Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
woody

Article from Diver Mag

Recommended Posts

"And how useful are those images? Not very for the professional, because the file sizes are too small. They are just about good enough to reproduce across a full page of a typical magazine but, at least at 300dpi, they will not stretch to a double-page spread."

 

BAH!

 

hehehe. yeah. it's not even worth commenting on that article. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's a buffoon. He requires 64 page blow-up quality (sure) yet he's dependent on TTL to get his exposure right. Charging the battery takes two hours but he's never heard of a spare battery. The D100 gets two full dives on a charge, maybe three, with the monitor enabled, yet he says it sucks up juice. I'm certain his friends who shoot digital-backed Hasselblad's underwater are relying on TTL for exposure. I doubt he's actually used it underwater at all since it requires no "complicated controls to view as you go" as he says. Just an old dog who fears the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric,

 

This is the same guy I warned you about on trips!

That could apply to any of us!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this guy never saw the last Star Wars movie...it was shot with digital video...so was the new Imax on the Titanic. Resistance to change, what a sorry state he's in....

 

I've shot film for about 6 years, I now own a 10D, I have put thousands of frames through it, haven't shot film since I've had the camera, am now saving my moolah for the new Subal housing for the 10D....I will keep film for when I need to shoot my 16-35L full frame...but that's it....

 

My 2 cents....

 

stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I (and a number of my friends) know John.

 

Unfortuently this is a case of asking the absolutely wrong person to write the wrong article. John is rather set in his ways, and that obviously shows. He obviously went in with some serious misconceptions, which with limited experience with the technology, he didn't get a real result. He is right the D100 Sea&Sea is a beast :-) If he seriously thinks I am no longer competing with him, then so be it.

 

He'll just find out who wrong he is, that is all.

 

M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I bet he still thinks LP's sound better than CD's.

Actually, I often think this, too. Depends on your setup. Enjoyment of music is very much subjective, and it has been shown (in a test I read about) that introducing tiny variations (not unlike the effects of wow and flutter) into "perfect" digital recordings can make people enjoy them more.

 

Off topic, but... well, I just disagree. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will try again.

 

I agree with Bantin on a number of points. And certainly I agree that digital is not for him as a magazine pro, as he states. But I think he should have given the camera a fairer test because not all his readers work for Diver mag. I am surprised that Diver asked Bantin to do the review rather than Dan Burton, who tests cameras for them from time to time and is much more digitally experienced.

But I do agree with Bantin that for many photographers, who already own housed Nikon SLRs, the D100 does not justify the cost and effort of trading in.

 

I was pleased that he answered some of my questions from my D100 review in UWP Mag 11:

 

But the final decision for magazine image use will be the art editors (who always seem to want 50Mb scans to use as thumbnails!). In two current UK diving magazines I counted up the underwater images used in features and less than 5% were equal to or above the D100 output at 300dpi. So in theory you could take 95% of the magazine?s images with this camera! But will the art editors let you?

 

JB's article says:

But most of the pictures in Diver take up less than half a page, you say. Sorry, I want to know that if I take a shot that's worthy of a 64-sheet poster (and I've done a few in the past [glad you cleared that up, John]), it will be of good enough quality ... magazine art editors without exception want the option to use only a small part of the frame. They rarely want to use a picture the way the photographer cropped it. They have their own ideas. So definition is very important.

 

Just to be mischievous, and I don't believe the following is true, but its a fun theory (not based on any fact).

It is fun to hypothesize that Charles Hood, who has a similar role to JB but at the UK's other big diving mag, wrote a glowing review of the D100, concluding that he would be trading in his F100 for a D100 for magazine work. So, maybe there is a swipe at the photo quality in the other mag.

 

Finally, those of us in the UK that read Diver regularly are well aware that Bantin is opinionated - but that is why he is fun to read. I'd rather read his opinion than a reprint of the manufacturer's press release. But you always have to remember it is just an opinion!

