Nikon F6 Underwater? (AKA Digital vs. Film, part infinity)

You all may find this article useful and interesting:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml

Compares the P45 Digital Back to drum scanned 4x5

Cheers

James

John

I have a friend who owns 2 x F6s and a D2X - he remains unconvinced about digital, but I suspect that this is because he can extract every last nuance of quality out of fine grained film and probably does not want to undertake the severe learning curve to enable him to do the same with digital. Switching to digital is not an easy option and many photographers I know are loath to do so BUT this does not mean that 10MPixel cameras cannot produce images that surpass 35mm film in terms of sharpness, smoothness of tone and nuance of detail. Problem for film users is that digital is not merely not going to go away but is forecast to thoroughly dominate photography in a very short time. Sticking to film will, as Alex says, reduce options. Printers MUST sort their workflows out, and hopefully will. If they don't then we will see a reduction in quality of imagery just as we have a better image taking system.

By the way, in case you think I am a Luddite who wants to stick with film at all costs, I gave up shooting film some time ago! But that was more to do with working practises than final results. Yes, digital underwater is very easy!

Hi Guys,

Once again I feel compelled to rebut Alex Mustards contentions concerning his digital D2X vs film. As I posted quite a while back, I went to the 2005 PMA photo show where Nikon showed both the D2X and F6. And subsequently bought one of each. And took comparison shots taken with both cameras of the same subject - tripoded, on land, identical framing with 105 micro-nikkor @ f16 - with D2X and Velvia 100.

If I "settle" for a Nikon Coolscan 5000 full resolution scan of the Velvia shot, the D2X image does look a little bit sharper on my Sony Artisan monitor. BUT if I go to a higher dpi quality scan such as that made by an Imacon scanner or a drum scanner the film image is now rendered sharper. One also has to consider that the raw image from the D2X camera when processed by most programs like Nikon's own software is sharpened digitally to look sharper than the actual sharpness captured by the sensor. And the image scanned by a scanner like the 5000ED can also be sharpened to equal that of the D2X.

But there are other issues than sharpness, like color. A quality scan of the velvia film image has better color because the D2X has only 10-bit color capture which is then interpolated up to 16-bit by photoshop or nikon's software.

And interpolated data, whether sharpness or color, is not as good as true original data.

But believe whatever you want. I have made my living ONLY from underwater still photography for the last 20 years. Not from teaching workshop, not from leading trips, not from selling underwater camera equipment. ONLY from the pictures I shoot and sell. And in my opinion the single most important issue is pleasing the client. And among mine have been magazines like National Geographic, National Wildlife, GEO Germany, GEO France, Terre Sauvage, and many others.

John Nuhn, the picture editor at National Wildlife, in a discussion we had last year, said it best. Digital images are fine for the magazine to use. BUT they can only be used to a size where the camera provides 300 uninterpolated pixels per inch of the image size as printed in the magazine. And if you take the size of a double page spread - 17" wide - none of the regularly housed digital SLR's, not the Nikon D2X nor the Canon 1DsMkII provides enough pixels to do this. This means that National Wildlife will not use images from either of those cameras for a double page spread under normal circumstances. And most double page images need to be even bigger to allow some cropping, bleeding and trimming. So you would probably need a digital image of about 24 megapixels to be really satisfactory for most of their double page uses.

Sharp 35mm film images, drum scanned, are regularly. And used even when cropped to about 75-60% of full-frame size if hte original is really sharp on the film. NWF insists that their images look sharp on the printed page. And whether you can add enough sharpening to make it look OK or even great on a computer monitor is not a viable solution.

And if you are in business you have to live with a philosophy similar to, "The customer is always right." Especially if you want to keep that customer and stay in business.

Divegypsy

A good pro will always beat a good amateur and quite frankly there is not enough financial reward in the world of underwater photography to attract many good pros. What am I saying? Nikon quite rightly have decided that the amateur market has gone entirely digital, but the REAL professional market (Not ordinary wedding photographers for whom speed is an important criterion!) still uses film. Check with AFAEP members in London if you do not believe me!

Quote "a good pro will always beat a good amateur" - depends what you mean by beat John. I have amateur friends who can spend far more time getting a shot than I can afford to! And some are very, very good - but they don't have the same pressure to work to.

As for 35mm vs digital well quite frankly I can get BETTER images out of my Canon EOS1DS than 35mm - END. The raw conversion process is simply far more versatile and can produce better corrected images than 35mm film can when scanned. If we are discussing differences then there are some. But qualitywise then digital cameras over 10MPixel quite simply produce better images. Extrapolation of a digital image whilst not ideal IS possible to a surprising degree simply because the image is digitally originated.

As an example, I recently had an underwater shot printed at 36" x 24" - it was made from an EOS1DS file - excellent quality! It would rival a 50 ISO Velvia scan BUT it was shot at ISO 400 equivalence and I would not have been able to shoot it on Velvia 50!

As another example, look into the corners of an underwater macro shot which contains bright hard edged detail in them. Almost certainly you will see some chromatic fringing (due to shooting through a thick bit of glass/plastic) which you cannot correct. This fringing can be minimised and sometimes virtually eliminated during the raw conversion of the digital file.

Problem is that we - DIGITAL photographers - are at the cutting edge - until the other links in the chain catch up (editors, designers, resizers, seperators, printers, and more) then older, traditional methods will still be considered to be 'better'.

You can rebut contentions but you can't argue against actuality.

I'll see your 36x24 prints and raise you a twenty or more 64-sheet posters!

Of course, underwater photography has one enormously limiting factor and that is water.

So we are like two stupid old men swimming under the surface of a bowl of minestroni arguing who can see the furthest!

Film is better than digital!

LOL!

Cleese you are wrong!

Paul, I admit it. You made me laugh!

