|
P&S
Feb 22, 2008 12:34:48 GMT -8
Post by scubadiverbob on Feb 22, 2008 12:34:48 GMT -8
Digital cameras are great for people who aren't very good at photography! Just like Photo-slop software! With a digital someone can delete all their mistakes. With photoslop software they can make themselves appear to be as great as Ansil Adams!
I still can't figure out how to focus my digital camera. It's a Nikon; but, sucks at taking night-time photos! My problem is where do I load the film?
My Nikonos is still my favorite camera and I don't use photoslop. Wonder if I'll ever become a famous photographer if I can't touch up 90 percent of my photos with photoslop?
|
|
dhaas
Regular Diver
Posts: 26
|
P&S
Feb 22, 2008 14:08:34 GMT -8
Post by dhaas on Feb 22, 2008 14:08:34 GMT -8
Another misconception about digital. That you can create art out of cow dung All the same rules of photography apply shooting a digital camera. Exposure, focus, composition, etc. No difference. Film users who say it's cheating never spent any time in a darkroom where all sorts of post manipulation was done from negatives or slides. ESPECIALLY Ansel Adams......He adjusted his final images to how he SAW it and wanted to portray a scene. I teach UW Digital Photography Made Simple to a few hundred people per year. And I tell them Photoshop won't save crappy photo. Just one bozo's opinion dhaas P.S. - Nemrod, now you've got the idea of why that great sharp wide angle optic you own is troublesome on some housing fronts.....Believe me if Ikelite could make it work on all their P&S housings they would.......I pestered them after shooting it on a Fuji E900 little housing a couple summers back and got great results! But many of the new housings ned larger port front pieces and can't accommodate the lens without vignetting. This is the bane of accessories in the UW digital world. P.P.S. - I would never "hit a dog in the ass" Animals are my best friends! They make more sense than most people LOL.......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
P&S
Feb 22, 2008 14:47:02 GMT -8
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2008 14:47:02 GMT -8
Well, I have to agree with all you gents on both types of cameras. Digital and old mechanical types. I'm headin to Brazil Monday with a Nikonos III w/15mm lens ..simple lever, focus, distance etc......and a aquaflash 22 strobe.... I also am taking my Olympus sp-320 with 2 gig of memory and a brand new Helix housing for it....... Boy! when I got the housing and opened the box.....what the heck are all these little silver buttons on the back? then I realized all the different buttons on the camera one has to use.....craps, I wonder how many shots I will miss, looking to push the right button to get this thing ready to shoot?.....it is nice and light in weight and I guess I'll use it for shallow water photos as it has no uw flash yet.......but I do prefer the simplicty of my Nikonos.............but again, the digital allows instant after dive photo review.......both have positive points I guess............
Mossback
|
|
|
P&S
Feb 22, 2008 23:01:23 GMT -8
Post by duckbill on Feb 22, 2008 23:01:23 GMT -8
Pros and cons on both sides, from what I understand.
I always thought of digital photos as the half-tone side of photography, as it uses pixels of information. Whereas, film photos are like the continuous-tone prints, where the film sees to colors and tones exactly as the light hits it. No little dots of different colors to make up the color that is seen by the eye in the print as in half-tone. I realize that films have different 'graininesses' that depend on the 'speed' of the film for some reason. So, my big question is this: Have we really entered into the time where entry-level digital cameras are producing results up to par of film cameras? I've seen some outstanding digital photography that is super sharp and the 'grain' is virtually undetectable- even in enlargements. But, those photos were made using cameras that cost WAY more than most of us can afford when budgeting for a hobby- No $2000 tax write-offs for hobbys yet!
I'm no expert in photography, especially underwater. I would love to take David's class, but not if a digital camera on par with a decent film camera is going to run me more than a few hundred bucks. The scariest thing for me about underwater cameras is the fear of flooding. It seems every single underwater photographer I've heard recounts at least one camera flood in the course of their hobby. That's just too much money for me to plug into an iffy thing. Now that most of the workings of a digital camera are electronic, why can't they make cameras with the electronics completely entombed in a solid plastic or resin block? No housing needed. Then, it seems, the lenses would be the only weak links as far as flooding.
