gravity

I have one I would like to sell. I sent you a private message about it. Let me know if you are still looking. Thanks!

Hi Simon, They are not currently registered with the US copyright office, but that is something that I will do if I can't reach an amicable agreement shortly. Nautilus is a Canadian company, but their web registration and hosting appears to be in the USA (as am I). The agreement I offered was meant to cover all past uses, but no ongoing or future uses. But after 11 months of back and forth. I recently set a one week deadline for them to accept my offer. They missed that deadline. So currently, there is not an offer on the table from either party. Two of my images are currently on one of their sites (nautilusswellstories.com) and they both contain my metadata and my name in the filename. Two images appeared on their homepage in the past, but they took them down when I alerted them they were using my photos without permission.The metadata was stripped before they put them on the homepage. And they have used two images in their email newsletter. In the newsletter, my photos were used as part of a composite. I haven't checked, but it is doubtful that the composite would have my metadata. I appreciate any input you can offer.

I have been trying to deal with the Nautilus Swell using my images without permission for almost one year now. They have used five different images (one photo they used twice for a total of six infringements). I have made a significant effort to come to an amicable settlement with Nautilus, but ultimately they continue to send me on a wild goose chase. I know wetpixel occasionally runs trips with them, and I am hoping someone on here can give me advise about how to move forward at this point. I went on a trip with them in May of 2011. Upon returning, the dive master aboard saw pictures on my facebook page and sent the link to their office. The office asked me if I would do a blog post and include photos. I did so, but I asked that other than the blog post my photos not be used without my permission. They agreed and put up the blog post. Since then, they have used two of my pictures (for a few months each) as some of the main photos on their homepage. They have used two of my photos in their email newsletter. And two of my photos are currently up on their blog under blog posts by people other than myself. The photos on their blog are credited to me. The other four uses had my copyright cropped off. The photos are all very high quality. Three of them were unique situations where I was able to capture photos that would be extremely difficult or impossible to replicate. And in my opinion they are higher quality photos than Nautilus typically uses in their marketing materials (other than when photogs contribute to their blog). According to the Internet Archive, the first infringement started approximately November 2011. I noticed it in February, and I have been trying to get compensation since then. Because I have been a customer of the Nautilus twice, I like the people involved, and I hope to be a customer many times in the future, I have asked for minimal compensation. After the first infringement I asked for $200 in credit towards a future trip, but since then there have been five more infringements. My most recent ask was for $1200 in credit towards a future trip or a $1000 check -- their choice. I have been passed around to retell my story to six different Nautilus employees. Each time, it is if I am starting over completely and they don't know they are using my images. All of the people have been very poor at replying to emails, and I have had to spend a lot of time following up. My emails now are going unanswered. The latest is that Mike Lever got involved. First he told me, "I am an avid photographer myself and would be furious if I perceived that someone was using my images for commercial gain after taking the copyright off. That's stealing. I would never condone it." After a few months of no action, I set a deadline. So after 11 months of showing his employees that these were my files (11 months of back and forth and back and forth), Mike Lever's latest response is that he doesn't believe I took the photos. He asked me to watermark my raw files and send them to him as proof. He said he won't engage in any negotiation until I do so. I let him know that I am unaware of any way to watermark a raw file and I am reluctant to send my raw files because of how my photos have been repeatedly (accidentally?) misused, but that I could send him screenshots that showed the pics along with the Nikon .nef extension of the photos in my Lightroom photo library. I could also send screenshots of the pics that come before and after in the sequence. I asked him if that would suffice as evidence for him. I offered to send those to him on January 29 and as of Today, February 11, I have still received no response. I have also repeatedly asked Mike Lever to call me because some of his emailed questions suggest that his employees haven't told him the whole story, but to this point he has declined to do so. I don't presume to know what is going on in the Nautilus brain trust regarding dealing with me. But it seems that their modus operandi is to be extremely apologetic and assure me that they will get the the bottom of this and resolve it fairly with me, then never follow up with me, then when I follow up pass me on to the next person. Now that I have made it to the top of the organization, my follow up is being met with accusations and denials. It is extremely frustrating. I am sure many photographers deal with this kind of thing all the time. But I never have before. So I don't know what to do next. Does anyone have any specific suggestions? Thanks,

My experience is that the inon adds a lot of chromatic abberation and the subsee does not. I dont have personal experience with the others.

