4x5 large format underwater photography?

Loads of good information on underwater 4x5 here

Its worth having a read though the forum if your at all interested in this question

Large format underwater examples - http://tungsten.net.au/-Underwater-Polaroids-.html

Incredible

If you can get an image exposed, the result will be more about "feel" than image quality I expect.

Image quality-wise, the odds stacking up against you (mostly mentioned already) are many and varied and each will contribute to degrade the image.

Those Polaroids are very nice. It's a good approach, as there is no enlargement of the image to show up the flaws.

I'm not discouraging you, just suggesting whatever you are planning, keep thinking art as you seem to be, don't confuse that with a quest for critical image quality.

So many good posts - not sure where to start

 

Loftus - "With wide angle on the other hand, the larger formats are more problematic underwater" - why? I figured a P45 (LF digital) with a wide angle lens would be the penultimate underwater system? Large format with all the benefits of digital. Does shooting wide with LF underwater cause some optical problems etc?

 

Jean - Thanks as always for your expertise.

 

 

 

Paul - "I think that loading and using the dark slide might be a real pain - some things are simply not meant to be." - I agree. Theres usually a reason things havent been done before haha

 

 

So as not to start a new thread - heres a rambling of thoughts.

 

If its possible to shoot LF - I want to do it for fine art purposes. Silver gelatin + selenium toned images printed at a huge size. - also this of models not reefs.

 

I want to print big for exhibition purposes. Medium format could be a viable option for this but I imagine that the difference in quality between a medium format (120/220) camera and my nikon d90 will not be so different as to justify the additional expenses / efforts. thoughts? Whereas the quality difference between 4x5 vs my d90 is huge.

 

( I want 2mx2m prints - drum scanned 9000 dpi of the 120 and/or 4x5 film. )

 

But more than that I'm really curious as to the marketability of 4x5 film prints this day in age. I have my first solo exhibition coming up in a few months and I've been working on the marketing for it. I wonder if I shot a few 4x5 pieces (and marketed it correctly) whether the pieces would fetch a much heftier price tag?

 

Cheers

 

Cal

Ask Clyde Butcher about marketability. We just saw some of his prints in 30x40 inches or so and they were stunning. The gallery said they were inkjets (giclee) but the didn't look like any inkjet pics I have seen before. As for the difference between a MF digital back and your D90, I think that the difference is really huge and easily noticeable. I think the 80 MP backs will blow you away if you haven't seen their output. I also think your idea of housing a Graflex is probably right.

Bill

This might interest you - I'm sure that a 'single-shot' version could be built for underwater use - if you are into precision DIY.

http://www.digoliardi.net/sw4x5/index.htm.html

Whilst admitting that 10x8 Polaroids have a quality all of their own, I would like to observe that for 20 years I shot nearly every commission on 10x8 film. Why? Because that was considered normal in the field I was in. However, I was commissioned to shoot some ads for Whiskas catfood and cats are very quick movers. So I nervously shot everything on Hasselbald, worrying all the time that the resulting little 6x6cm trannies might not be of good enough quality. They were printed at 64-sheet poster size (the largest in Europe - don't know about the USA) and were sharp as a whisker!!!

From this I deduced that I had been wasting time and money (there was plenty of it around in those days) shooting on 10x8.

Ask Clyde Butcher about marketability. We just saw some of his prints in 30x40 inches or so and they were stunning. The gallery said they were inkjets (giclee) but the didn't look like any inkjet pics I have seen before. As for the difference between a MF digital back and your D90, I think that the difference is really huge and easily noticeable. I think the 80 MP backs will blow you away if you haven't seen their output. I also think your idea of housing a Graflex is probably right.

 

Bill

Of course we don't know exactly what Cal is up to, , but the fact that one is shooting in a pool or even through water will severely restrict the quality advantage of large format beyond close range shooting. Unless Cal has arranged to to be shooting in the NASA training pool when he is touring the US...

compromise .... ?

aerotechnica?

Fuji GW69?

thanks for the great responses guys!

Darren - Its all about the art and the challenge. Im looking into the Fuji GW69. Also, good luck in the AIPP.

Bill - I meant film medium format not a digital back. I wish I could afford one!!

John - Thanks for the insight.

" Unless Cal has arranged to to be shooting in the NASA training pool when he is touring the US...: - you got me!