|
|
dhaas
Regular Diver
Posts: 26
|
P&S
Feb 23, 2008 10:39:17 GMT -8
Post by dhaas on Feb 23, 2008 10:39:17 GMT -8
Duckbill and Nemrod, Small P&S digital cameras have tiny sensors, hence the low cost. Used properly at low ISO settings (like typical tropical shooting) they can produce very nice photos capable of enlarging easily to 8X10 and maybe more.... Even digital SLR bodies can be had for under $400.00 now! The Canon Rebel XT (which I had for year or so) is 8 MP and being a dSLR has bigger sensor. This means more "dynamic range" or ability to not lose shadow detail or blow out highlights as easily as the low cost P&S tiny sensors. The other trade off is for a dSLR you'll need specific wide angle or macro lenses......Then a bigger (meaning more expensive) housing and strobes, etc. I tell people the cost of admission to that world no matter how you cut it is $3,500.00 +. But in the P&S world adding an accessory strobe getting the flash away from the lens, and then a wide angle getting close underwater are the two most important things that will improve your UW photos. All the proprietary housings (read Canon, Olympus, Fuji) are made by 1 company in Japan. They can change their set ups as fast as new models appear with different button placements and be ready to distribute as soon as new cameras are announced to market. There might be some minor latch robustness differences, etc. but basically for under $200.00 you will get a few more plastic control shafts / buttons, etc. rated to 40 meters (130' or so) Ikelite evaluates which models are likely to be more popular, will work better UW and then tools up for those models. Don't forget the little Nikon P5000 and P5100 actually has a hot shoe and hard wired TTL flash when used with their DS (digital Substrobe) flash units! So it's important to compare apples to apples..... Flooding happened with film cameras, and depending on your understanding of how mechanically a housing seals will more determine if or when you ever flood a camera. 99.999% of floods are user error...... The Ikelite boxes may be a little less form fitting but that has always been something I tout as an advantage. At least if you SEE water coming you could tip the housing and keep water away from your camera and maybe save it! Most floods are right at the surface where little pressure is on the o-ring, or a back clamped on wrong, something clamped in between the back o-ring, etc. Plus in rinse tanks on salt water dive boats. I NEVER leave my camera in a rinse tank unless I'm standing there holding it, flushing out salt water by moving the little buttons and controls. Then I remove it, pat dry the lens port (where the lens sees through) and get ready for the next dive...... If you go the route of the low cost housings you will want to shoe horn in a dessicat pack to minimize fogging. Load in A/C for low humidity and keep it out of the sun, too. Good luck! dhaas www.haasimages.com
|
|
|
P&S
Feb 23, 2008 17:49:24 GMT -8
Post by nemrod on Feb 23, 2008 17:49:24 GMT -8
Getting may be off subject but David touches on something, modern P&S cameras have a tiny sensor but of course range finder 35 MM cameras had the same size film (sensor) as did an slr 35 MM which of course was 35 MM so there is no reason that Nikon or Canon could not produce a Pro grade rangefinder styled --NON slr camera. It would not be a P&S strictly speaking, it would be a digital rangefinder. Why not, smaller and lighter than a slr but with equal capability. Many professional and respected photogrpahers preferred rangefinder cameras over slr. I do too. I have a 16 MM Nikkor lens but of course if used on a modern Nikon digital slr since--they do not have full size image sensors either--the resulting magnification is more like a 21 MM or more without doing the simple math to convert to 35 MM equivilent. I don't like big, I like little, little is good, big is bad, to much fuss to carry. This link compares the paltry size of digital image sensors to 35 MM film. Kind of patheticreally, especially the P&S. Fortuantely, they are getting bigger and denser. www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=sensor%20sizesNem
|
|
|
P&S
Feb 23, 2008 22:31:34 GMT -8
Post by duckbill on Feb 23, 2008 22:31:34 GMT -8
Thanks for the explanations, gentlemen. Digital does have some advantages. So far, though, I am left unimpressed with picture quality from digital cameras in my price range. If I wait a few years I might be able to get a grade equivalent to what professionals are using today for a hundred smackers. That seems to be the way of technology these days. Sometimes I think we try to push technology too fast. It is aggravating to be watching TV and have a show freezing and pixelating every couple minutes. I'm sure it is the cable company's feed, but whatever the cause, the digital "system" obviously has not been perfacted yet, so why the big push? I don't know if "digital" oral thermometers are really digital electronically, but I have yet to find one at a consumer's price range that I consider anywhere near accurate. I threw mine away and got more mercury thermometers. I have yet to find an inaccurate mercury thermometer! When the baby feels hot, I want to know I can get repeatable temperature readings to within a fifth of a degree of one another, not +/- 2 or 3 degrees. Yea, I'm ranting Now, back to cameras
|
|
|
P&S
Feb 24, 2008 9:42:47 GMT -8
Post by nemrod on Feb 24, 2008 9:42:47 GMT -8
I have Adobe 5.0 Elements and a couple of other photo programs where you can strip a photo apart, layers, adjust color, tone etc. If I scan in a slide at max resolution and correct it for color due to age etc it looks pretty good on a digital projector or on a computer screen or on a large screen LCD television which is now the preferred method for a viewing of photos.
The scanner I am using now is the CanoScan 8800F. It can scan film, negative, positive, anything you want and it does a decent job. I like Adobe Elements for reworking a photo. I love cleaning up all of my old B&W photos with Adobe.
My new Canon A570IS and Canon DC12 housing came yesterday from Amazon.com. I am pleased with it and it will be great with the Inon 165AD fisheye lens. Yippeee.
