surrounding environment isn't particulalry important at this point in time. I am curious as to why NatGeo or anyone else would find something positive about describing the handling of the animals. The greater good you and others speak of could have been accomplished without handling the animals as well, but it would surely have taken more time and more money to do so. Perhaps that's the key?

Then neither should it be for David Doubilet, Barack Obama or my high school sweetheart....Milly....insofar as it is being done to create a pretty picture. Mind you, I am not beating on David but rather the suggestion on this forum that a pro has a greater right or need to move animals in order to enhance their photographic image. Maybe in far flung locales, but not in the the Caribbean or other relatively crowded destinations. This simply is not a good example to be publishing. The people who have gone out and spent "way too much money" on photographic gear are not the people I am speaking about. They have already determined what they find acceptable or unacceptable, and whatever level of respect for the water and it's inhabitant's they hold dear will not be affected by Doubilet's touching or some other pro's speech on not touching. It's the masses who descend by the thousands ever year on easy to access or less expensive islands which may well be influenced by this particular magazine. And they don't even have to have a camera in their hands. You have created something of a straw man here. The reality is that all it will take is a small percentage of those who already engage in regular dive travel to become a bit more free with their hands, and/or to tranlsate David's handling of nudis to any other animal or plant they may want a better look at, for whatever reason. On the whole it seems like a particularly dumb idea on Nat Geo's part to advertise the behaviour engaged in capturing these images even if one, like you, finds the behavior itself insignificant if not acceptable.

On the other hand you are now partaking in a conversation regarding the handling of animals for the purpose of enhancing the photographic image, in which Doubilet is the (for lack of better term) guilty party. Who'd-a-thunk-that last week? And keep in mind if it was me who took these pictures and disclosed the methods and then submitted them to Wetpixel's POTW the response would be far more, shall we say, energetic than what has been leveled against David so far. While it surprises me that David and NatGeo disclosed his actions I do find it gratifying that he did not tell us one thing and do another. Certainly he knew full well the uw-photo and diving community would do an intensive post-morten on his capture of these images. But it remains disconcerting to think of people without the benefit if engaging in conversations like that going on here, finding allowance to extend their behavior underwater because they know NatGeo and Doubilet did.

In film days a photographer submitted to the mag by sending in exposed film only. All developing/processing was done by nat geo staff. I suspect in today's game the photographer submits virgin RAW files only and all post-processing is done by NG staff as well. It is very likely that every single image we see in Nat Geo is manipulated, in the truest sense of the term. I tend to agree with the assumptions that there was probably no harm done to the nudi's, but I am curious why a magazine like Nat Geo and a photographer like Doubilet wouldn't simply not disclose the animal handling and allow the public to assume the backgrounds were done in post. If the animal handling was a bad choice the disclosure would seem to be a worse one, if only because it may give rationale to divers and photographers who until now may have been reticent to engage in this level of animal manipulation. Still, in my experience diving around people who make a living at this game (and not speaking about David specifically here).....animal manipulation as well as reef ravaging isn't exactly an uncommon occurance. It doesn't usually happen on one of their guided tours or instructional trips, but there has always been more than a few sanctimonious foxes in the hen-house in this regard

I am probably going against the Wetpixel grain here, but: I think the claim that photographers are undervalued because lawyers don't have to travel with as much baggage is a rationale hanging by it's feet. Admittedly this is anecdotal, but from my experience the vast majority of domestic travelers do quite well with a checked bag, a carry-on and a personal item.....per ticketed traveler. I do too, when traveling with my photo, scuba, skiing or shooting gear isn't required. I just don't see that many single travelers pulling two checked bags off the carousel. So what is being asked for is not equal treatment, but extra consideration. Given that we are the exception rather than the norm, United's policy change doesn't seem like it aggrieves the majority of travelers. And 25 bucks, each way, doesn't imply they are ravaging us either. Because of the oft witnessed surliness of their cabin personnel I seldom fly United, but I don't personally see any foul in this particular policy change. By now most American are well aware of the impact of rising fuel costs. And I agree with you that this policy change is probably more about raising revenue against fuel costs, by increasing non-passenger paid parcel service, than it is about actually lowering fuel use.

