Jump to content

Iggy

Member
  • Content Count

    58
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Iggy

  • Rank
    Lionfish

Additional Info

  • Camera Housing
    Seacam D2
  1. Yes James it is, if you stay in context. I have referred to the article "Getting the Blues", and while it talks about working angles, wb settings, strobe temp etc, it also has a section in which it specifically describes one or two ways to effect that water color change in Photoshop. Indeed it even shows before and after images. Again, there is no crime in that but why wouldn't it seem natural for someone who had read that article to ask Alex why not make changes to green water in post as well? It's not insulting, it's not accusatory, it's just a natural extension of what might pop into one's head having read that particular article. I don't know one underwater photographer who doesn't understand it. And I also don't know one who doesn't understand that these perfect microsoft blue backgrounds perfectly balanced with warm foreground subjects are almost all manufactured to one extent or the other....in post. I accept that on occasion we can get it in-camera exactly the way it will print, but I don't accept this as anything other than the exception. I've been around it too long to overlook the litany of reasons why nailing a color in camera is more hope than science. You can get close, but we aren't talking close, we are talking "spot on "in camera". I am jumping the gun here a bit, so forgive me, but please don't try to tell me that what one sees on the computer screen or printed to paper is what one saw on the LCD on the boat. That is a physical impossibility. I love the claim, it's almost folklore, but I know as it relates to color that it isn't true. Both your Canon and my Nikon render the colors inaccurate to what the converter will reveal, no matter what settings you input to the camera body for LCD review. It's a jpeg on LCD and RAW on the converter. You cannot tell the camera to process that jpeg to match the raw image. So you don't have a "spot on" visual from which to work underwater. Nah, I don't think that at all, so there is no need for an apology And again, this isn't about Alex's shooting, or Alex's images. This is about someone possibly asking a question predicated upon the groundwork Alex's articles have previously laid. It is nothing more than that. I don't understand why asking about processing the colors in post demanded such a reply from you when Alex has written about doing that very thing with blue water. If there was any ganging-up going on, I thought that was it
  2. Ahhh, come on Craig, I made no accusation to the contrary. I simply noticed the disparity between today's comment about getting water color right "in camera" and comments and articles Alex has offered regarding "Getting the Blues"in post, as it possibly pertained to the comment James' replied to. Let's be honest here, if you read an article from someone about getting blue water color right in post, it seems perfectly reasonable to ask them why not do it in post when they are talking about getting another water color to a level they desire. If you intentionally shoot a warmer strobe than you would otherwise desire to see in the image, solely for the purpose of using the temp slider to cool the whole image to enable a deeper blue in the background water without adding blue cast to the strobe lit portions......that is shooting for post. And that would be the polar opposite of getting it "spot on" "in camera". I have no comment on whether it's right or wrong, nor do I have an opinion about how **anyone** chooses to render an image. That wasn't the point of my comment at all. It was only about the eye-catching disparity between "Getting the Blues" technique and "spot on" "in camera" technique, as it pertained to James' reply to CDoyle.
  3. Perhaps that would have been better, since you responded to it's narrowly focused intent as if it was an accusation your images or more post than photography. I was only pointing out the apparent contradiction between today's comment about background water color and previous comments and articles on the same subject, and how that may have influenced the post James responded to. It has been my impression for some time, after reading your comments on WP as well as various articles from other sources, that you are very aggressive in post. It's not an opinion I hoped for, it is simply a notion built on the remains of your stated techniques and suggestions I have had the opportunity to read. This "rant" is refreshing in that regard.
  4. Sure you could. But I think you prefer "testy" at this moment On the subject of Galapagos: While I strongly disagree with your assertion that a zoom which renders effective 15mm to 26mm is too wide for sharks and shark schools. I would add the caveat that it comes down to whether or not the photographer can you hold his/her breath long enough to get sharks close and reduce water column. Really, that will determine which focal length will work for any given shooter.
