39mp underwater

I'm coming in from the "lab rat" side, where image quality -- and reproducing it -- is king; and photographers & commercial photo labs spend tens of thousands of dollars for improvements... As Troy has done.

So, if I read you right, you place photo composition ahead of image quality? That is a legitimate "philosophy" -- And one that I was not made aware until now with respect to UW shooting... Thank you for pointing this out!

 

 

I think that holds true in any photography. (At least for me) Of course there is going to be a point where image quality will not be enough to carry a photo, but when people look at a photograph hanging on a wall 5 feet away unless the quality is horrible or readily noticeable the first thing will be the overall composition. (Again for me.)

So, if I read you right, you place photo composition ahead of image quality? That is a legitimate "philosophy" -- And one that I was not made aware until now with respect to UW shooting... Thank you for pointing this out!

I would not say ahead of image quality, but given overall acceptable or very good image quality, other issues may tip the balance in favor of smaller frame DSLR's.

Hello Loftus,

 

I can appreciate that Loftus. I think your two factual points concerning the two extreme ends have been accepted already. These are the limitations that I am willing to accept. For the H-series, Hasselblad came out with a 50mm wide first, then the 35mm wide and now the 28mm utilizing the full frame of the sensor. On the horizon there could be something wider.

 

To date, I have yet to fully test and fully experience my set-up. I know I can't shoot super macro to fill the entire frame with, or super wide say 10mm or even fisheye (yet the Zeiss fisheye is available using an adapter and getting a new port for it) to get more in the frame at closer distances. But in between these extremes (mid- macro at 30mmx55mm frame sizes (give or take afew mm's) and 22mm equivilant wide shots are plenty to work with.

 

Sincerely Loftus, If you think all shots within these limitations have already been done in 35mm format and there's simply no room for something new, then you might as well say that is also true for the extreme ends as well. Beyond equipment there must be other variables to be put in the equation for that stellar image, that when everyone sees says, "No way, that image can't be real, it's just to fantastic!" Even to do great images similar to what you have seen that you can call your own is everyon's desire. As for me, to have images that are breathtaking in image quality that has been seen before but only in web file size (which can hide a lot) would be enough for me. I firmly believe the H3D will serve me well to create a gallery that would sell in large print format and one day do a book.

 

So, can someone provide a super macro shot and crop tight on the critter 100% to show image quality. Remember crop 8x12 @72dpi which should result within file size restrictions here at Wetpixel. Then lets look at the results properly. Also someone using 10mm with a subject very close to port along with a diver or something else filling up the frame to the edge. Doing 100% crops at sides, top and bottom, will we see distortions that are hidden in 8x10's and revealed in 30x40's ? Let's find out so we can see if the increased lens options provide large format printing solutions up to 30x40 in size.

 

My requests cannot be found on this website.

 

Thanks for your continued interest one and all,

Lets keep going and I will post new images weather permitting.

 

Troy

Troy, let's just say that equipment can expand your creative abilities, as well as limit them. I am not trying to get an argument going all over again. I think we all know that your rig can produce image quality as good or better than any other presently available underwater system.

Unfortunately everyone, from expert photographers to lay people, are supersaturated with images, it's the reality of our age. Even I can now produce occasional images, that 20 years ago, only very skilled photographers could produce. Historically, let's say 50 years ago, most people had never even seen an underwater photograph. Just to see a snapshot of a fish, was a new experience. Now almost everyone has seen just about everything from a guppy to a whaleshark, so it is much more of a challenge for photographers to do something different underwater. I am not a professional photographer, but every professional I have spoken to has expressed the sentiment that it is now much more difficult for them to separate themselves from the amateurs.

Given that reasonable image quality is now available to the masses, whether it is through camera systems or post-processing, image quality is now pretty much a given, and other issues that pertain to the creativity of the photographer have become more and more important. Being able to present a different perspective, which in many cases is driven by use of different lens combinations etc, I think has taken a priority over being able to produce high quality images, simply because the image quality component of the photo taking process is now more easily achievable.

