Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by myhrvold

  1. The NA-DP4 looks fantastic! This will be a killer combo when it comes out. I use my Canon 7D for shooting video on land with a U-Boat - Direct Mount Canon 7D. (http://www.idcphotovideo.com/store/idc-u-boat-direct-mount-canon-7d , http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/8284...ount_Canon.html ) And I am currently looking to purchase an LCD (field) monitor to attach on top of the rig. The DP4 is one of the front runners and has gotten great reviews from what I have seen on YouTube. ( , ) Being able to use the same monitor to shoot video with my NA-7D housing will be extremely efficient for me. I am excited
  2. I absolutely *love* the Galileo Sol. I have logged 80 dives on it over the past few years and have had no major issues, and I am just getting into underwater photography now (upgraded from Canon G7 to 7D and Nauticam housing, etc. recently!). However, 2 minor drawbacks are: 1) It beeps all the time because the wireless pressure signal goes in and out, in and out, in and out... this would make me want to still have a analog pressure gauge because at times you'd be without knowing how much air you had for up to 1 min. 2) Make sure you read the manual ahead of time and know it and out when you dive. I had to place a 20 min phone call from a satellite phone to trouble shoot it and figure out how to get it to sync up when I first used it. I had skimmed the manual and tested it in a pool beforehand, but still... I forget exactly what the problem was but I remember I found it extremely obnoxious. A third (almost) drawback is that the compass does not last long on its own before you have to punch the button to make it appear again, so you might want to consider getting a small manual compass attached to the analog pressure gauge as a backup on your BC.
  3. Here's the Aquacom spec sheet: http://www.rjeint.com/pdf/SSB-2010_diverCom_revB.pdf Here's another one http://www.divelink.net/product.htm . The half face mask: http://www.divelink.net/halfface.htm The specs: http://www.divelink.net/techspecs.htm It claims up to 20 Watts but I am not sure if you'd ever encounter such ideal conditions in a real-life diving environment. From what I've read, my understanding is that they are not yet effective at communicating in an ocean diving environment (waves and chop, 60-100 ft deep, several hundred feet apart etc).
  4. Great shots! The url to the endangered link directly is: http://www.poyi.org/67/02/second_01.php by the way (otherwise you start w/ the 1st place winner which is a glacier-carved fjord landscape)
  5. http://www.flickr.com/photos/moritznautilu...ali/6837597362/ this one is more unusual in composition...it's my favorite by far, and it makes you think because the exterior almost looks like the jaw of a Carcharodon Megalodon (obviously not to scale) or a shark jaw...
  6. These images are quite stunning! What makes them great images is that you have close-up, centered shots of unusual sea creatures, well lit, and in focus. Yes, the colors are a little oversaturated and maybe the contrast is punched a bit too high here or there but these are mainly post-production issues...or could be appropriately solved in postproduction (Photoshop, Lightroom etc.) My suggestion for improvement, however, is that they are what they are: close up pictures of fish, shrimp etc. that are centered in the frame. If you look at most of your photos - both horizontal and vertical - you center the subject as much as possible. So your end result is documenting extraordinary creatures using ordinary composition. Now that you have these shots, I would experiment with off-framing the creatures, and getting parts and pieces of them instead a center framed fish up close. I have no doubt that as you continue to take underwater photographs you will improve in this regard as you will get bored yourself, of taking the same sort of composition when you are underwater. Keep it up and definitely post more here! You're well on your way to making some really impressive images.
  7. Great photography! I was fortunate enough to visit Alphonse in February 2004 for ~3 days. Some of the best days of my life...brings back memories and I hope to return one day.
  8. Amazing underwater photography with the D4 - thanks for sharing. I was under the impression that underwater housing for new camera bodies lagged (up to) several years behind the release of the camera body because it took a long time to design. If I recall correctly this was the case for the D3. But its seems like Nauticam has already come out with its D4 housing and the D4 has barely been released! Does Nikon share specs with the underwater housing manufacturers? How did the D4 housing get developed get developed so quickly? (I'm assuming the buttons moved from the D3...it looks like it from the photos I have seen).
  9. Most photographers should be registering their photos with the US Copyright Office - I believe one-time fee per submission is ~$35 (and you can put as many images on a CD/DVD as necessary). Here are the details straight from the "horse's mouth": http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl107.html However, most do not do so. Even fewer take legal action because that is a big hassle and cost in both time and money. If copyright infringement occurs without the image(s) in question having been registered, then damages are quite small. The idea here is to make "both parties whole", and there are no punitive costs associated with the settlement, which will be the average "going rate" of either your work or photos like it...so up to a couple hundred US dollars per photo depending on its aesthetic qualities. So I am reluctant to admit this, but the chance of legal action against a dive operator as a result of unauthorized photo use is extremely remote. They certainly should make every effort to contact the photographer and get permission (and compensation if they're making money off of it, in an ideal world). But if they do not do so there are virtually no consequences. That is why so many images are appropriated on the internet. There really is a lack of incentive to respect copyright law., and this is especially true if the dive operator is located outside the United States.
  10. Believe it or not, many amateurs will not care if their photos are used afterward. We may look at it as an outrageous proposition, but there are still many takers.
  11. @ kandace. That's why it's a good idea to read the fine print before entering your photographs in a competition (and it's why many pro photographers don't enter the photos). A lot of photo contests are really 'rights grabs' that offer little in the way of compensation for the photographer, other than fleeting recognition and maybe a certificate or ribbon.
  12. These are great (and funny) references guys - thanks for sharing the links. "We will credit you", by the way, is generally a sign of naivety with respect to authorship but it can arise legitimately if you work for a content creating organization. Many times only the organization is credited. For example, if I create a graphic or take a photo on behalf of an agency or media company (newspaper, graphic design firm, magazine etc.) sometimes only the organization I work for will be listed as the author (I have had both happen to me - so that is why I am giving thes examples). This is not always a cabal against the photographer. For example, I photographed basketball games for my college newspaper and while photos running in the newspaper had my name credited, conglomerations of basketball photographs provided to the university (that featured ~6 photos from past several decades) just referenced the newspaper and not each of the photographers who took the exhibited photographs.
  13. I just saw this for the first time earlier today! An equivalent (though not for photography) is: "Pay the Writer" by Harlan Ellison; a similar expectation of working for free exists in that industry as well.
  • Create New...