  5. That's a bit unfair James. Yes, Alex said something about being spot on "in camera". But given everything I've read from Alex both here and in publication it was my understanding that he regularly gained desired water color in post. Most people here know the routine: shoot warm strobe, gain blue in post, warm subject comes to proper temp, background water gains deeper blue. If Alex is getting some of the blue backgrounds I see in his imaging, "in camera", then my already abundant appreciation for his craftsmanship has grown exponentially. Not only because they are beautiful, but also because I believe that is the most legitimate way to image (personal opinion, not a poke in the ribs to those who think differently). I'm not questioning Alex's comment. But I do see why CDoyal might be a bit confused. I myself thought that Alex was an very aggressive manipulator when it came to water color. In fact I believed he premised his equipment choices, and shooting practices, on what they allowed him to do to water color, in post.
  6. I don't find anything on Bali a scam, well perhaps where the addresses end in an "X" there are scams going on, but I haven't visited those. The most touristy thing I've seen are the Monkey Forests, particularly the one where your guide, after your monkey tour, guides you back to the entrance which includes a visit to her little store on the way I like the countryside on bali, particularly the higher elevations where the terraced rice fields sweep across the landscape. I've never made a great picture of it, but I know one is hiding in those fields....somewhere
  7. I think the 10-17 would work fine at Wolfe and Darwin where 15 and 20mm are my preferred focal lengths. I also think it'd be great on the Salema schools around Cousins. And if it's possible to dive, the tuna and barracuda schools around Roca Redonda. I also see the 10-17 being effective at Pinnacles (or Washing Machine) at Wolfe. The 12-24 would probably be better suited to shark studies, turtles, rays, etc. but for schools which are easily approachable in Galapagos 15 to 28mm FE is a very nice choice for someone who likes shooting fisheye. So the 10-17 on APS-C is a good fit.
  8. ....except those photos weren't about the sharks, they were about him. And I think someone who finds his machismo in such pathetic images will simply pander it elsewhere. I'd tend to agree with you had he removed the images from flickr, but that hasn't happened yet.
  9. I'm in agreement with James. I've been on a number of boats who troll while making deep water crossings. I don't see a problem with that. Can't say I've ever been on one that fished shallow reefs, though I would not condone it if I had. But we have to accept that sustenance is a powerful motivator and rationalizer and becomes culturally engrained in those for whom it represents life. And if fishing shallow reefs has been productive for certain fishes, it's pretty hard to blame local workers on expensive liveaboard boats for doing something their families have been engaged for centuries. Try to educate them?....yes. Condemn them?....I'm not yet at that point. And I think I have to admit that a local fishing a shallow reef, be it from his own boat or the liveabaord he works on, is doing less to destroy the seas than I am. Not the least of which is creating a market for boats that spew diesel particulate into the air as well as diesel and lubricants into the sea, right above those same shallow reefs.
  10. Hell, everything we touch is overpriced , but one simply cannot discount the advantage of shooting the Nikon 60 or 105 on a DX sensor thru a magnified viewfinder. Or shooting over-unders without sticking your face in the water. Or swimming with a school of jacks, firing away, looking straight thru the viewfinder because you don't have to tilt your head to allow room between the housing back and your chin, for the regulator. Honestly, I never opt to use the Seacam Pro (the flat finder). It is always either the 45 or 180. They make the activity more comfortable and in some case more productive. One might even call the 45 environmentally "green" for the way it allows the diver to access deep into the reef without laying his/her body down. Some people have the eyes to shoot thru the smallest of viewfinders, by for those of us without that ability the accessory viewfinders are quite important. And after all that I just remembered the OP bought the D200 based on physical size.......so I don't think he is a candidate for additional gear to pack, like viewfinders
