A general observation about digital underwater???

I have spent the better part of the last six months learning my G2 and housing for my upcoming trip, and studying all the fine work posted to this site and others.

I wanna run something bye this group for opinions. It seems to me, that digital photography underwater, when you hit one, simply blows away a lot of what I used to be able to do with film. Colours and images are simply incredible in a lot of the shots I have seen.

On the other hand, it also looks like mistakes in lighting, exposure and the like are magnified in digital imaging. I know from shooting digital on land how unforgiving the medium is for overexpsoures, but it seems to me that when U/W the "mistakes" we all make when we are trying to capture a shot are magnified when shot in digital format.

I don't really have specific shots in mind, its just a general overall observation from looking at 1000's of images lately. For the people that have shot a lot of digital underwater, is my observation correct, or have I just looke at too many images over the past six months

Also no real reason for posting this, I just was curious as to what you think.

That's interesting. I never shot much film but I thoroughly enjoy uw digital. I've always thought precisely the opposite of your statement. I think that digital allows us to get much better "average" shots, but in the rare instance that you get that perfect image - you'll wish it was on film, with its superb resolution and color. Otherwise, I would think, more pros would be shooting digital.

The primary advantages of digital are - instant feedback, ease of manipulation, ability to process at home for those of us without room for a darkroom. Image quality, color, and resolution are still inferior to film.

I agree with you on the advantages Kasey. There is no doubt the shoot/review/adjust/shoot again feature is priceless.

I am not sure that I agree about image quality. Digital is less forgiving in terms of dynamic range and latitiude than even slide film from my observations so far. Therefore, when you miss a bit, it pops up strongly on a digital image. Specially on the highlights!

But once you hit it, I think its as good if not better than the velvia I used to shoot. I say this from land shooting, simply becuase i have yet to get my digi underwater

Maybe its exactly because we can shoot a lot more images than film, and as a result, you have better odds of really nailing one than with film.

I think the reason most pros are not shooting digital so far is simple image resolution for enlargements and until recently shutter lag. Look at James, correct me if I am wrong, but I think he indicated hes moving to almost pure digital with his d60.

Its only a matter of time......it was only a year or so ago that there were really no viable options for digital high end SLRs.

But as I think about it, I am probably backwards from traditional thingking.....lol what else is new!

You know I think that's ironic Kasey. I think the opposite about the media.

I never see one of my digital pix and say "Man, I wish that were on film instead."

But I have BOXES of slides that I constantly find myself saying "Shoot, I wish I had a scan of this."

I'm not sure if I can compare the two based on "color" and "impact" though. It's more of a comparison about how I USE my images.

Cheers,

James

Don't you think that the ceiling is higher for film, meaning the potential value of a great shot. The resolution of even a 5 or 6 megapixel camera is still limited compared to film, and thus the potential for cropping and poster sized enlargements are similarly limited.

A slide can always be scanned to film, and in doing so retains a much higher image resolution than possible in todays digicams.

Don't get me wrong, I will never go underwater with a film camera, but I certainly see the advantages to those who do. I envy the warmth of photos captured on film, and I know that the forthcoming improvements in digital cameras will continue to close in, and perhaps someday surpass film.

For me, the instant feedback of digital cameras, and the ability to delete and shoot again outweigh the "quality" advantage of film. Just as I envy the resolution, color, and impact of film, I'm sure that a film photographer would envy the ability to confirm optimal exposure and composition while underwater.

No argument or doubt that film can maintain image quality better than a digital, although not by much if one knows what they are doing when they rez up.

My comment was more geared towards the "look" of a normal sized print or screen view. I know its backwards from what we were taught, but it sure seems to me the great digi's are knockouts!

I've been shooting digital u/w for about 3 years since the first 1M cameras came out and I love it. I've not had any experience with film except disposable when snorkelling.

I think digital still has a little way to go to match the BEST film pictures the 8 bit dynamic range can still be a bit of a limitation, I'm yet to see digital match some of the best slide macro images.

BUT for me digital is the waay to go. After a trip I load up my PCs the the pictures and run them thru my screen saver at work and home, its a great way to relive the trip and much better than collecting boxes of prints that need the dust blowing off them on the rare occasion I look at them.

The best pictures I've prinited out look pretty good to me and I'm sure I couln't have done any better with film - the defficiencies are with my ability as a photgrapher, not the medium!

--Nick--

Hi guys.

I agree with Bob, in that digital is even less forgiving than slides, on exposure.

Almost the slightest over exposure, can really render a shot unacceptable. I often find myself shooting in A, matrix mode, with ambient exposure comp down by a third, and flash comp often down by 1-2 whole stops. The matrix metering in the G2 is not as smart as it was in my n90s. But it seems very predictable, and compensating for it, with exposure comp, or just with pointing the cam at the brightness area, which I want it to expose for, then half pressing the shutter...

I agree that a good digital cam photo, on a monitor, is as pleasing or more, than what you typically get with film.

The 8 bit modes limits the detail in the highlights and shadows, as compared to film.

This is one of the reasons I shoot raw with the G2. But it is still only about 9.5 bits of real signal there. Still not enough to cover the dynamic range of bright to dark in film.

So, lighting becomes more important.

I thought about this this weekend as I continue to scan slides in from my trip to the Galapagos last month. Nowadays, the easiest way to share slides is to digitize them and send them out to people electronically. However, I really didn't want to spend the money to get a slide scanner that would handle bulk loading and have a dynamic range enough to get more of the information (especially shadow detail) that are in good slides. So, I am now scanning four slides into Photoshop at a time and then saving them after a quick 1st pass at the ones that are really dark, etc. Sure, a digital camera will not have the absolute resolution of my slides (shot on Velvia or Fuji Provia 100F), but the images from a digital SLR would sure beat the pants off the ones I've got after scanning a slide. If I were selling big prints, I wouldn't be nearly ready to go all digital. But I tell you what - next weekend, the local Canon rep will be at my camera store. I'll be there playing with that D60 -- even if I can't afford to house it yet, it would sure help me out topside (espcially in places like the Galapagos). I think I'm better off going that way than continuing to pay a couple hundred bucks for developing after each trip and spending over $1000 on a new scanner. As for showing them on a screen, two things:

1. Slides are the wrong aspect ratio and have to be cropped (after scanning them in) to avoid blank monitor space.

2. You will lose information scanning them in.

So far, I've been able to live with it, but I've got some pretty decent topside shots from the Galapagos and just can't get my scans to look as good as I'd like (most notably the black eyes on the black heads of the frigate birds). The good news is that when you downsize to 640x480 or 800x600 for presentation or online purposes, almost anything can be made to look decent (except for missing shadow detail).

Mike

Well, I am exactly 28 days away from getting first hand experience on this in the Coco's (Isn't this about the coolest place in the world to go, and the worst place to try digital for the first time

If I am right, I think I will end up with a ton of pure crap shots (which is really nothing unusual) a few really nice shots, and not a lot in-between.

Wish me luck!!!!

Hammerheads coming soon. we hope :D:P:o

Good luck! Hope you have better vis than I had in the Galapagos! BTW, what equipment were you using for the shots already on your website, NikV?

Mike

The Fiji and Cayman shots were with a Canon Elan II and Ikelite housing/200 Strobe.

The Saba shots were with a Nikonos V/Sb105.

If i can get shots underwater as nice as I have gotten topside with my G2, I know I will be a happy camper, despite the fact that my D60 sits at home crying to go on the trip with me

cheers,

bob