Jump to content

Ron Kruger

Member
  • Content Count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Ron Kruger

  • Rank
    Clownfish

Additional Info

  • Show Country Flag:
    United States
  • Camera Model & Brand
    Pentax K20D, Optio W80
  1. Cal, I am very impressed with our images, especially the black isolation. Are you doing this at night with only artificial light to illuminate the subject?
  2. That's a cool technique and results, Cal. So much of this sight is about which equipment to buy, but I really got something out of this and will try to apply a version of it to what I do. So far, I've been able to get reflections with ambiant light, and that simply depends upon the angle of the light.
  3. I am impressed to the maximum. In my opinion, there is no higher credibility that what you have accomplished, and I suspect one of the reasons you accomplished this is your passionate approch to the subject, both in pictures and words.
  4. I admire your humility, but that's hardly a humble beginning. Congrats.
  5. I've been selling photos for over three decades. A couple of years ago, I started posting on other sites about how digital technology is killing professional photography as we know it. I won't go into all the reasons and repeat myself, but when I post something about these day, I don't get all those rebutals and inuendos about quality. One thing posted that is not true, generally, is that professional photographers have better equipment. Most enthusiasts have better equipment than I, simply because I make my living from it and can't afford the latest and greatest auto-everything features. The most important part of why there's little distinction these days is all the sophisticated and accurate auto features. Simply put, you no longer need to know much about photography to get quality shots with a machine-gun, P&S approach. What we once called "idiot cameras" have become genius cameras. I do believe that the enthusiast threat to the bottom line that is so pervasive now above water is not as threatening under water, which is one of the reasons I got into submerged shooting last summer. Not everyone is carrying an underwater camera in their pocket or around their necks, or seriously pursuing underwater photography. It's still an esoteric pursuit. But if you think, as most beginner's do, that equipment makes all the difference, and that pros use only the very best, consider that I bought a $150 P&S last summer (the first P&S I've ever owned), just to play around with and investigate submerged lighting. I was so surprised by the IQ that I submitted some shots. Before the charge bill came due, I sold two inside and two covers from this 12 MP toy.
  6. I'm working on something similar now for photographing skittish fish in fresh water, with a frame to hold a compact underwater camera and a cable release. I have the basic system designed in a couple of different ways, but I have run into a problem with the mirror (to reflect the LCD image up for composition). My pariscopes are designed to be about four feet long, and at that distance, the image reflected in the mirror at the bottom is too small. Plan to try a magnifying mirror, but believe some type of lens will also have to be installed at the top. It's not as simple as I originally imagined.
  7. The greatly expanded DR of the K5 should be a real advantage for underwater photography, but the price of the housing is outrageous.
  8. I've done some testing with TCs recently. "Will work" is a broad term. If it will mount on your camera and lens, it will work, but whether you have metering and AF functions is another matter. IQ is another matter. Despite losing an f-stop or two, most TCs degrad IQ to varying degrees. What I've found is that the closer you can stay with manufactures the better the IQ and functions. Staying within the same generation lens/TC/camera helps as well. If you are shooting a Nikon, and IQ is important, buy a Nikon TC. Whether it works or not depends upon how critical you are of IQ. Good TCs cost about as much as a medium-range prime. Many see it is a cheap way to extend FL, but even with TCs, you get what you pay for, and I don't think any of them amount to the IQ of a telephoto of equal length to the lens/TC combination.
  9. Very interesting topic from a number of anlges, including the practical aspect of getting better shots. My experience and research is in fresh water, and while I suspect vision is similar between the environments, I not sure, because vision in aquatic creatures varies according to the depth they inhabit, the cover they utilize, etc. One aspect is how fish adjust from daylight to night vision and vise-versa by reversing rod cells and cone cells. It is a gradual process, and the best I've heard it explained is to compare what we experience when coming from a dark thearter into full sunlight. It hurts, but our eyes adjust in seconds. The same kind of thing takes three or four hours for fish. They don't have eyelids and can't squint. Because they live in envornoments where light is refracted and diffused quickly, they adjust to the light by changing depths or backing into shaded areas. Would this mean that, because their eyes adjust slowly to light, that sudden bursts of light effect their vision more, or less? At any rate, this indicated they are sensitive to dramatic changes in light intensities, and I would suspect sudden, intense light would have a blinding effect, often creating the "deer in the headlights" response. Whether it does any damage is debatable and open to true scientific research, but I doubt such a study is forthcomming, given the miniscule occurences. Might make a good doctural paper. I have noticed from documentaries that fish living in the dark environments of the ocean floor seem totally unbothered by the intnese light of filming. Cavefish seem uneffected as well. Sight-feeders and predators seem most effected. Nevertheless, I know for a fact that minnows are attracted by strong lights at night used by fishermen. Bugs are attracted to the light, minnows are attracted by the bugs and larger fish are attracted by the minnows. It would seem that if this intense, foreign light was hurtful or harmful, the minnows and larger fish would stay away. From my own photographic experiements, I've noticed they react less to a steady light than a strobe, but there is nothing controlled or scientific about my observations. I suspect steady light dissorients, or temporarily blinds, them more, which from a practical photographic perspective, give me more time and chances to get a good shot. There are so many variables, but one thing I know: light behaves differently under water and fish don't process light in the same way as we do.
  10. Anyone know about the Sealife 1200?
  11. Thanks Balrog. I should have been more clear. I've been shooting for four decades and understand the ring flash concept. My question concerns the quality and output of fiber optics in comparison to other sources. I'm also wondering if there is a difference in WB settings? Someone mentioned "diffused." Is fiber optic lighting an inherently more diffused than other light sources? Gobiodon: Your invention seems to work well for concentrating light for true macro, but appears to confined for close-up or UWA shots. I wonder if there would be a way to adjust the angle of aim or deflect light outward for more even for wider coverage as well: possibly a inflatable bladder under the end of the optical fibers that could be pumped up like a blood-pressure cup to alter the angle of illumination?
  12. Very interesting. I'm new to underwater photography, so excuse me if this is a dumb question, but what is the advantage to fiber optics over regular strobes or some form of consistent LED lighting?
  13. That's the best Energizer commercial I've seen. Great job.
  14. That is really great, and I'll bet it paid well too.
  15. Thanks Steve. The Black River, possibly the clearest river in the Ozarks, is close to me, and the Current River is less than an hour away. I don't think there are better waters anywhere for what I'm doing. It is the unusual perspective, or POV, that is selling. I'm sure others have tried, but I found out right away that you can't approach them as you might other species in other environments. You have to hunt them, set up and wait (patiently and quietly) for them to come back and act naturally. I'm used to that kind of thing. The longest lens I use for wildlife is 200mm. I also have plans, by the way, to attach live bait to the bottom of this rig to attract fish for very close portraits.
×
×
  • Create New...