Cal, come to think of it I think the GW had a 90mm lens, the GSW a 65mm

They are great cameras. Fujinon lenses are excellent.

and thanks! Big weekend of photography in Sydney coming up!

Why not build an acrylic diving bell (spherical) of the proper radius to match your lens? Put yourself and the camera inside the bell?

Thanks for the great answers guys!

Erick Regnard built a 4x5". I made a fairly different, 5x7" and panorama system at about the same time.

Look here:

http://www.uwphotochat.com/forums/showthre...12415#post12415

That was a fairly tricky and technically involved excercise, but rewarding nevertheless.

This is in regards to large format - 8x10 (film) photography underwater. In 2003 I designed and built an underwater 8x10 camera - not a housed 8x10. There is an article now in the works - B&W Magazine (online) about the camera which is just as sharp underwater as any 8x10 in a studio or out in the field. About not having the ability to shoot many images underwater...that does not matter. One is supposed to scout an underwater location first in order to get the shot one is looking for...not shoot several images then edit later on land. Many fine art galleries will not accept digitally produced images, they want those created from film. This was my reason for building the camera...and perhaps producing them for sale. With this camera, a whole new world has been opened to the large format photographer. The image posted here is a full frame image done of the mermaids at Weeki Wachee Springs, Florida. Note the edges of the 8x10 negative. You can contact me at dstahl5@verizon.net. David Stahl

This is in regards to large format - 8x10 (film) photography underwater. In 2003 I designed and built an underwater 8x10 camera - not a housed 8x10. There is an article now in the works - B&W Magazine (online) about the camera which is just as sharp underwater as any 8x10 in a studio or out in the field. About not having the ability to shoot many images underwater...that does not matter. One is supposed to scout an underwater location first in order to get the shot one is looking for...not shoot several images then edit later on land. Many fine art galleries will not accept digitally produced images, they want those created from film. This was my reason for building the camera...and perhaps producing them for sale. With this camera, a whole new world has been opened to the large format photographer. The image posted here is a full frame image done of the mermaids at Weeki Wachee Springs, Florida. Note the edges of the 8x10 negative. You can contact me at dstahl5@verizon.net. David Stahl

Can't see an image

Hey Cal,

Save the penny's and get the PHASE with a big back.

Images are great - perfect for what your doing and well supported with great glass available

I tried to post an image but it's not working. Clicked the icon - but nothing.

I tried to post an image but it's not working. Clicked the icon - but nothing.

See if the instructions here can help

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=904

Hi David, not a bad fun pic, but I'm still very skeptical that there are any real advantages of large format. For one thing you have significant distortion of the front models right hand which really detracts from the image, and I suspect that is the behavior of your lens / dome combination. The high detail visible in the closer models, is simply lost in the models near the back due to the water column. The concept of large format sounds great, but when you add in the difficulties of getting wide enough lenses, getting those lenses to perform behind a dome, the issues of losing resolution simply by adding some water distance etc, large format simply starts to lose many of the benefits that one chooses it for in the first place. Setting up a group of models like this to all be in the exact right position for a single shot - is pretty wishful thinking in my opinion, hands and feet in this shot are all over the place. Tantamount to taking an 8x10 to a basketball game. Maybe shooting a static reef scene to record fine detail would be a better place for this, but even then, I think you are better off compiling multiple images like some have done to make massive high definition murals.

It's hard to see anything in this image that makes it better than what could be achieved with smaller format underwater. Just having high resolution simply does not make a good photograph; it's desirable, but not at the expense of giving up everything else. The pic you show above may be a fun high resolution snapshot, but hardly a gallery wall hanger as a photograph. With a high res DSLR with the proper lens / dome combination, you could create a much better image than this one in my opinion. For one thing you could shoot multiple images, so that you get hands and feet coordinated, you could have all the models with their eyes open,you would have less peripheral image distortion, and you could get pretty good resolution to boot.

What's with the regularly spaced vertical lines ? Maybe a scanner issue.

I have never shot film in the water but am concerned about housing a full frame 35mm let alone trying to make a large format function behind a dome.

The weak link in imaging under water is not the format / resolution / film used, it remains the water column effects / dome (air) interface and most often the ugly lump of biomass behind the viewfinder.

Jeff is correct this one is not quite there yet as a wall hanger here is a real wall hanger !

Don't think I am buying yours quite yet.....

Paul C