I would do the entire trip in Lembeh. In my opinion there are a high percentage of mediocre dives on Bunaken.

I have been to Donsol twice, and have not experienced that the practice follows the preaching. The operators often did not follow their own rules about how many people are allowed to swim with a shark at one time. I think there were times that more than 70 people would be in the water. With this many people in the water it was impossible to keep people from touching the shark. I was the jerk who kept grabbing people and throwing them away from the shark when they would reach out to touch it. Even when the operators saw someone touch the shark, there was never any consequences other than asking them not to do it again. I don't know what the solution is in either Donsol or Hanifaru, but operators mentality of 'if I don't accomodate the customer then my competitor will' is pervasive in many places. Effective enforcement is much tougher than good intentions.

There will be varying opinions on Nikon vs Canon. At any given time one is ahead of the other, but they seem to take turns. Both are well supported by housing manufactures. It mostly comes down to personal preference. But I will say for Nikon you should the d7000, not d90. I am not sure if there are housings available yet for d7000, but there will be soon. I think Nauticam has announced one, and I think it is generally considered a significant upgrade from the d90. I With a limited budget, I would start with a wide angle lens. My favorite is Tokina 10-17 fisheye, and you will find that it is a very popular lens underwater. When your budget allows add a macro lens. I prefer the 105mm macro, but some prefer the 60mm. More than 90% of my pics uw are taken with a wide angle or macro lens, but eventually you will probably want a mid-range zoom also. The Sigma 17-70 performs relatively well behind a dome but doesn't work with full frame camera's (eg 5D MKII). The only other thing I would add is that if you are looking to be able to afford everything quicker, you might want to look into the new EVIL (electronic viewfinder, interchangeable lens) cameras. They are less expensive and tiny, but supposed to be high quality and you maintain the flexibility of interchangeable lenses. Nauticam makes a housing for one of the Sony models, and Olympus makes their own housing for one of their models. Recent issues of Underwater Photography Magazine has a review and more details.

Is it threaded? Gently tapping for several minutes will usually loosen a threaded connection that becomes stuck.

Reefnet does have Subsee adapters for some Nauticam ports. If they don't yet have one for your specific port(s) they will usually design and build one for you for a modest design fee. The easiest way is just to email and let them know what you are looking for.

Keri Wilk has some dual fiber optic snoots he has designed using loc-line arms-two snoots on one strobe. At this point they are pre production, but I am sure he would send some to you for the right price.

Mine rusted in a similar period of time. I had the springs replaced and they rusted again shortly. Finally I just removed them myself and I think the viewfinder works just as well without the springs.

It is probably a coincidence that it stopped turning about the same time you removed and replaced it. The viewfinder has springs on the inside that allow it to lock in to position with each 90 degree turn. These springs are not water sealed and are prone to rust. There isn't a good way to flush them out well. I removed them altogether from my viewfinder, which does require a bit of disassembly, but not much. My viewfinder no longer locks into place every 90 degrees, but it also no longer gets stuck. It really doesn't present a problem and it works much better without the springs.

What are baggage restrictions like on domestic flights?

For the best, choose Subsee (imho). It is a personal decision on whether it is worth paying for the best.

DOF is a function of f-stop and reproduction ratio. Thus a smaller sensor will have a higher DOF because of the lower reproduction needed to fill the frame. Example: if the subject/scene is 35mm wide, a full frame camera will require 1:1 reproduction ratio to fill the frame. A theoretical sensor that is 12mm wide could fill the frame with a 1:3 reproduction ratio.