HELP: SLR versus Digital cameras

[The Chairman]

I will concur that it depends on what you are after as to what you need to get. As for resolution, I have seen way too many grainy photographs to agree with your post in the real world (I am not quibbling, 'cause you DID say theoretical). 100asa on a perfect day is one thing. Available lighting with 400 or 1000asa is quite another. Now put all of this underwater with strobes and the resultant problems with contrast, color saturation (or lack thereof) and depth of fields and it is a wonder (and a tribute to all you fine photographers out there) that anything usable, much less compelling turns out. Now you don't have to bracket to try and make sure you have that "perfect" shot... you can see it right there in front of you. No wasting film or time.

Now, as I noted before, I have been a film purist for eons. I like color, but I really love B&W because of that "creative control" in my darkroom. Mind you, this goes against my chosen profession... an IT consultant. Well, a good friend of mine went digital last year. His pictures are awesome, and he blows them up HUGE. He has a 16x20 thermal wax print of one shot of the Christ of the Abyss that he has framed on his wall (he's a good Catholic). Even with my focusing loupe, I could not detect any grain. The colors are so vivid, and the depth/clarity so good that you can almost not tell it is an underwater pic; except for the fish, of course. I am sold, and since that was done with an Olympus C3040, I want the next one up... the C4040. Oh yeah... I wouldn't reccomend his "housing". It is a plastic bag he bought from Wolfe Camera that is good to 10 meters. A $700 camera in a $30 housing... geeeezzzz....

 

[blacknet]

Hello,

Even with my focusing loupe, I could not detect any grain.

Could not detect grain or don't know what to look for? BTW 'grain' is not a 'bad' thing as it's a creative tool to be used as you see fit.

A $700 camera in a $30 housing... geeeezzzz....

You must be refering to the ewamarine bags. Similars are people using aquashots and using the local 1 hour crap quality developers who doesn't have a clue about color. Or the person who spends a good chunk of change on good equipment and uses some low quality cheap film.

Now the bags are very good for above water shots like in the rain or treking in the river looking for alligators.

Ed

 

[scorpionfish]

U/W Photographers,

For most of us who do not submit photos to magazines, the digital camera is perfect! It makes great photos for the album. The images can be toyed with in the comfort of your home or your hotel room! Take along the right attachments and you can see the images on your hotel TV screen! You can toss out the "losers" right on the spot! Instant gratification is only a preview away!

It is true, though, that you need a high quality printer to get photo-quality prints. However, for the enlargements that really count, you can still have a photo store enlarge your image after you do all your editing and put it on a CD. 3.3 mp is plenty for a 16 x 20 with a small amount of cropping.

NetDoc, I think you will still need a strobe. It is true that you can color balance with Photoshop, but it cannot provide light where there was "none"! This is particullarly true on a night dive! And there are some limitations on macrophotography and "tele-zoom" with the current generation of "consumer cameras". But that is a small price to pay for the convenience, I think.

I use both kinds of cameras because I do a fair amount of macro, I love the "feel" of my film cameras, and I am a sort of stick in the mud.

SF

 

[The Chairman]

Per your statement...

"Could not detect grain or don't know what to look for? BTW 'grain' is not a 'bad' thing as it's a creative tool to be used as you see fit."

Could I take it you have not seen many thermal wax printers? Or their results? If you read my post as a whole, then you couldn’t see that I obviously know what grain "is" and how to look for it? Search it for the obvious and not so obvious clues. You might be a better diver and/or photographer than me... then maybe not. We have no way of quantifying that. However, a condescending tone is never a good thing to use.

As for grain, it's usually a -bad- thing. Very rarely has grain been successfully used as a "creative tool". Not that it can't, but millions of dollars have gone into research to try and make film grain finer, especially in respect to making it faster AND finer! A fine resolution with a fine grain is no accident. Most just don’t take the time or know enough to pursue it.

 

[blacknet]

Hello,

I have witnessed many photographers stating "no grain" in photo's when the grain is the size of golf balls. (all to common) I have also seen HIGHLY grainy photo's sell for thousands of dollars (us). Didn't mean anything negative about what I wrote.

Ed

 

[scorpiofish]

Originally posted by NetDoc
Consider a camera that you can color correct on the fly and not need a strobe? No back Scatter, no bulky octopus type arms to scare the fish away. Also, you can preview that picture at depth and see if you really, really got it. Sort of hard to do with a film camera. Then you can easily share these pictures with your friends on the boat and then those of us here on the Scubaboard. I am well on my way to buying an Olympus C4040.

Define color correct on the fly. I'm not clear on what you mean by this statement.

Not need as strobe. A digital camera still needs light.

No backscatter. If all you use is the onboard flash. You will get far more backscatter than with strobe(s) on "octopus" arms.

Getting film to digital is pretty easy.

Yes you can share it on the boat. But you better have some memory cards to switch to on the boat or a laptop to download them to, because memory is limited.

I do have to disagree with Blacknet. Many pubs have gone digital.

I agree with Blacknet, grain can and has been used for effect. It is an artistic choice. It's just generally not very artistic for u/w images.

 

[CheeseWhiz]

The following quotes come from "Adobe Photoshop for Photographers: a professional image editor's guide to the creative use of Photoshop...", by Martin Evening. I believe they are worth sharing.

"...digital imaging has successfully been employed by the printing industry for over 10 years now and if you are photographing anything for print media, one can say with certainty an image will at some stage be digitized."

"...in any magazine publication you care to look at, the screen resolution used to print all images therein is mostly consistent throughtout, yet there is probably just as wide a variety in original digital file sizes used as with the formats of film with which the photographs were taken. At the end of the day, all these pictures - however generated and tweaked - have to be resampled to suit the resolution and color space of the magazine print press and to be judged on equal merit. In the past I have had lengthy discussions with both photographers and clients who insist nothing less than a 10x8 sheet of film will provide good enough quality for advertising work. I do believe an overobsession with 'pixel correctness' gets in the way of appreciating just how good the technical output quality can be from smaller format cameras or what can be created on a modest computer desktop setup in the hands of a talented artist. And this obsession with numbers and achieving the highest technical excellence sometimes misses the poiint of why people want to use Photoshop. Not everything must be judged against the highest benchmarks, otherwise we would all still be using plate cameras to shoot everything and photography using 120 and 35mm cameras would never have happened."

I go back to one of my earlier posts: it's not the camera, it's the photographer.

 

[neilstewart]

If you do decide to go digital you might want to check out www.armatos.com who have the C3030 and C4040 with Tetra housing for what appears to me to be a very good price.

Neil