 

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to add to that it is up to us Wetpixelites to enter competitions and prove that our digital pixs can compete as 40-45cm prints at the highest level.

 

I intend to enter print categories at the Antibes Festival and in Diver's Image 2003 competition (which I think Bantin will be judging) with my digital shots. That's the best way to show what the cameras can do. I hope I'll be competing against lots of the wetpixel community.

 

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have links to those competitions you should post them. I am sure there are some here that would enter as you suggest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised that you guys have humored this article with a response. He is obviously in a technological vacuum. The quality and resolution of digital images will be up for debate for many years to come. With the new digitals I think it is fair to say that they handle shadows better than slides, and highlights not as well. What totally discredits this guy is his whining about workflow issues. I don't think there is anyone on the planet that has shot digital for 6 months and feels that the workflow is inferior. All the editing that he talks about only needs to be done on your keepers - usually less than 20% (or 5% for me). Further, why even mention that the card that comes in the camera only holds a few high rez images. Last time I bought a film camera it came with no film - imagine that! I had to go buy a roll to take a picture! Just like you'd go buy a microdrive to take more than a few pictures.

 

This relic had his mind set before he picked up the camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha ha - like the point about the cameras coming without film. In the UK is you bought a D100 around Christmas Nikon were giving away free 1Gb Microdrives with them.

 

If there is one competition that Wetpixelites should try to enter it is the Antibes Festival Print Category. Click here

I enter this competition because I think that it is the most important in Underwater Photography. The print competition is excellent for us because it makes no distinction between film and digital, plus the print size is 40cm answering quality issues. The competition is v. high quality and they allow pictures that have won other comps because they want the best of the best. They get about 2000 prints (last year from photographers in 48 countries).

 

You have til September time...

 

Plus anyone who is anyone has won there in the past.

 

It would be an excellent way to prove how good digital cameras are.

 

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your right Alex, the more exposure top class digital images receive the more it will HAVE to be accepted by publishers. If tied Pro's representing these dive magazines switch they have little choice.

Especially as the overall quality of the said magazines is not that special anyway to warrant any quantifiable discrimination (writing and supplying images for 10 years for 11 of them I can vouch for contributers feelings of gross disatisfaction on seeing the printed outcome from even the highest quality reversals) - Especially regarding macro work, which JB didn't discuss.

 

Now I do know John and have worked along side him on assignments and it is clear to see that his notoriety for expansive egoism has become legendary... He can be so single minded and often formulates an opinion well before he tries anything, but love him or hate (A bit like Marmite) he is probably the most read 'tester' in the diving industry. This singular view may be a problem associated with writing exclusively for one "We have no competitors" equally arrogant diving publication.

 

 

This is one reason the article read as it did and I think it was a mistake by Diver to allow it through until he had had more quality time to test the unit and others like it. It was far too subjective and will no doubt begin a stream of corrispondence from around the globe adding to the Marmite gene hypothesis.

As Alex said he does raise a few valid points about the end users of film cameras not seeing the justification of the expense of a completely new digital system, especially if the overall performance was reportedly not as perfected as the equivelent film SLR or for reasons of acceptance for publication (not that the percentage would ever warrant that.

 

This subjective reporting has gotten him into trouble on no end of occasions from manufacturers and Dive Operators - Worldwide. One that immediately springs to mind was "Lyang Lyang Stinks"

 

Having been a published photographer since my early teens I can appreciate that this new techno stuff is a trick beyond the old dogs capabilities when the old stuff is still pefectly good enough and in fact superior in a lot of cases.

People here are well aware of my feelings concerning areas of weakness, but I have never felt the need to run down something that has clear potential and from what I have seen and learned from this particular site has been incredibly impressive. I do however, shoot digital for Press work and for speed to web. My next assignment will see 50/50 digital on the surface and UW - Specified by those commissioning!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that link Alex.

