accomplish this with a digital camera and what method and camera would you use?
ambient light photography
N
ambient light photography
N
How would you--
- Thread starter Nemrod
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
I'm not quite sure what about the photos you are trying to reproduce?
A camera with great high ISO capabilities would be very helpful here - Canon 40D, 5D etc or Nik's D300. A wide angle lens for sure - 10.5mm, or Tok's 10-17, even Canon's 10-22. I've seen some ambient light wreck shooters customize a tripod, too.
The actual shooting to capture the image would be very similar to using film. Adjust the settings to achieve the exposure you want
Take several frames with various settings so you are sure to get the right amount of detail in your shadows. If you want to get all fancy schmancy, you can even blend various exposures together later in post so you can control your highlights and shadows as much as possible (much quicker than developing in the darkroom, but it can be done!)
For the black/white - Lightroom would be my first stop and you should be able to get pretty close to what you want in that application. If you need to tweak more or want to blend some layers etc, Photoshop as needed.
A camera with great high ISO capabilities would be very helpful here - Canon 40D, 5D etc or Nik's D300. A wide angle lens for sure - 10.5mm, or Tok's 10-17, even Canon's 10-22. I've seen some ambient light wreck shooters customize a tripod, too.
The actual shooting to capture the image would be very similar to using film. Adjust the settings to achieve the exposure you want
Take several frames with various settings so you are sure to get the right amount of detail in your shadows. If you want to get all fancy schmancy, you can even blend various exposures together later in post so you can control your highlights and shadows as much as possible (much quicker than developing in the darkroom, but it can be done!)For the black/white - Lightroom would be my first stop and you should be able to get pretty close to what you want in that application. If you need to tweak more or want to blend some layers etc, Photoshop as needed.
OP
I'm not quite sure what about the photos you are trying to reproduce?
A camera with great high ISO capabilities would be very helpful here - Canon 40D, 5D etc or Nik's D300. A wide angle lens for sure - 10.5mm, or Tok's 10-17, even Canon's 10-22. I've seen some ambient light wreck shooters customize a tripod, too.
The actual shooting to capture the image would be very similar to using film. Adjust the settings to achieve the exposure you want
For the black/white - Lightroom would be my first stop and you should be able to get pretty close to what you want in that application. If you need to tweak more or want to blend some layers etc, Photoshop as needed.
If you read the page and look at the photos you see he was using a 1600 ASA and exposures at F22 and up to four seconds to produce natural light photographs. I am wondering what sorts of digitial equipment can do similar without resorting to heavy creative photoshopping.
I like the smooth, ghostly quality of the photos that caught my eye and huge depth of field and latitude and the huge wide angle and natural light exposure. I don't seem to be able to take B&W digital that looks like my film results, is it possible, do you still use orange and yellow filters etc?
I know I need to get a better camera for that type work, maybe the new Nikon P6000. If I must I can do slr but I have grown to hate the slr concept, to much bulk.
N
OP
Let me say I realize I will eventually have to do a dslr but I am avoiding that a little longer. It is not a money issue, I am just not satisfied quite yet with what I see. I would prefer a simpler set up, less goofy features and menus, a lcd that displays the scene, a full size sensor etc.
I always shot Tri X and Pan, just not seeming to be able to get the "look" and the "look" is not something that is easy to describe, I like that silvery appearence is best I can say. There must be a way to get that.
What I am talking about cannot be really seen on a computer screen, I am talking about when I hold a print in my hand and look at it, not on a computer screen, I like that silvery look. When I print digital B&W it appears muddy. Thus my questions---how?
I have aside from a full darkroom a Canon Pixima Pro 9000 and a CanonScan 8800F and a HP multi printer with print support to 8X10.
Related question, most digital cameras are a 4:3 aspect ratio that results in severe cropping at 4X6. I can work around on my Pro 9000 but how are you guys printing 4:3 full frame?
N
I always shot Tri X and Pan, just not seeming to be able to get the "look" and the "look" is not something that is easy to describe, I like that silvery appearence is best I can say. There must be a way to get that.
What I am talking about cannot be really seen on a computer screen, I am talking about when I hold a print in my hand and look at it, not on a computer screen, I like that silvery look. When I print digital B&W it appears muddy. Thus my questions---how?
I have aside from a full darkroom a Canon Pixima Pro 9000 and a CanonScan 8800F and a HP multi printer with print support to 8X10.