You yourself have said somewhere in this thread that only a very small percentage of people, essentially knowledgeable photographers, will be able to appreciate the difference in image quality between the different formats.

Okay, I know I digress, I still am very keen to see what you can do.

Troy, I will quote you even though you've done it yourself:

crazy detail and colour reproduction (raw file 55mp/tiff file 225mp)

camera can produce 5ft.x8ft. prints (16bit through colorbyte rip)

with no loss of quality on Epson 9800 printer.

looks like film w/o the grain

Those are spec sheet claims. I could make the same for a 1Ds2 or a D2X. It's just marketing hyperbole. The file sizes are meaningless except to stupid people who measure "quality" that way.

 

My u/w set-up cost was 13K, not "TENS OF THOUSANDS". This was an equal amount quoted to me to take my 1ds u/w of par quality.

Your housing may have been 13K, or perhaps your housing and ports, but your body is 35K and your lenses are 3-4x the cost of comparable lenses as well. "tens of thousands" is not an inaccurate description of what your rig costs.

 

Please don't discourage others from posting 35mm format images to further this thread.

I have never done this.

 

I have seen and researched the 35 u/w for a few years now and in fact took my own 1ds u/w.

Then why do you need others to show you what it can do?

 

I have also seen first hand 35mm u/w prints and most of them look too digital for me. ... Also I prefer ccd over cmos.

More examples of faith-based advocacy. These are the notions you cling to, and these are the kinds of statements that continue to elicit reaction from me. I don't believe in magic nor am I a member of any photographic cult whether full frame, MF, Canon "L", or anything else. This equipment should be considered on real merit, not imagined. I'm perfectly happy to discuss the real merits of an H3D, it's you and Dan that aren't.

 

Again,you seem to be making yet another excuse to not post any of your own illustrations to practically demonstate your points....

Will you or will you not post an image Craig? I would greately appreciate that. If not, then something is wrong with this "picture"

I've already explained that twice already. This is a thread about the H3D, so posting images from unrelated cameras is "unrelated". It's not an excuse, just your way of doing to me what you accuse me of doing to you. Not once have been able to defend a position I've challenged you on, but instead you challenge my motivations. Your "dirty pool" isn't increasing my motivation to participate in the manner you choose, nor is your condescending attitude.

You are the first to present a cogent argument about the "scene" in UW photography, and lens choice... And your point is well taken.

What!?!

 

I'm coming in from the "lab rat" side, where image quality -- and reproducing it -- is king; and photographers & commercial photo labs spend tens of thousands of dollars for improvements... As Troy has done.

Careful! Troy takes exception to that.

 

So, if I read you right, you place photo composition ahead of image quality?

What!?!

 

Dan, this is the worst kind of garbage. Nothing in loftus's post suggested any priority regarding image quality. The first part of image quality is the ability to get the image at all. Lens choice is what we are all harping on here. If you are unable to realize that lens choice is about getting the composition you want then it's your failure. We require composition AND image quality, unlike you who advocates heavy cropping to achieve your macro composition.

Good morning Loftus,

 

No argument here, you post with respect void of any hint of contention. Your points are well received and accepted. My goal is to produce large quality prints within the mf limitations. That's it. When and if mf goes wider and closer, then great, I look forward to it. For now, I would not be able to exhaust the potential of my set-up for years to come. When I come across or anticipate a well composed shot, I want to be with my mf. That's it. One year from now, God willing, if I have captured high quality u/w images that are selling, then I have acheived my goal.

 

Have you found those images yet?

 

All the best to you Loftus,

 

Troy.

Hello Craig,

 

This is in fact what you said-

 

If it were my company, I might have to fire someone who spent 10s of thousands to custom house a $35K studio body without first researching what a system at 1/4 the price was capable of.