 

You may get in trouble for the following statement...It assumes anyone who has not won is a no body. Maybe they are...LOL

 

Plus anyone who is anyone has won there in the past. -Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to be mischievous, and I don't believe the following is true, but its a fun theory (not based on any fact).

It is fun to hypothesize that Charles Hood, who has a similar role to JB  but at the UK's other big diving mag, wrote a glowing review of the D100, concluding that he would be trading in his F100 for a D100 for magazine work. So, maybe there is a swipe at the photo quality in the other mag.

I went on a trip with Charles Hood, and I don't think he even brought his film camera. He was raving about the D100 the entire time. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read the article, along with the comments posted.

 

It is a shame they didn't post a point/countepoint type of article. A lot of what he said is true.....at least for the moment, sadly it was skewed in such a negative tone that anyone who shoots digital is bound to go ballistic.

 

I have many friends who shoot full time pro wildlife/nature stuff. I would estimate that over 85% of them are still using film. Maybe not exclusively, but primarily. Reasons; "I simply cannot get the resolution I need yet", and more importantly "My customers want film". For some reason, many agencies are still requesting 40-120mb fles uninterploated.

 

With todays technology, these ideas may be outdated, but they still exist in the marketplace and until the marketplace has universally accepted digital camera produced images, I don't blame him for wanting to shoot film.....its a wider audience.

 

As many of you know, I shoot purely digital on land, and purely film underwater (on those rare occurances when I get to dive). I shoot film for one main reason..dependable dedicated TTL flash. Yes I know fuji has ttl, but for those of us invested in Canon gear, until canon releases its ETTLl technology, or until someone successfully backwards engineers a working ettl strobe sysem, I will shoot film. The day that changes, I will probably switch bck to digital again.

 

I agree that digital handles shadow recovery TONS better than film, but highlights are still an issue with digital, I struggle with it on land constantly. Its a trade-off, but one I would get used to if we ever get a really dedicated flash system. And yes, I do shoot manual strobes on occasion, but I love TTL, I have a much better chance of shooting a correct exposure with TTL on one shot with a skittish animal than manual......I simply dont dive enough to really master manual flash, and many subjects I shoot don't seem to want to hang around for a second or third try.

 

Please belive me when I say this is not digital bashing. I am a huge dgital fan, shoot exclusively digital on land, and truly can't wait for the day when I can buy a reasonably priced canon digital set up that will handle the strobes properly. I will be the first in line to buy it.

 

My 2 cents.....worth about what you paid for it! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loss of TTL capability is a tradeoff in digital. But where chrome film has a latitude of a half stop, digital images have a latitude of two and a half stops on the underexposure side. Even photographers who grew up on TTL should be able to estimate exposure within 2 1/2 stops. Often that can be compensated simply by moving closer.

 

IMHO, the advantage of instant feedback outweighs the lack of TTL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a D100 and shoot with very reliable TTL. House a land gun. It works and its easy.

 

Anyway the reason for the repeat post is to apologise for my poorly worded post - typing quickly so as not to get caught by my boss!

 

What I should say is "lots of big cheeses have won there in the past - so it carries a lot of kudos"!

 

Just trying to encourage the community to get our work out there and change attitudes. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even photographers who grew up on TTL should be able to estimate exposure within 2 1/2 stops. Often that can be compensated simply by moving closer.

 

Well, apparently not me! :P I could get close, but I could never get a decent shot without some blown out highlights on the frst try, which is often all I get.

 

On the latitude issues, I agree with your statement. that said, how do you combat the noise issue when you start purposly underexposing images to save the highlights? I still have trouble with this with topside shooting. If I try to get a bird in flight, when I try to increase exposure on the bird, the blue sky will invariably start showing some wild noise effects. Do you not have this problem with a blue background shot?

 

I am still a neo when it comes to photoshop........:D

 

and imho, the instant feedback doesn't outweigh the lack of TTL......yet. (different strokes for different folks!) :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...