Jump to content

3000psi

Member
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About 3000psi

  • Rank
    Sea Nettle

Additional Info

  • Camera Model & Brand
    Nikon F4 & N90s
  • Camera Housing
    Subals
  • Strobe/Lighting Model & Brand
    Ikelite & Nikonos
  1. WOW ... I am impressed how Nikon continues pay attention to ergonomics.
  2. I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread and while I can't really add to much that has already been said without rehashing it there are a few statements that caught my attention. I think the consensus of the thread is that MF has severe limitations underwater but there is no doubt it can be adapted to certain situations where it might / will out perform dslr. Dan said ...." The underwater macro gallery exhibit in the American Express building lobby by Michael ("Mickey") Maurer two years ago inspired me to submerge my camera gear. (The exhibition was shepherded through production by Lisa Fiel (who also had this exhibition a block away in the Conde Nast (4 Times Square) lobby; and the curator for both exhibitions for The Durst Organization was (is) Lanny Powers). The issue Mickey had is that because all of his images were shot on 35mm film, very few of his enlargements were over 16x20 inches; while Lisa's prints shot on 6x45 were as large as 40x50 inches." Two years ago has become a lifetime with the advent of digital photography. If someone's intent is to make enlargements for their home then the current dslr crop of cameras are more than adequate to fill this need. While cameras continue to increase their mp's most walls in homes and buildings don't seem to be keeping up. At least mine don't While there may be some advantage with MF when it comes to enlargements this gap has closed and will get less meaningful as dslr continues to offer more and more mp's. The other comment that caught my eye was when Troy said : "By the way, I print canvas giclees almost on a daily basis and there is a more natural professional quality in mf prints compared to 35mm. Consumers don't usually see the difference, prosumers should see it and professional really enjoy the difference." This comes back around to the point of what market you are shooting for. Most people I know that shoot commercially shoot for the public ... i.e. consumers. If a consumer can't tell the difference why should a editor, retailer, etc. spend the extra money that I am sure a MF shooter needs to charge ? I have yet to find anyone unfamiliar with photography that when shown a 16 x 20 print could tell me the format or camera it was shot with. I think as photographers we get caught up with shooting for our peers when mostly it is the consumer who sees our work either in magazines, exhibits, presentations, etc. I recently was asked to be one of four judges at a photography competition. The photos I thought were best had nice poster board backgrounds that made the subjects pop. Two of the judges, who were not photographers, mentioned that was the one quality they did not like about the photographs. One commented it looked too much like studio shots and the other mentioned it was nature and the backgrounds should be in focus. So much for spending that money on lenses that produce good bokeh. Although my comments may sound like I'm knocking MF I am really not. If I lived where Troy does and had the money I would be shooting MF some. But I can't see investing in a MF system (which would need to include two digital backs in case of flooding) and trying to travel with it all across the globe. I hope to get to see some of Troy's work as I would love to see the results of his MF system that he and Dan are so passionate about. Now bring on the thread about housing a 4 x 5. After all if MF is this good imagine what a 4 x 5 could do. Does anyone know if Ernest Brooks II has moved to digital ?
  3. Thanks everyone for your comments and suggestions. I thought I would update this thread since our trip and let anyone interested know the outcome. We decided to stick with our original intentions of staying at Kri despite the expected cost of shore diving. The alure of Raja Ampat was just too much and it was too late to try to find a liveaboard to coincide with our dates or for only a week trip. We did extend our stay at Lembeh Resort by a couple of days. So we had 5 days of diving in Lembeh and 5 and a half days on Kri (no diving on Saturday is permitted). The staff and dive guides at Kri could not have been nicer. A good time was had by all. There was no miscommunication on the cost of shore diving. They do charge and it does have to be guided. Never really got an anwser on why. If I went back I would probably look into a liveaboard as mentioned by several of you above. The added cost of additonal dives whether from shore or extra boat dives above your prepaid package brings some liveaboards more in line with the land based option. (more so if you compare to Sorido Bay) If you toss in no diving on Saturday at the resorts you even pick up an extra day of diving on the liveaboards. The no diving on Saturday was not a big deal for a couple of us in our group as we enjoy birding as well and the opportunity to see the Red Bird of Paradise was something we wanted to do while visting that part of the world anyway. However I am sure the liveaboards may have been able to accomodate such a request as well. We had purchased the week package with 12 dives included. All dives above this cost 37 euros but some discounting begins with 5, 10 and 15 dive purchases. We basicaly did 3 dives a day for our stay there so we had an additonal 4 dives we had to pay for above our package. The land base did provide us with an opportunity to explore the island a little during surface intervals and when doing some other dive sites further from the resort we spent our surface intervals in villages allowing us to observe their daily lives. One thing we did hear was there is evidently some resentment by the villages