Regardless of the country people come from, it is almost always the floor-shitters you notice most. The gentle souls tend to melt into the background and it is seldom that they, or their country, ever get credit for their kindness or respectful behavior. No country is without their fair share, and in my estimation similar percentage, of each. Of course judgements made upon other countries or cultures are often predicated upon an overweening and vainglorious opinon of one's own. This particular thread is evidence of that. My experience is that to the good or to the bad we are all not a 1/4-step different from one and other.

.....it'd get pretty messy sticking a bonbon in someone's garter belt

I believe that Tony Rhodes is no longer involved in the ownership or operation of Kararu Dive Voyages and his departure seems to coincide with the downward trend of service and competence reported since. So many of the companies operating in Indonesia are truly reliant on specific peoples' reputations and acumen and when they leave, things just fall apart. Evidence how quickly Adventure Komodo folded after Larry passed away. Sometimes these boats/operations are held together by nothing more than the sheer will and effort of a single competent and honest person. And often what we believe are systematic policies, procedures and operations are really nothing more than strict, unrelenting guidance and oversight imposed in real time by these same people. And is often lost when they depart.

I agree with you, but it's not that it has "gone down" per se. Richard's has always been up and down in both food and service (the prices have always been up ) We've had property on Bonaire for about 21 years and this has been the case at Richards for that period of time. When they are "on" it is extremely good, but at times it can be a place were both poor service and uninspired food costs a bit of money. To me, Richard's is a place your bet/take your chance kind of a restaurant. I believe the most reliable restaurant on Bonaire is Andrea and Lola's place, Capriccio, and in my experience they have the most extensive and insightful Italian wine list of any place I have been in the Caribbean. If you enjoy Barolos, Capriccio is like heaven. Most of the dishes at this reaturant are very engaging and the odd day when Osso Buco is the special, well, my advice is to not miss it (unless of course prefer not to eat veal). Some of the white sauce dishes are extraordinary. The downside to Capriccio, like all restaurants on Bonaire, is that the **fresh** fish selections are very very limited. You can almost always count on wahoo, but after that it is very hit and miss. I enjoy Mona Lisa as well (beware that is has a very casual pace), and for Dutch/Indonesian fare the Old Inn seldom disappoints. Bonaire has a wealth of good restaurants and eateries. Most are like Richard's, up and down. So there are no real guarantees with regard to service and quality, but Cappricio, Blue Moon, Mona Lisa and Old Inn are a few retaurants that have never failed us. If you average out recommendations from the dive operators while you are on island you will get a real good idea which restaurants been good lately and which are suffering at that point in time.

I think most photo competitions are silly And in as many cases as not they usually end up with some silly winning selections But in this case there was a purpose to the competition other than self-gratification or bounty, as well as one that made sense and provided the opportunity for fun. One might say people directly associated with the operational side of website should not be allowed to enter the contest, but to me that seems a bit stringent for something that I perceived as intended to be light-hearted. The fact that Alex makes money from photography is even less of a consideration. Why penalize, or in this cse criticize, people for being good at something? I think the winning image is too simply too topical to not accept as a qualified success. Pygmies have become the standard bearer for the Raja Ampat region AND it is shot in a way that elicits an extremely friendly and playful response from the viewer. It is the whole package for the intent of the competition. No disrespect is intended, but of the pics I saw (the parsed gallery), Alex's shot was head and shoulders above the others for the specific purpose of representing the region in the form of a park tag. I think it's cool B) The winner is perfect for the Raja park tag and the winning shooter took a camera underwater just like the rest of us do.

In certain circumstances AF will hunt a lot underwater, so manual focus can be a tremendous advantage. But while using a focus ring to achieve focus topside is easy, using the same technique underwater can be a pain. Many underwater shooters set focus distance (to a close approximation of what we need or desire) and then move the camera in or out until focus pops. You can set distance with a manual focus knob or you can do it in AF and then switch to MF to hold the setting. But in either case, when considering your housing setup, be careful not to discount that *at times* using AF underwater can be infuriating and largely unsuccesful. And as a result significantly less desirable than MF.