Nem
|
|
dhaas
Regular Diver
Posts: 26
|
P&S
Feb 24, 2008 11:41:34 GMT -8
Post by dhaas on Feb 24, 2008 11:41:34 GMT -8
Nemrod, You're preaching to the (former) choir here......I shot all those Kodachrome emulsions, then Fuji's beautiful Velvia and at the end of my film days Kodak's great E100VS (vivid saturation) fine grain slide films. Of course Kodak waited until Fuji took their whole market away with super saturated films before they responded too late....Kodak also thought digital imaging wouldn't grow for 10 years to critical mass. Wrong again and look at what has happened to the company As far as projecting those slides on a wall compared to a modern digital projector and DECENT digital files even from a low cost digital camera? You need to get out more and go attend real dive shows and see what's shown bigger than your wall. Plus most people who buy the cheapest (and likely not best performing) digicam and never learn to shoot in low ISO will never see how good their camera's pictures can really look. At Our World Underwater in Chicago last weekend (I hadn't been there since 1992 when I presented slides on Blue Shark Diving!) I went and saw two (of the very few) slide presentations. Pictures from good UW shooters I know and to be blunt, the pics looked bland compared to any digital presentation I saw. Your Canon scanner is a good one, and if you will preserve your family images plus being able to manipulate them with Elements, etc. that's great. I did the same recently for a Marine friend and his in country Vietnam pics. He never knew they could be made to look so good I have four file cabinets FULL of slides, all super fine grain, colorful, etc. The idea of pulling all those out, many subjects duplicated on digital now and scanning them? Well I think I'll take a root canal without Novicane instead Just too cumbersome and time consuming...... And that is the one thing digital has brought to the party. Time management.......I can get more done in a short time with my files than ever before. It enhances my enjoyment of sharing a dive trip, sending people a photo idea, submitting a shot to an art director, etc. I ain't getting any younger and anything that saves me time is 1000% better to me..... Finally, I'm glad you saved some $$$ on theCanon A570IS camera and their housing. Hopefully it holds up, doesn't fog, etc. Not fear mongering here, as I see many on dive trips. But then, whadda' I know? dhaas
|
|
|
P&S
Feb 24, 2008 15:40:06 GMT -8
Post by scubadiverbob on Feb 24, 2008 15:40:06 GMT -8
Film is vintage; digital?
Only problem with film is buying it now-a-days. I would love to find a photo store that still sells bulk film so I could load a 50 frame roll to use in my Nikonos. Also, chemicals are getting harder to come by. Where I live, can't even get D-76 anymore; much less any fine grain developers. Try finding color chemicals. I have a 4X5 enlarger I can project images on the wall with. Doesn't do much good if I can't buy paper. So ... there are currently disadvantages to film.
Still, my Nikon digital camera has auto-focus that sometimes tells me a picture is in focus ... and it isn't! Talk about crappy night time images ..... Well, I can delete these images and don't have to pay to have them processed (yes, with film I'm lazy and go to Walmart). Digital does save time. Make sure to have extra batteries when using a digital camera. My Nikonos was serviced two years ago and the batteries still are over 3 Vdc. Can't do that with a digital.
Everything has pro's and con's I guess.
Digital - vintage?
|
|
|
P&S
Feb 24, 2008 16:05:37 GMT -8
Post by JES on Feb 24, 2008 16:05:37 GMT -8
It will be eventually.
|
|
|
P&S
Feb 26, 2008 13:50:48 GMT -8
Post by scubadiverbob on Feb 26, 2008 13:50:48 GMT -8
Anyone solved the battery problem with digitals yet? With my Nikon digital the batteries go dead quite often. With my Nikonos; never happens. (SB101 a different story ...) My digital has no "battery life meter" built into it. It just displays "battery exhausted"; then, no more pictures can be taken. My Nikonos has a film counter. Lets me know when I cna't take anymore pictures.
Just curious ....
|
|
|
P&S
Feb 26, 2008 20:25:16 GMT -8
Post by duckbill on Feb 26, 2008 20:25:16 GMT -8
I was getting about 40 shots with my little cheapie Fuji digital on a pair of alkaline, NiMH, NiCd, didn't matter which. It would just EAT batteries.
Then I was introduced to Sanyo Eneloop batteries. Now I get more than 200 to 250 pix per charge. I understand you can get similar results with just about any "pre-charged" NiMH rechargeables. I can't thank my brother enough for that advice!
|
|
YankDownUnder
Pro Diver
Broxton 'green label' Aqua Lung and 1954 USD Rene triple 44s.
Posts: 162
|
P&S
Feb 26, 2008 21:37:54 GMT -8
Post by YankDownUnder on Feb 26, 2008 21:37:54 GMT -8
It took me 40 years to be able to afford and find a Hans Hass Rolleimarin, and now they've cancelled film........as Snoopy says: "Rats!"
|
|
|
P&S
Feb 27, 2008 15:52:00 GMT -8
Post by JES on Feb 27, 2008 15:52:00 GMT -8
.... The Ikelite boxes may be a little less form fitting but that has always been something I tout as an advantage. At least if you SEE water coming you could tip the housing and keep water away from your camera and maybe save it! Most floods are right at the surface where little pressure is on the o-ring, or a back clamped on wrong, something clamped in between the back o-ring, etc. .... I agree with David regarding the Ikelite cases. They are built like tanks and you can visually verify the integrity of the seal. They are well worth the extra money IMHO.
|
|