concerning liveaboards plying their waters and anchoring off their shores with no benefit / compensation to them. One village we were at had tenders delivering guests from a liveaboard anchored offshore. I know Max, the owner of Kri and Sorido Bay, was compensating the village for the privilege of their hospitality but can only guess not all liveaboards do the same. I could see where providing compensation might get out of hand as the location we visited to see the Red Bird of Paradise was evidently not the one used a couple of weeks before our arrival as that village had decided they wanted more money from Max so he had negotiated with a new village who had access to some of the birds. Just a quick note about Lembeh Resort as it too was very accomodating. Again the staff and dive guides could not have been nicer. I will attempt to add a trip report in the appropriate section in the next week. In the meantime if anyone has any specific questions I will be happy to respond.
  4. This is a quick planned trip for sometime toward the middle of this month (March). We thought we had everything set to stay at Kri Resort for a week than over to Lembeh for 3-4 days but Kri threw us a curve by telling us that they are now charging $50 per shore dive even if you have bought the weekly dive package. Since we were planning on supplementing the boat diving with several shore dives this probaby makes it a bust as we can't see spending an extra $100-150 dollars a day to go shore diving. The travel agent is trying to reconfirm the charge as this is the first they have heard of it and it might just be a communication problem. Just in case it isn't we are now turning our attention to the Manado area for a few days and then over to Lembeh for a week (I do realize most of the resorts here seem to offer shore diving). While we plan on diving the Bunaken Marine Park we are also looking for a resort that offers unlimited shore diving. Most of the resort's websites don't seem to dwell a lot on their shore diving or even mention if they have any or not. Murex seems to offer it but some of the others mention snorkeling or a casual reference to a night dive being possible. Just out of curosity are most divers that frequent these areas content with making 3 dives a day? Is it customary now for resorts to charge $30-50 for a shore dive? Last time I visited the area was in 98 when we went to Wakatobi but shore diving was unlimited and as far as I know still is. I can understand charging this amount for extra boat dives above and beyond the dive package you paid for but not sure why so much of a charge for shore diving when no boat, fuel, captain, or dive master is being used. Thanks in advance for any responses. Mike
  5. It seems that the review from ARS Technica on Aperture has gotten a lot of publicity and some have given it a lot of weight. Seems the facts are showing that this was written by a non professional photographer with only one days hand on use of the program. For those still contemplating the merits of the program or you have already taken the plunge you might find this blog site of some interest : ApertureTricks
  6. Michael, "If you really want to see more of these animals, turn the screws on longliners and net fishermen, who kill thousands of these every year, especially in the Med, N. Atlantic and E. Pacific." This is sort of the point I was trying to make. It is in the interest of the sport fisherman to see that there are sustainable populations. Enlist them in the fight against the real threat .... don't alienate them. The damage the sport fisherman does is insignificant. Just sighting your first example (btw swordfish can grow to over 2,000 lbs ) the world record swordfish is somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,100 lbs, a far cry from how large they can get. It can typically take over ten hours to land a swordfish in the 600-800 lb category. This type of harvesting pales in comparison to the longliners and the thousands of fish they kill and don't even use because they are too small. "Fishermen in the TV show were describing blood thirsty sharks ready to eat anyone who fell in the water. I laughed when one guy said "These sharks really want to eat you." Please" I would see this statement "These sharks really want to eat you." as nothing more than hyperbole. I hear statements like these (not sharks specifically) almost everytime I'm enjoying the Discovery channel or Animal Planet .... even National Geographic over plays the danger card from time to time. Steve Irwin of Crocodile Hunter jumps to mind on how he can go overboard a little at times but just because of this I'm not ready to condemn him.... their just playing to the camera. I would like to know of any worthwhile groups (read not fanatics that are out to ban all types of fishing) that you may know of that are trying to keep the commercial fishermen in check. Thanks.
  7. I'm afraid I see nothing wrong with this as long as conservation is observed much like the established game laws for hunting and fishing. Not sure I know all the particulars of this tournament but I would say money was spent on licenses, entrance fees, tackle, boats, etc that eventually found its way back into conservation efforts. After all it is in the best interest of the fisherman who enjoy this to work to make sure there are more and bigger sharks for future events. Much like the hunters who appreciate the efforts of game management to monitor populations of wildlife by adjusting bag limits and length of seasons to insure sustainable populations. If the same management principles are applied here I don't have a problem with it. It is something I would not derive pleasure from but I am not against others pursuing the sport. "We all know that when you cherry pick the biggest animals, the overall population suffers. The big guys and gals have the best genes, biggest litters, etc." I'm not an expert on evolution of species but I do know that for decades