 

 

Again you twist the truth regarding what I said. I DID NOT SPEND 10'S OF THOUSANDS TO HOUSE MY 35K CAMERA. My H1 was procured by 1 single job, in fact if you really want to know, I was loaned the H1 by my dealer for a weekend and the resulting images were sold and I turned right around and bought the camera. All upgrades to date to the H3D was from profit gravy. from my second dive, I have already begun to make some profit to go towards paying for my housing.

 

You see Craig, until you post some of your own images created from the extreme ends showing crops, then our back and forth posts of defending ourselves will continue bear no good fruit.

 

Take care,

Troy

Troy, I will quote you even though you've done it yourself:

 

Those are spec sheet claims. I could make the same for a 1Ds2 or a D2X. It's just marketing hyperbole. The file sizes are meaningless except to stupid people who measure "quality" that way.

Your housing may have been 13K, or perhaps your housing and ports, but your body is 35K and your lenses are 3-4x the cost of comparable lenses as well. "tens of thousands" is not an inaccurate description of what your rig costs.

 

I have never done this.

Then why do you need others to show you what it can do?

More examples of faith-based advocacy. These are the notions you cling to, and these are the kinds of statements that continue to elicit reaction from me. I don't believe in magic nor am I a member of any photographic cult whether full frame, MF, Canon "L", or anything else. This equipment should be considered on real merit, not imagined. I'm perfectly happy to discuss the real merits of an H3D, it's you and Dan that aren't.

I've already explained that twice already. This is a thread about the H3D, so posting images from unrelated cameras is "unrelated". It's not an excuse, just your way of doing to me what you accuse me of doing to you. Not once have been able to defend a position I've challenged you on, but instead you challenge my motivations. Your "dirty pool" isn't increasing my motivation to participate in the manner you choose, nor is your condescending attitude.

 

Oh! my, my, my ,my, my, my,

 

All posts that I have done are from personal and practical experience to share with others who would like to know.

 

To know something is understood by some to simply memorize knowledge. And there are those who prefer to apply that knowledge to gain a deeper understanding. If people always looked at their limitations, they would cripple themselves to do nothing. How many people in history have done and created beautiful and incredible things with unfair limitations or resources.

 

I WISH YOU WELL CRAIG.

 

Until you post some of your own examples, I will not post a response to you. I think this would be best for all.

 

Sincerely

Troy

What the hell is happening to WetPixel? The thing that always impressed me about this site was the great input to be found here, but lately it just seems to be "flame central".

 

We don't need all this negativiity. As my son keeps telling me - build a bridge, get over it....

Again you twist the truth regarding what I said. I DID NOT SPEND 10'S OF THOUSANDS TO HOUSE MY 35K CAMERA. My H1 was procured by 1 single job, in fact if you really want to know, I was loaned the H1 by my dealer for a weekend and the resulting images were sold and I turned right around and bought the camera. All upgrades to date to the H3D was from profit gravy. from my second dive, I have already begun to make some profit to go towards paying for my housing.

So because a single job paid for your camera you didn't spend it? Your rig didn't, in fact, cost $50K+ because you paid for it so easily? I'm twisting the truth? Let's throw the facts on the table, Troy. Housing a 1Ds2 will cost roughly $20K including appropriate lenses. Your rig, including only two, very limited lenses, ran you apparently $55K. Those would be advertised prices, anyway.

 

It's good that money and customers come so easily to you, Troy. Think how much more profitable your images would be if the equipment costs were lower and capabilities higher. Not that I expect that you will ever acknowledge that...

 

You see Craig, until you post some of your own images created from the extreme ends showing crops, then our back and forth posts of defending ourselves will continue bear no good fruit.

...

Until you post some of your own examples, I will not post a response to you. I think this would be best for all.

Who says this discussion isn't bearing good fruit?

 

One year from now, God willing, if I have captured high quality u/w images that are selling, then I have acheived my goal.

God told me he shoots Canon. He also edits on a Mac, but everyone knows that.