No, the purpose of my post was to suggest that the angle of the light projected is not equal to the angle of coverage, unless one has no concern for what level of relative brightness is found at the edge. And that Ike is the only manufacturer who tells us that if they say their strobe gives 100 degrees of coverage, then they are telling us that at the edge of that 100 degrees the brightness is no greater than 1 stop less than the brightest measure of output. My Inons are fine for certain and more limited wide angle use and my 200's are fine for certain and less limited wide angle use. In broad terms I consider my Inons as macro strobes and Ike's as wide angle, but there is a lot of photographic territory between those two and I'll use either set, or combination of strobes, as I believe or know they will work. I don't want to belabor a discussion that is fast falling into the realm of emotional discourse (not to mention that I have't the time to argue with all your unrelated questions, accusations and insults). Though I will end my participation by saying that for my imaging the Z240s and SS200's fit very nicely together as a combination of tools that give me the control, reach, reliability, color temps, power settings, size options as well as light that I find pleasing. Four Inons would not do the same because of the wide angle and reach limitations and 4 Ikes would not because I'd be uncomfortable having only Ike's in my photo case due of reliability concerns. That isn't to condemn what you use or how you use them, it's simply a matter of what works for me. And my comments are generated from what I have learned about each type of strobe after shooting them back to back, and at times side by side, since I bought my Inons early last year. Conceivably, that is genesis for the disagreement between your and my understanding of the differences, similarities and performance between these strobes.

I don't understand the relevance of this response. What does it have to do with my comment about their respective brightness fall offs from center to edge? The only thing that matters is my response to the strobes' respective performances for me. So in a sense, in this case, I absolutely prefer handwaving to measuring. I can't imagine going diving with a strobe that doesn't perform to my needs or expectations just because a test says it should or does. There is a reason most testers disclaim their findings pursuant to real world application. Tests are a great *starting point* and I appreciate the people who put in the time and cost, and the share with all of us, their found results. I am not certain of that, in fact I can't believe there isn't a published specification/standard for determining AOC, but I do know that Ikelite is the only strobe manufacturer who sells in America that publishes how they measure. You miss the point. The term "pro" carries little meaning anymore with regard to results. Pros used to be good. You could count on it. And you could rely on their advice as well as imitating their means and methods. That isn't the case anymore because the web has allowed many more people than those who shoot exemplary quality to legitimately call themselves professional. Your diving partner may be a superlative photographer, but calling him a pro, in today's world, doesn't prove that. I think it is unfortunate that the term has lost so much of it's worth, but it just cannot be trusted anymore to imply a person who shoots with a Crumley, or Mustard, or Frink's (just to name a few who post here) accomplished standards in imaging. I didn't say Ikes were superior, in the whole, and I never said Inon was cheating to get their GN. I said I prefer Ike 200's for wide angle because their brightness falloff from center is better than the Inons. Once again, that is a comment about fall off rather than absolute brightness. And none of my comments have been of the sort which claim Inons "unsuitable for wide angle use". Still, Z240s have a limited application to wide angle shooting compared to SS/DS200s. And they may, considering what some of the people I have respect for are shooting, have a similar disadvantage compared to DS125s, which is a result the Backscatter tests wouldn't indicate.

My comment was in regard to the edge performance between the 200 and Z240. The Z240 definately suffers more falloff, respective to it's center brightness, than the SS200's do. I base my judgements on real world underwater performance. But I realize test patterns are fun to use as a talking point. I dislike responding to this kind of rationale because it ends up sounding rude, but, I seldom default to what pros find acceptable or unacceptable. To go back to my original comment: What is coverage? Where does coverage end? Is it 1 f-stop down from center, is it 2...or 3. At what point does one decide that the edge of coverage is within the image or outside the image? Is your pro's coverage the same as your coverage or my coverage? No I can't I like handheld single strobe shooting from time to time, so SS200 and backup is necessary.