Related question, most digital cameras are a 4:3 aspect ratio that results in severe cropping at 4X6. I can work around on my Pro 9000 but how are you guys printing 4:3 full frame?
N
Last edited:
I think you're going to have to experiment with your settings underwater to see if you can't get close to the results in camera that you are after - I'd use his settings as a starting place, probably. If you are shooting a compact camera, simply use the smallest aperture as your numbers will be different but the basic results should be the same. A compact will limit your results for a variety of reasons, but those add-on wide angle lenses are pretty darned nice and you should get some very nice DOF, even without a dslr. These images are really nice, but they aren't a huge difference to many other similar wreck shots I've seen so it should be achievable!
As for muddy black and whites, this is usually a combination of two factors - 1: exposure and 2: processing. Both are important. I find, most of the time, that getting an exposure that is a touch brighter - not blown - helps with black and whites, even in the blacks.
Lightroom is awesome for processing black and whites as you have an incredible amount of control over the various colours, tones, contrasts etc. I'm not at home yet, but I'd be happy to work on an image together to see what we can come up with. LR is pretty fast so it shouldn't take that much time. Processing the image with digital incorporates all of those decisions we make with film - just at a different place in the timeline. So this is really where you get the feel of different film types (and filters etc), for instance. Even paper types to some extent can be processed for to get the best results.
You can use filters, too - you may have to make some mods to work with your system. I haven't used a lot of filters with digital so can't do too much pointing you in the right direction. For myself and my needs, I'd rather simply do things in post as then I have total control and I can have colour, black/white, custom image all from the same shot if I want to (and less expense coz I don't have to fork over for filters that will only be used now and then!). I've only done this a few times and it does take a little forward planning to get the right image, but it's fun to play around with any old image at first...I find doing stuff like that helps me visualize new shots.
You'll also need to have your shots printed properly at a lab so you can choose a high quality paper - lots of people overlook how a paper impacts their final print, but it can make or break a shot. I'm not sure what's available for home printers, but maybe it's worth experimenting there, too. Though so far the black white prints, even the cheapo basic ones, I've had printed at a lab blow the socks off the best ones I've seen printed on people's home printers. Want something really WOW? Have them do a print for you on metalllic paper - very cool with the right shot.
Aspect ratio is something that catches lots of people out when printing. As you said, most compact digital cameras are 4:3. This means that only multiples of 4:3 will print full frame - 8:6, 12:9, 2:1.5 (you can read "inches" or "cms" next to the numbers). To get a 4:6 print you will have to crop or force the ratio. Forcing the ratio will make the photo look all wonky as you're messing with the native aspect. If you know you want to print 4:6, then you're going to need to compose for 4:6 when you take the shot, if you don't want to risk cropping bits off that you want to keep. Some systems have exchangeable viewfinders so you can see it, but most don't. I have seen some people mark the lcd screen on the back of the housing with guidemarks for just this purpose...seems to work. You can keep native 4:3 and print on a 4:6 with a border, too...max size would be about 5.3x4 ish. Many labs have custom print options to deal with issues like this and to provide consumers with prints that are as close to "standard" frames as possible.
Most dslrs are 2:3 native so 4:6 comes out full frame, as does: 6:9, 8:12, 10:15, 1:1.5 - so if you want an 8:10, you need to crop the image (in this case your short side will remain the same but you'll lose two inches off the long end which can really change the feel of a shot!)
As for muddy black and whites, this is usually a combination of two factors - 1: exposure and 2: processing. Both are important. I find, most of the time, that getting an exposure that is a touch brighter - not blown - helps with black and whites, even in the blacks.
Lightroom is awesome for processing black and whites as you have an incredible amount of control over the various colours, tones, contrasts etc. I'm not at home yet, but I'd be happy to work on an image together to see what we can come up with. LR is pretty fast so it shouldn't take that much time. Processing the image with digital incorporates all of those decisions we make with film - just at a different place in the timeline. So this is really where you get the feel of different film types (and filters etc), for instance. Even paper types to some extent can be processed for to get the best results.
You can use filters, too - you may have to make some mods to work with your system. I haven't used a lot of filters with digital so can't do too much pointing you in the right direction. For myself and my needs, I'd rather simply do things in post as then I have total control and I can have colour, black/white, custom image all from the same shot if I want to (and less expense coz I don't have to fork over for filters that will only be used now and then!). I've only done this a few times and it does take a little forward planning to get the right image, but it's fun to play around with any old image at first...I find doing stuff like that helps me visualize new shots.