Hi Don,

 

You're certainly got a point there. Wetpixel (this thread in particular) wasn't like this until just a few weeks ago. Ask yourself what changed?

 

It's been sort of a quandry for us as we don't like to censor people.

 

Cheers

James

Hello everyone,

 

I just found a link to super macro shots done with 35mm format-

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/timothytan/se...57602669118336/

 

If you go to this site and click on the enlarge icon to the top of the image you will see the 100% size of the image. All images look great small but when they get a little bigger I see alot of limitations coming into practical view. Would this be a good representation of what one should expect when being able to get the shot by what only a 35mm can get? These are the types of shots that I have seen in dive magazines and on the internet. And usually very small. Very, very few shots have I seen got it just right. Is it realistic to say that this extreme end of macro shooting can be acheived by a good experienced photographer?

 

Now weighing out the pros and cons by seeing the resulting images from both formats would show what actually can be acheived. I think as I post more macro shots at my most extreme end, we can learn how both formats differ and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As far as I can see for now, I would rather shoot a macro critter further away, crop it and get a sharp vivid colored image to print on a 16x20 rather than having the ability to get closer and not print any of the image to a decent 16x20.

 

Being that I am the only one with a digital mf u/w on this site, I am completely outnumbered. Nevertheless, I ask that we proceed to a better understanding between both formats in a friendly manner. I hope to have more examples soon as weather and time permit.

 

Respectfully,

Troy

That's a broken link. Hard to tell what images you are referring to.

 

The recent images there are taken with a D200, an excellent 10MP DX sensor camera. There are higher resolution 35mm cameras available, though. The D200 is to the 1Ds3, resolution-wise and sensor size-wise, as the 1Ds3 is to the H3D. Also, the shots seem to be taken with either a 60mm or 105mm. These are the bread and butter lenses for 35mm, not particularly "super-macro".

 

I'm not seeing anywhere where 100% crops are available either. The original sizes of these are what the photographer originally uploaded i.e. 1280 in the largest dimension. They are also web-processed jpegs. I'm sure the photographer has higher quality versions of these images.

 

So, no, I wouldn't think these Flickr samples should be considered representative of the best capability 35mm can do. I'm confident that a photo pro, especially a medium format one, would know better than to critically judge images based on 1280-pixel Flickr samples.

 

What is the resolution required to print a "decent 16x20"? A D200 can do it at 200dpi but that assumes that no cropping is done at all.

 

I would rather shoot a macro critter further away, crop it and get a sharp vivid colored image to print on a 16x20 rather than having the ability to get closer and not print any of the image to a decent 16x20.

Fortunately, 35mm doesn't force you to make this choice. With 35mm you can achieve far better magnification at longer working distances than the H3D + 120mm offers. It is the H3D that is forced to "get closer" to shoot subjects, not 35mm. I seriously don't understand your struggle with this, Troy.

Troy,

 

The "website digester" munged the URL you posted

 

Try using the "link" tool (the globe & chain link) to format the URL properly...

 

Else Craig will jump down your throat!

 

Hello everyone,

 

I just found a link to super macro shots done with 35mm format-

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/timothytan/se...57602669118336/

Hi Don,

 

You're certainly got a point there. Wetpixel (this thread in particular) wasn't like this until just a few weeks ago. Ask yourself what changed?

 

It's been sort of a quandry for us as we don't like to censor people.

Exactly.

 

We are going to have to take more extreme measures if these threads continue to be unproductive. We have already warned Dan Schwartz that we will delete any post of his that tries to pull a thread off topic, but now there are pissing contests going on that are pissing everyone off.

 

If this continues, I am going to lock the thread. I don't care how much information and misinformation there is being flung around about underwater medium format here; this thread isn't worth bringing down Wetpixel's culture.

 

So please -- think before you post again. This includes everyone involved.

 

Troy,

 

The "website digester" munged the URL you posted

 

Try using the "link" tool (the globe & chain link) to format the URL properly...