  11. Galapagos is one of may favorite destinations in the world. I've made that trip a number of times and the one thing that can be counted on is that nothing can be counted on. I hope you have nice cool, clean water and huge schools of pelagics but that sometimes is not the case. In those instances you'll want your macro setups because it's a pretty productive macro location. A few examples: 1) If you decided to shoot the RL Batfish chances are you may want to do that with the 50/60. 2) At Punta Vicente Roca, in the shallow ledges, are some of the biggest seahorses I have ever seen. 3 or 4 different colors, all lined up in the sometimes brutal surge. If you dive the batfish there you can offgas with the seahorses. Both subjects and surroundings are 50/60 friendly. I've seen seahorses at a number of sites in Galapagos, but you have to stop looking up for sharks, schooling pelagics, rays, turtles, etc to see them 3) This probably sounds lame, but the Barbacle Blennies are a very compelling subject given the right surroundings. And Galapagos seems to have nice populations and varieties of Nudis, Blennies, Gobies, Worms, Crabs, etc. One trip the water was particularly bad, the viz in the central islands and up at Wolf was crap, the currents at Darwin were raging (forget about sticking a strobe arm up in the water column), and the sharks were mostly deep. I had macro setups with me and was able to make it an enjoyable trip. Some on the boat brought nothing but wide and they spent the entire trip trying to shoot shadows or just hanging hoping for something to come close enought that even a marginal image was possible. I've been 6 times and on 2 of those trips the water was bad enough that wide angle wasn't possible. As you know it's not Indonesia/PNG macro, but if the big stuff isn't there you can make it a very productive trip shooting macro and fish. It is advisable to take your macro tools in the event the water doesn't respect your wide angle imperative
  12. Hi James, I'm sold on the 14 for rectilinear and the 10.5 for fe. I know, I run against the grain of this website in these selections, but the 14mm is one of the best pieces of glass Nikon has ever offered. It is every bit as competent as the 20mm f4 AI. It sucked on film because you just couldn't get a dome/ring combo that worked in the corners, but UW on DX it's a splendid lens. The 10.5 just works for me. To my eye it is visibly better than the tok 10-17mm at the wide end, so the fact that the tok zooms to 17 doesn't matter to me. If I were a working photographer then I think the zoom might have some impact on my choice.
  13. I agree with that but would also add that the 12-24 is a contrasty lens and that is something I appreciate because you cannot gain the same kind of contrast in post. Color fidelity is excellent though this may be something others with other lenses can work in post anyway. But if a person cannot come up with the housing/port/extension combo to get results as sharp as the lens is capable of, I understand why they would not like it. I use mine behind the Superdome with a 35mm (PVL35 in Seacam-speak) ext. ring, and find the lens really really great at pelagics and large fish studies. I prefer a prime for reef scenics and most CFWA, because to me they almost feel like landscapes so they have got to be as sharp as possible and for the lenses I have the primes do that better. But when shooting big fish the 12-24 is a nice tool.
  14. I don't see it that way. I see him keeping on point per the specific discussion between Paul and himself where Paul has said that FF delivers better tonailty. Craig has, more than once, commented that noise at higher than 400 ISO is a FF advantage. I agree with him on this point, but to my eye the advantage is one stop. mkII is still good enough for critical shooting at 800, but that's where it ends. 1600 shows enough noise that when brought up to size it borders on intrusive. Why would someone choose cropped if they wanted ff perspectives? Or why would they choose the perspectives of the Nikon system when they really wanted the perpsective of the Canon system. Your comparison makes no sense to me in that context. I'm sure you didn't choose your mkII simply because of FF. I suspect you considered the entire system. And I think, apart from his pointed comments referring to paul's claim of better tonality due to sensor size, Craig has been saying this all along. In large part I believe the core disagreement between Craig and Paul is an important one. It is eye opening that Canon, who has long espoused the "advanatges" of FF, now referrs to the mkIII as their "new flagship", "the most advanced EOS Digital SLR ever produced" and "the new standard". Not sports camera, but dslr. That's not to say that cropped is better than FF, but rather to say that depending upon application either can be preferred over the other. I like the D2x underwater quite a bit, but for topside, from what I have read to date, I think I'd prefer the MkIII. I think resolution disparities between 10 and 16 mp, is a red herring given the other shortcomings digital capture needs to corral first.
×
×
  • Create New...