You'll also need to have your shots printed properly at a lab so you can choose a high quality paper - lots of people overlook how a paper impacts their final print, but it can make or break a shot. I'm not sure what's available for home printers, but maybe it's worth experimenting there, too. Though so far the black white prints, even the cheapo basic ones, I've had printed at a lab blow the socks off the best ones I've seen printed on people's home printers. Want something really WOW? Have them do a print for you on metalllic paper - very cool with the right shot.
Aspect ratio is something that catches lots of people out when printing. As you said, most compact digital cameras are 4:3. This means that only multiples of 4:3 will print full frame - 8:6, 12:9, 2:1.5 (you can read "inches" or "cms" next to the numbers). To get a 4:6 print you will have to crop or force the ratio. Forcing the ratio will make the photo look all wonky as you're messing with the native aspect. If you know you want to print 4:6, then you're going to need to compose for 4:6 when you take the shot, if you don't want to risk cropping bits off that you want to keep. Some systems have exchangeable viewfinders so you can see it, but most don't. I have seen some people mark the lcd screen on the back of the housing with guidemarks for just this purpose...seems to work. You can keep native 4:3 and print on a 4:6 with a border, too...max size would be about 5.3x4 ish. Many labs have custom print options to deal with issues like this and to provide consumers with prints that are as close to "standard" frames as possible.
Most dslrs are 2:3 native so 4:6 comes out full frame, as does: 6:9, 8:12, 10:15, 1:1.5 - so if you want an 8:10, you need to crop the image (in this case your short side will remain the same but you'll lose two inches off the long end which can really change the feel of a shot!)
SPG3K
Contributor
N.
That guys shots are incredible. And I completely understand the "look" you are after.
And, I have to respectfully tell you "Good Luck" getting any digital camera to fire out an image like that.
Mono film, as I'm sure you know, produces some of the most amazing and unique effects, effects and image qualities that are unique to FILM.
I think the closest you will get to this is using an extremely expensive DSLR and shooting in B/W then retouching and possibly adding grain or shine through Photoshop.
You may get lucky though, if you shoot a high enough ISO, the noise introduced into the image may act as the texture you see there. To get the silvery qualities you want out of a black and white photo, you need Mono film. Period.
You can always tell a Digital B/W photo over a Mono Film B/W photo because of the grayscale textures and color palette, if you will. Especially if you hold them in your hands. Alcina has a point though - paper makes the image sometimes, that may be something worth experimenting with.
But I really don't think you will get what you want even if you bought a 1Ds MkIII or it's ilk.
I think your current camera will shoot something like what you want, but you are going to have to adjust the black tones and use a grain tool through photoshop to work out what you saw in his images.
That guys shots are incredible. And I completely understand the "look" you are after.
And, I have to respectfully tell you "Good Luck" getting any digital camera to fire out an image like that.
Mono film, as I'm sure you know, produces some of the most amazing and unique effects, effects and image qualities that are unique to FILM.
I think the closest you will get to this is using an extremely expensive DSLR and shooting in B/W then retouching and possibly adding grain or shine through Photoshop.
You may get lucky though, if you shoot a high enough ISO, the noise introduced into the image may act as the texture you see there. To get the silvery qualities you want out of a black and white photo, you need Mono film. Period.
You can always tell a Digital B/W photo over a Mono Film B/W photo because of the grayscale textures and color palette, if you will. Especially if you hold them in your hands. Alcina has a point though - paper makes the image sometimes, that may be something worth experimenting with.
But I really don't think you will get what you want even if you bought a 1Ds MkIII or it's ilk.
I think your current camera will shoot something like what you want, but you are going to have to adjust the black tones and use a grain tool through photoshop to work out what you saw in his images.
OP
Thank you both for your interesting comments. One of the driving forces behind this question is that I am slowly working up to the point that I ebay the remaining film cameras I have and all of the glass. Before I commit to that however I am just trying to develop a realistic expectation of what can be expected with digital cameras at extremes as in the link I gave. Yes, we all know they take great snaps but how do they perform for photography on the edge of possibility. I think at some point I should just go ahead and make a leap of faith.
