Jump to content

Tom_Kline

Industry
  • Content Count

    1245
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    29

Everything posted by Tom_Kline

  1. Here is one from Prince William Sound, Alaska. I just pulled this off a Kodak photo CD from 1997. I took this shot at a research project site just a few km away from where I am sitting. As you can see the bottom is very silty. The site is near the mouth of a glacial river. Visibility was less than 1 meter, frequently much less than 1 meter! Ptilosarcus in PWS do not grow to the same size as in B.C.! <_< The ones I have seen in PWS have been 15 to 20 cm long (the part buried in the sediment is not included in my lengths!) Tom
  2. Cool shots guys! We have sea pens on this side of the pole too. One of the most commonly seen species in the northeast Pacific is Ptilosarcus gurneyi. See pic. This is a scan of a Nikonos RS 35mm slide taken earlier this year while on a trip to British Columbia where they grow to rather large size. This one, which was bent over in the current, was over a half meter long. Tom
  3. A 180 degree fisheye (FE) is my most-used lens for murky water wide angle. Conditions in Alaska are no better than UK waters. A FE is a must have if you are going to 'upgrade' to a dSLR. FE's are quite useful in clearish waters too! Tom
  4. Just grabbed my fourth edition copy – First edition was October 1984, copyright date was also 1984. Just about all shot on K25 and K64 with a manual focus camera – Canon F-1. Some incredible colors and light balancing. Tom
  5. Apparently something is happening on 1 November. Tom
  6. The ingenuity of Wetpixel members never ceases to amaze me!!!! Tom
  7. Hi Tim, Not as much thermal shock compared to sending it to Fairbanks in winter! Actually I am surprised that Sigma has not yet introduced a cropped-sensor full-frame fisheye lens to support their own cameras as well as for those, like Canon, where none exist. Maybe there is hope??? Tom
  8. I gather you do not mean the negative connotation of bomb! Those large LCD screens are great - quite noticeable difference between D2 and D70 series too. You also now know what it means to hold a metal camera! Tom
  9. Thanks, we posted at the same moment almost a half-day apart!
  10. Great use of the fisheye lens in the third shot!!! I especially like the juxtaposition of the fish and diver. However, I am wondering what was above the water to create the shadows on the surface? Tom
  11. What is an X2? Were you refering to the new version(s) or old version of the D2000 strobe? Tom
  12. James, Another question just occurred after going back to look at your post with the pic – what is its buoyancy? Looks like it could be fairly negative (to be added to an already negative rig, re. your negative buoyancy counter-measures). <_< Tom
  13. James, Did the flip up version flip all the way back so that it would +/- touch the lens barrel? Swimming with it at 180 degrees with respect to the port plane would literally be a drag. Tom
  14. I watched the 3 photog videos last night hoping to get a quicker download (took a number min for each) - looks very cool but I am a > 20 year Mac user (still have my 'fat Mac' (what it was called in the fall of 84) bought with a student discount/loan - the second model with 512K of RAM) so have a slight bias. However, I suspect it may be rather slow on the 1.33 GHz G4 17†laptop I am now using as my main computer. Since it is called aperture, a silly name IMHO, I was wondering if the major versions would be released as multiples of the square root of 2 (i.e., 2 raised to integer value powers: 2 to the 0 power, 2 to the 1 power, 2 to the 2 power, 2 to the 3 power, etc.) as has been standard for many years for camera lens apertures, 1.0, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, etc.... !!!! Tom
  15. Re. dust issue. This more of a problem when swapping lenses IMHO. One might be able to go into a tent or other protected place to get way from blowing dust to change film or cards, but if one needs to change to a different focal length etc. during a shoot..... With film, one tends to use multiple bodies to avoid having to re-load 'in the environment'. This includes pouring rain (common in coastal AK). I recall the closest I have been to bears (late 80’s - Kodiak Is.) - a sow with 3 cubs and each had a salmon in its mouth - only about 20 feet away! It was dark and pouring down rain - I was using a Nikonos 3 with 80mm lens, 400 asa film. When I ran out of film after the second shot I was unwilling to open it up to re-load! I was standing next to a canoe (it grounded as it was very shallow) and it was extremely wet - a formula for disaster to have to re-load. The pix were lousy due to the fast film and grey conditions too. A P&S digi might be good for such a situation (also potential for beefing up colors) so long as one had a good supply of batteries as this was at one of the powerless locations I referred to above. Tom
  16. In addition to the points already made, a plus for film is the possibility of taking pictures without any electricity. For example, at remote field camps where the sole power source is a single 12v battery hooked up to a VHF radio kept charged up either with a solar panel or with a small generator. A minus for digital is very dusty places. Food for thought Tom
  17. Alex, Great head-on shot! Congratulations! Tom
  18. Tim, Are you missing your old 10.5? It is doing well in Alaska. I posted a pic done with it here a couple months back. I think you will need to get and house the new Canon with the 24 x 36mm sensor ( is it 5D or D5?) with a 15mm fisheye attached! Cheers! Tom
  19. Thank you James for that rather useful datum! Tom
  20. Not all my research is in shallow water! I just now snagged this pic from a powerpoint presentation I gave at the last annual Alaska Marine Science Symposium (they take place each January in Anchorage). I took it on an oceanography cruise aboard the R/V Alpha Helix in the northern Gulf of Alaska in December 2004 with a D70 and the 'kit lens.' As you can see research can be a challenging experience! The Helix is 40m long and is the oldest vessel in the UNOLS fleet, about 40 years old and due for retirement. Tom
  21. I have been using photography for decades as a research tool but have only used digital photography in the last couple of years and only very recently underwater. I have done more digital photomicroscopy than UW photography to now. Since some of my research takes place in or near shallow freshwater; I have taken some UW pix without scuba or being completely submerged for illustration. My avatar is as example of shallow freshwater UW photography - however it is a scanned film image. Tom
  22. I thought the 220F was a new model!! Seems rather short-lived. Tom
  23. It is not clear from the Sigma website: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_al...283&navigator=5 whether the tripod shoe is removable. Is it removable or can the lens fit into a port with it attached (SEACAM flat or macro port)? Thanks Tom
  24. Cool shots! The filters you used for the pix in the first post must have functioned as a barrier filter such as used in fluorescence microscopy. With blue excitation the barrier filters are yellow. At depth, e.g., 30m, the ambient light is mostly cyan thus providing the excitation wavelength. The human eye to some degree adjusts for the ambient light much like with tungsten light so we see the fluorescence better than the camera. Try various filters to block the shorter wavelengths and viola' you've got the pix. Higher ISO would be useful too. Tom
×
×
  • Create New...