 

Else Craig will jump down your throat!

 

This is the kind of post that I'm not sure what to do with. You're trying to point out a problem and suggest a solution, but you are wrong about how to fix it.

 

The "website digester" whatever you think that is, does not mess up the link itself. All it does is reduce the text of the link. If you click through the original place Troy found the link, it will work. Paste a proper link as text into the post, and it does the right thing. But the original URL is what must be copied, which can be done by right/control clicking on the link and copying the link address, or by clicking through and copying it from the address bar at the top of the browser.

 

Now you have forced me to interject an off-topic post. Argh.

I just found a link to super macro shots done with 35mm format

 

(Edited by moderator to reduce quoting -- Troy, please quote responsibly to keep the conversation flow going)

 

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/timothytan/se...57602669118336/

 

Here is the direct link

hi Troy, that link you posted only contains 1280x857 pixel images. That means the poster took his originals, changed the size, possibly even cropped them, converted them to jpg, and then uploaded them to flickr, which may or may not have done something to them as well. They are completely unusable as a reference for any type of comparison because you have no idea what exactly has been done with these images.

 

I think the macro shot you posted holds great detail, maybe even better than SLRs can get at this point, although I will not get into that religious discussion. What matters more than anything else is the skill and eye of the photographer. An amazing action shot that is sharp and detailed enough, will win any time from a boring, but even sharper, image.

 

I think it's pretty obvious by now that the people that have been doing this for many years are almost all using SLRs. That must tell you something. It means that SLRs are good enough for what is being asked of them, and are economically sound. You may have made enough money from 1 shoot to recoup your MF camera, almost no one else will. As a photographer you have to balance cost and income, like any other business, and MF cameras are just not good performers in that area.

 

I really hope everyone can stop all this number madness. It is of no use in the real world. Who sits around at home number crunching their lenses and cameras and applying quantum functions to them based on if a cat is visible or not if you remove the lens cap. Most likely people that dont actually take photos with their cameras. Go and take photos and be happy with what you have, and make the best of its capabilities.

 

Cor

Troy all those Macro (and some close-up, i definately wouldn't call any of them super-macro) shots were taken with a D200 and then resized by Flickr for the web. They have been downsized to about 33%. Now without commenting on the photographers ability himself if you were to shoot super macro .. which I have only tried a few times, it is A LOT harder than the shots I saw in that persons set on Flickr.

I don't know what comes from a 120mm lens on a MF camera but I am guessing it is not super macro, perhaps macro. Would it not return the same closeness as a 100mm macro lense on a Canon 20d for example ? (yes I understand you would have more pixels on the MF but I am talking about the actual image I am guessing the MF would not focus any closer perhaps worse so.)

The benefit I would assume with a MF is that you don't have to be as close as you can Crop the image (and if we take the given example of the diver (with stitching on his BCD we saw the 100% crop of) cropping would not be a bad thing as the edges as pointed out do look soft so why bother keeping them.

 

This then brings around the point if you are shooting with a MF camera that costs twice as much as a regular dSLR whats the point when you have to crop the image to end up with the same closeness and eliminate the soft edges of the photo ?

 

edit note .. just looked again at Troys Macro (close up) shot of a Flamingo tongue... is that really as close as you can get I know you said extreme end of mid macro .. but I would love to see an image of yours where it is uncropped and as close as you can get to a subject.

Good morning Giles,

 

Thanks for your response. I know it's a bit lengthy but, if you go back in this thread you will have your comments and questions answered. Caymen must be nice. What would be the best month to dive there?

 

This then brings around the point if you are shooting with a MF camera that costs twice as much as a regular dSLR whats the point when you have to crop the image to end up with the same closeness and eliminate the soft edges of the photo ?

 

My point is it just might be possible to get a sharper image where the colors don't smudge together as much for larger printing.

 

Thanks Giles,

Troy