I love engines and mechanical things, admiring aircraft engines from WWII and back or steam train engines etc or even ancient sailing ships and other forgotten technologies it ocurrs to me that there are no living souls who know how to build those things, nobody alive today could duplicate that technology. I am afraid there is coming a time were film will be lost and supplanted by digital and decades from now people will marvel at the great B&W masters, Ansell Adams for example, and realize that there is no person alive who knows how to reproduce that imaging technology nor the skill or equipment to do so. There will still be great images, they will just be different, they will be digital. And the world turns on. N
I love engines and mechanical things, admiring aircraft engines from WWII and back or steam train engines etc or even ancient sailing ships and other forgotten technologies it ocurrs to me that there are no living souls who know how to build those things, nobody alive today could duplicate that technology. I am afraid there is coming a time were film will be lost and supplanted by digital and decades from now people will marvel at the great B&W masters, Ansell Adams for example, and realize that there is no person alive who knows how to reproduce that imaging technology nor the skill or equipment to do so. There will still be great images, they will just be different, they will be digital. And the world turns on. N
SPG3K
Contributor
It's funny you should mention Adams.
Her gallery is right down the road from me, I've actually been to some of the places in her shots that are local and taken then same shots with my own equipment just for the fun of trying to make the same image.
I could not have said it any better than you just did.
I will add this though.
Trains, old engines, etc, are forgotten technology because current technology is supposedly better, although in most cases it may well end up being superior.
In the case of film - there are qualities of film that cannot be replicated by a pixelized computer monitor or CCD sensor. Are those qualities lasting and captivating enough to keep film cameras around? I sincerely doubt it.
But I am like you. When I see even the best digital images, I can always tell you if it was a digital image to begin with or a film image. They are just different. Not that one is necessarily better or worse - they are just different.
I'm a fan of film, but I'm also a fan of convenience and saving money. Neither of which is a characteristic of a film camera nowadays.
I know Ansel Adams has a few digital SLR's, from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Some of her images in the gallery have equipment listings under them.
I believe there will be holdovers forever, just like collectors of antique cars. But in the case of cars, where technology is outmatched and sometimes outperformed or outlasted by newer models, I don't think film cameras will ever be outclassed by digital.
I just think the nature of our society will push film into eccentricity.
This thread cracks me up.......Here's why.....
One, I sold Leigh Bishop a nice STROMM 6" dome port optically matched to a Nikon 20mm lens many moons ago. He used it on a smaller SLR rig he would shoot side by side with the larger format film camera he was doing these time exposures on those deep wrecks.
Second, TRI-X, PAN-X or anything pushed to ISO3200 or the Agfa Scala film would produce that grain everyone seems to think is so objectionable in other underwater photographs. So will digital images shot at high ISO. Usually everyone complains about it, but here it is is great? LOL......
His images do certainly have a mood shown by very few UW photographers and I think they are very well done. But it isn't rocket science.
High ISO, meter the lower portion you want detail in, don't include too much brighter ambient light to blow out your top frame and put the damn thing on a tripod. Easily achievable with a digital SLR and low noise sensor and junior high school post processing. Many new dSLR models under $700 have great capability at ISO 1600 and more. I routinely shoot ISO 800 in dim pools with flash and the photos look great.
Third, again the film versus digital debate. What crap.....The Smithsonian has underwater images blown up bigger than a human being showing great detail in a recent exhibit. All digital amigos....
Alcina is 110% correct it's about getting a decent exposure, learning even modest post processing skills on a computer and using decent paper if printing in your home or sending it to a decent digital familiar lab. If you think a film print versus a decent digital looks better try a different printer or take a printing class from digital files at your local community college.
Finally, old technology in some things may have been over built, simple, etc. But it certainly wasn't better......At least not photographically speaking. As one well know DIGITAL underwater photographer who was asked about the case he was carrying marked " Kodak Kodachrome Film" : "What is "film"?
He replied: "It is an extinct technology somewhere between cave painting and digital imaging"
YMMV
dhaas
One, I sold Leigh Bishop a nice STROMM 6" dome port optically matched to a Nikon 20mm lens many moons ago. He used it on a smaller SLR rig he would shoot side by side with the larger format film camera he was doing these time exposures on those deep wrecks.
Second, TRI-X, PAN-X or anything pushed to ISO3200 or the Agfa Scala film would produce that grain everyone seems to think is so objectionable in other underwater photographs. So will digital images shot at high ISO. Usually everyone complains about it, but here it is is great? LOL......
