Jump to content

TimG

Super Moderators

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    United Kingdom
View Profile Find content

Posts posted by TimG

    56 minutes ago, aquabluedreams said:

    Ahhhh, I feel better now, I am not the only borderline image hoarder, lol. Probably need to update my storage to ssd.

    Off subject how do you get a link to your website or youtube page to show in your signature?

    If you go into your profile then Account Setting and click on the Signature tab.... you can then create up to ?3 lines of text.

    • Like 1

    I reckon I take 80-100 images on a dive. Yep, after 25+ years, super ruthless. If it’s not a 3-4 star, it’s a delete. That probably gets down to 30-40% of the trip’s images.

    I usually do a second review about 72 hours after that cull and another batch will go to digital Valhalla. I now aim to end up with maybe 15-20images from a dive. Any doubts at all and it’s au revoir.

    What’s left is keyworded and filed by year and date all in Lightroom. This adds up now to about 55,000 images, almost 2TB. The catalog is on an SSD with a backup to a NAS and two backups to external hard disks.

    I did tackle the film images - slides - but foolishly scanned them as not very large jpgs. I should have done much higher quality or, better, TIFFs. I can’t face the rescan job!

    Ruthless. Why keep so-so? Are you really going to look back at them?

    • Like 3

    54 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

    Hi Tim,

    I am currently using version 6.1.4.22653. The icons for LRc became worse (ambivalent symbols for the potentiometers, e.g. for adjusting temperture, tint, heigths etc.. etc.. even without text explanation). Furthermore at present I am not able to assign user presets (e.g for my new Tamron 35-150mm f/2-f/2.8, that I use over the water) to buttons of my Loupedeck CT (maybe the next software upgrade may solve this problem)...

    See the embedded screenshot for what I mean with ambivalent symbols for potentiometers:

    Screenshot 2025-07-01 at 13.54.10.png

    Since long I gave up complaining at the user service - I think this is just lost time...☹️

    Ooooof, thanks for that, Wolfgang. I'm still on v5.9.x which has then old icons. I might stay with that!

    I’ve banged on about this many times….. so here goes again.

    FF, topside? Why not? There’s no real reason I can think of NOT to get an FF camera.

    However, underwater? It’s a different story. As Chris, Davide and David have all set out in different ways, non-FF systems can have real advantages. And I agree with Davide that we are seduced by camera manufacturers that if you’re not using FF, you’ve got less of a system.

    It boils down to what you plan to do with the images. Serious commercial sales? Massive prints? Then maybe FF. But for screen size images (including sales) and prints up to A2, sub-FF can work perfectly and you can’t tell the difference. The plus points: less expensive, less bulky, easier for travelling, usually easier to house the wide-angle lenses, easier DOF with macro…..

    Yep, back in the early-2010s I was seduced by the FF marketing and housed a D800. When it was time to move on I switched in 2017 back to the APSC D500 and haven’t regretted it for a second. Never had a moment’s Buyer’s Regret. Talking to Z8 users, I’m sticking with a D500 until Nikon comes up with a high-end mirrorless APSC.

    There. Said it. I feel better 🙃

    • Like 4

    Hey stiebs

    Urgh, that’s pretty upsetting.

    Good suggestion from Dave.

    Although it might not feel like it at the moment, the mark isn’t that large. It’s not in a great location admittedly, but using something like LR you should be able to remove it successfully from many images.

    If polishing doesn’t remove it, and depending on repair costs from Nauticam, I’d be tempted to continue to use it with edits and see how you get on. Then decide what to do.

    • Like 2

    I've switched over the years between fisheye (Sigma 15mm, Tokina 10-17) and a lens similar to the 17-28 (Nikkor 16-35). I always find I prefer the fisheye. So much easier to house, small dome, smaller for travelling, excellent DOF, easy to focus.

    I find it rare that the fisheye distortion is overwhelming or a problem in the vast majority of UW pics.

    • Like 4

    Hey Christoph

    Given where you are coming from and the equipment you already have, I can totally understand your lens choices. Just a couple of things to bear in mind, Id suggest:

    Unless you are using wet lens attachments, largely driven by Nauticam, the lens choices for u/w tend to be extreme: fisheyes (15mm for FF, 10-15mm with APS-C sensors), extreme wide-angle rectilinear; then macro - typically 105mm with an FF sensor. The reason being that you want to minimise the amount of water between the camera and the subject. This can be trickier with mid-range type zooms.

    Forgive me if I'm reciting something of which you are fully aware, but I thought it worth a mention in terms of longer-term planning of lens choices and equipment.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

    1 hour ago, Christian K said:

    Yes. Was looking into getting a second hand D500, since I come from D200 and D300. Already have lenses. But … I am now set on wet optics after some research. So a Nauticam housing. Looked at the little housing for the new DX z50II, but it has no viewfinder which might be a deal breaker for me. So tbh FF in itself not what I was looking for necessarily. But I’m more and more likely going to go that route. Have been looking at size/weight which is a concern and important to me and none of those mirrorless (z6 or 7+nauticam) FF set-ups seem to be bulkier and heavier than what I have been schlepping around for years. Already have strobes, cables … but am stretching my budget … yes.

    Yeah, can understand your thinking for sure - and those wet optics sounds pretty cool and they point to Nauticam.

    If you're likely heading down the Z6/Z7 route, I'd suggest a close look at the Z8. I was diving with a serious u/w photog recently who had switched to one (in a Subal housing but, urgh, with a 230 dome) and he was happy with it. It's the latest technology, as opposed to the Z7II, and has the larger file size than the Z6III (if you're going All In, go All In!). But, yeah, budget stretch.......

    • Like 2

    Hi Kristian

    Chris and Dave make some excellent points. Given the total cost/weight of an FF package with all the bits and pieces, the additional cost and weight difference between the Z6III and a Z8 becomes negligible. Both packages are big beasts.

    Chris makes the point about what you plan to do with the images. I agree with him whole-heartedly that FF is not necessary underwater unless you are planning to produce very big prints or serious high-end commercial sales. I had a Nikon FF system (D800), really got fed up travelling with huge amounts of bulky gear (and the complaints from my partner whose baggage allowances was also being swallowed up) and switched back to APS-C and the D500.

    That was 8 years ago and I'm still using and loving it. There is no way that the old technology is limiting me. I sell loads of images - as Chris writes - as JPEGs. It is much easier for travelling although there is still significant bulk. I don't regret the system downgrade (?) for an instant. And I admit to being a lover of the latest shiny toys. (I've got a Z9 and Z6III for topside)

    I do think though that there is one important point the guys havn't mentioned and that is "desire"! Beware of Buyer's Regret. I'd suggest the last thing you want is to spend, say, $12k and after 6 months start to regret that you didn't spend $15k and get the system you really hankered for. Been there, done that. If cost is not the deciding factor, think about what would really give you the most pleasure to own and use. If its an FF system with all the bells and whistles and you understand the downsides, then why not......

    Good luck with the choice. Not easy for sure.

    • Like 2

Important Information

Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Configure browser push notifications
Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.