of keeping records of trophy animals that some of the world records have been taken in the last few years and this after years of hunters cherry picking the biggest animals. I always try to see others viewpoints even though they may clash with mine. These fisherman are enjoying our oceans in their own way even though I may not agree with how they are doing it. But it is another group that has a vested interest in preserving our oceans. If you take their sport away that will be one less group that will be there to defend our oceans. And there can be silver linings in some clouds ...."This year, they killed a nearly 1,200lbs tiger - an event that made headlines everywhere. They were also hauling 400lbs blues and porbeagles on the dock...now, wouldn't it be nice to see those big fish swimming?" It might even be nicer now to see all the turtles, dophins, other sharks, and marine life that would have been prey for these fish swimming around. Please don't think I am trying to encourage people not to vote on banning this practice but just to look at it from another point of view before making your decision
  8. Great topic and a nice civil discussion. This is a topic I am always interested in debating. Being also an avid nature photographer above water it causes quite a stir when applied to those settings as well. The use of calls to attract deer or predators seems to be frowned on by a certain group of photographers as being a less pure form as setting in a blind waiting for hours for a subject to walk by. Also many nature photographers turn their noses up at photogs that go to game farms to get photos of nothing more than pets posed in natural surroundings and demand that photos should be captioned as such less they be confused with the "real thing". As to the use of calls the objection always falls to the stress you are causing the animal as well as causing it to deviate from its normal behavior resulting in spending unnecessary energy it may not have to investigate the source or run off an intruder causing the subject , or its neglected young, do die a few days later. I think one must always exercise caution to impact nature as little as possible but recognize no matter how careful you are you will always be impacting the environment in some negative way. The photogs or even the environmental fanatics that believe that all these creatures are that easily stressed need to avoid all outdoor activity. While hiking to photograph scenics I have spooked deer and I am sure my scent has caused wild animals downwind to adjust their behavior. As someone said above just because you can point to another group that is doing more damage does not excuse your behavior. That poor feather duster that was feeding just retracted as you swam three feet over him might have to do that dozens of times daily in a heavily dived area causing him to stress out or miss crucial feedings making him more susceptible to disease or predators. If you mulitiply this over an hours bottom time think of the number of negative impacts a diver can have even when he does not get near the reef. ( not to mention all the microscopic plankton that his movement through the water is impacting, or does this life not really matter ?) Based on this line of thinking diving should be illegal as we are gradually killing the reefs and their inhabitants. The bottom line is that as photographers we are all somewhat selfish and jealous at the same time. In the above example about the game farms the photographer that can afford to spend three months in the wild following the snow leopard and maybe get a one decent shot is upset that another photog with time/budget constraints get hundreds of beautiful posed shots of a snow lepoard in natural surroudings that only a small percentage of people might know the difference. We are sort of a selfish bunch as we know all divers are creating some impact when just diving let alone photographing. So let me up the ante with Williams original question.... If you truly believe the talk of stressing out animals and killing coral, etc. why should you do it for nothing more than the pleasure you derive from it. Does the world really need another photograph of a pygmy seahorse to go with the ten of thousands that have been taken already ?
  9. "Right now I would see using Aperture for my RAW conversion and Management of images AND Photoshop for more creative editing." Keith your right on with the above statement. This is not intended to replace Photoshop. "My only worry would be that 5 years from now, Adobe abandoning the development of Photoshop on the Mac platform like they did with Premire." Rumors have it, and I'm betting it's true, that Apple already has a Photoshop killer app developed. The release of Aperture may just be a shot fired across Adobe's bow to encourage them to continue to develop for the Mac. Steve is too smart to allow software companies that are mainstream to abandon his baby. I think this is something he did to Microsoft as well when he released Keynote which is much better that Powerpoint IMHO. You can bet if Microsoft stopped developing Office for the Mac, Steve would release a competitve product that is probably alreday on the shelf somewhere in Cupertino.
  10. Although I made the move to digital above water a few years ago I still use film underwater. Currently I have both a Nikon N90s and F4 in Subal housings. I am wanting to house my D70 for my next trip to Bonaire the end of September but I am really not wanting to buy the housing as I am planning on moving to the D2X around the first of next year at which time I will probably by a housing for it. Does anyone know what shops might have Subal housings in their rental programs ? I have all the ports I need so I am looking to rent just a housing. Also I thought I seemed to remember another manufacturers housing that might be compatible with the Subal ports. Did I dream this or maybe it was wishful thinking. Thanks Mike
×
×
  • Create New...