His images do certainly have a mood shown by very few UW photographers and I think they are very well done. But it isn't rocket science.
High ISO, meter the lower portion you want detail in, don't include too much brighter ambient light to blow out your top frame and put the damn thing on a tripod. Easily achievable with a digital SLR and low noise sensor and junior high school post processing. Many new dSLR models under $700 have great capability at ISO 1600 and more. I routinely shoot ISO 800 in dim pools with flash and the photos look great.
Third, again the film versus digital debate. What crap.....The Smithsonian has underwater images blown up bigger than a human being showing great detail in a recent exhibit. All digital amigos....
Alcina is 110% correct it's about getting a decent exposure, learning even modest post processing skills on a computer and using decent paper if printing in your home or sending it to a decent digital familiar lab. If you think a film print versus a decent digital looks better try a different printer or take a printing class from digital files at your local community college.
Finally, old technology in some things may have been over built, simple, etc. But it certainly wasn't better......At least not photographically speaking. As one well know DIGITAL underwater photographer who was asked about the case he was carrying marked " Kodak Kodachrome Film" : "What is "film"?
He replied: "It is an extinct technology somewhere between cave painting and digital imaging"
YMMV
dhaas
SPG3K
Contributor
This thread cracks me up.......Here's why.....
One, I sold Leigh Bishop a nice STROMM 6" dome port optically matched to a Nikon 20mm lens many moons ago. He used it on a smaller SLR rig he would shoot side by side with the larger format film camera he was doing these time exposures on those deep wrecks.
Second, TRI-X, PAN-X or anything pushed to ISO3200 or the Agfa Scala film would produce that grain everyone seems to think is so objectionable in other underwater photographs. So will digital images shot at high ISO. Usually everyone complains about it, but here it is is great? LOL......
His images do certainly have a mood shown by very few UW photographers and I think they are very well done. But it isn't rocket science.
High ISO, meter the lower portion you want detail in, don't include too much brighter ambient light to blow out your top frame and put the damn thing on a tripod. Easily achievable with a digital SLR and low noise sensor and junior high school post processing. Many new dSLR models under $700 have great capability at ISO 1600 and more. I routinely shoot ISO 800 in dim pools with flash and the photos look great.
Third, again the film versus digital debate. What crap.....The Smithsonian has underwater images blown up bigger than a human being showing great detail in a recent exhibit. All digital amigos....
Alcina is 110% correct it's about getting a decent exposure, learning even modest post processing skills on a computer and using decent paper if printing in your home or sending it to a decent digital familiar lab. If you think a film print versus a decent digital looks better try a different printer or take a printing class from digital files at your local community college.
Finally, old technology in some things may have been over built, simple, etc. But it certainly wasn't better......At least not photographically speaking. As one well know DIGITAL underwater photographer who was asked about the case he was carrying marked " Kodak Kodachrome Film" : "What is "film"?
He replied: "It is an extinct technology somewhere between cave painting and digital imaging"
YMMV
dhaas
So you are going to sit here and tell me that CCD "noise" produces the exact same results as TRI-X's feasible grainy-ness? Are you really serious when you say that? You can't look at the two and easily distinguish which one was "noise" and which one was a result of the film? I'm probably not half the photographer you are, and I can tell easily, like I said earlier, especially if I can hold the pictures in paper in front of me.
No one is debating that digital SLR's take good pictures. And if you read my last post, I said the two technologies are different - not that one is better or worse.
I also said that I don't think digital will outclass film - which it has not. No matter what, if you ask any professional or lifetime photographer they will tell you that there are certain things film cameras can do that digital cannot. And visa versa.
Will the digital cameras eventually win out to the point that having a film camera is like having a computer running Windows 98? No, but thats my personal opinion.
You can parade the merits of digital cameras all day long. I've shot both, I've shot the best of both, and I don't believe digital has won the battle by the landslide you would make it out to be.
No one is debating the ease of shooting 4gb worth of pictures, and it certainly entitles you to get better chances at "the" shot you want.
But unlike cars or computers or cell phones, film camera IMAGING technology is simply not inferior just because it's not cutting edge. And the biggest problem is again, what I posted last.
The convenience and ease of digital is a large contributor to posts like yours. Subconsciously at best, wittingly at worst. Of course it's easier to get a "better" shot with digital, with some cameras you have 500+ chances to not screw up your settings.
Thats a lot better odds than 36 in which you can't correct from a previous mistake.
Similar threads