Digital Photography is the refuge of those who can't get it right on film and need to correct the pictures they take because they don't get it right when they take the shot.

After several years of saying how life is using flash without TTL, Alex Mustard, in a recent article in Underwater Photo Magazine now says TTL is a capability he wants to have available all the time. Welcome back to film camera technology, Alex.

Next he'll be telling us that it is better to let the subject get used to the photographer's presence, get back to acting naturally, and pick just the right moment to shoot. And then he'll need to shoot only two or three dozen shots per dive rather than just machine gun the subject to death.

I just bought a brand new F5 body with its 3 year warranty for $750. And a used action finder for $200. How much will Alex's new D3z digital camera cost (and necessary new housing) when his D2x becomes professionally obsolete after the next generation of digital SLR's reaches 20Mp and photo agencies raise their submissions bar to a minimum of 15Mp?

There are still no magazines at the top level - National Geographic, National Wildlife, GEO, etc - which won't take a story shot on film. But images on digital cameras of the 6Mp generation, only two or three years old, have become virtually unacceptable. How many of the Digital Photo Pros actually make enough money to live on from the sale of their pictures as opposed to running trips and teaching classes.

Those that can do, those that can't do teach, those that can't teach?? Run trips?

Hi Fred,

No need for a personal attack - you're welcome to keep using whatever system works for you. I'm glad you enjoyed Alex's article and if you'd like to discuss it in a constructive way, I'm all for it. I'll even participate as I have some pretty strong opinions about TTL too.

But saying that Alex can't "do" is laughable. I think you should apologize.

Cheers

James Wiseman

Ouch! Is someone a little jealous of all the expose Alex is getting at the moment!!??

I think Alex's magic filters are great, and those will work much better on a D2x than on an F6

Those that can do, those that can't do teach, those that can't teach?? Run trips?

I would also imagine that Alex gains a great deal of satisfaction from helping people learn to take pictures underwater. His enjoyment in helping others is probably why he is so active and well respected in this community, and why he likes to go on trips with other photographers and help organise them.

I am loathed to get dragged into this one (despite all the messages I have got encouraging me to), but I would like to make a few of points.

First, I flattered that I am so regularly in your thoughts, Fred.

More importantly, the reason I wrote that article was to stand up and admit that my past opinions have now been overtaken by the technology and are out of date.

Moreover, if we are not prepared to reappraise our opinions on the kit and techniques of uw photography, and admit to being wrong when we are, how can we learn and how can we improve? I am always striving to improve my photography.

Finally, I would happily admit that the time I spend teaching or running trip are probably my most enjoyable diving weeks during the year. Putting other peoples images first means that these weeks are not personally very productive for photos. And I can only justify doing one or two weeks of teaching a year. But they are immensly rewarding, especially seeing how thrilled people are with the images you help them produce.

You should give it a go sometime.

Alex

And those that can't run trips, just shell out cash to go on them I suppose. <_<

Anyway I'm glad that all those folks who can't 'do' like Stephen, Eric, Alex, Mauricio etc take us on trips, 'cause I get to go on those trips. I'll guess I'll never get to learn anything from the guys who supposedly can 'do' it.

I've given up arguing about film vs. digital. One side is following Moore's law, and the other is flat.

One day, film guys will wake up and realize that they are totally out of touch with a technology has been improving exponentially in quality every couple of years for the past 10. This all might be OK, because most of those who refuse to have an open mind will be old and ready to retire, anyway. And their kids can continue to program their VCRs for them.

So why argue? Just wait.

Anyway, what I really meant to say is that there are absolutely two sides to the story here. Both film and digital have their advantages at the moment. My point is that one side is improving, and the other is not. I choose to put my efforts in learning and improving my own photography on the side that clearly has a future.

OK, it's back to running trips -- and this website, whose sole purpose of existence sprouted from the urge to teach and share knowledge through community.

The last 'quality' area where I still think film behaves better is the area of gradation intense and specular highlights. Underwater of course this is with sunballs, and topside in contrasty light, particularly with figure work. I think film still provides a nicer more even gradation in Zones 9-12 than digital. This can be overcome to some extent by underexposing, and then bringing out the shadows in post-processing. I guess this is the digital version of changing the processing in a traditional darkroom to get the negative in the 'Zone'.Probably the 1DS, 5D, and D2X are ahead in this area, though from what I can see, just not quite there yet

I am loathed to get dragged into this one (despite all the messages I have got encouraging me to), but I would like to make a few of points.

 

First, I flattered that I am so regularly in your thoughts, Fred.

 

More importantly, the reason I wrote that article was to stand up and admit that my past opinions have now been overtaken by the technology and are out of date.

 

Moreover, if we are not prepared to reappraise our opinions on the kit and techniques of uw photography, and admit to being wrong when we are, how can we learn and how can we improve? I am always striving to improve my photography.

 

Finally, I would happily admit that the time I spend teaching or running trip are probably my most enjoyable diving weeks during the year. Putting other peoples images first means that these weeks are not personally very productive for photos. And I can only justify doing one or two weeks of teaching a year. But they are immensly rewarding, especially seeing how thrilled people are with the images you help them produce.

 

You should give it a go sometime.

Alex

Having been fortunate enough to spend a few days with Alex on Grand Cayman during Digital Madness I was greatly impressed by his willingness to share his knowledge about photography with his guests. He was extraordinarily generous with his time, and his passion for imaging was infectious. Plus, his slide shows were very informative and entertaining.

None of which diminished his own ability to get stellar shots when they were all in the water together.

"Digital Photography is the refuge of those who can't get it right on film and need to correct the pictures they take because they don't get it right when they take the shot. "

I often shoot in very low contrast conditions - in Scottish Sea Lochs and suchlike sites where visibility is poor, light levels low and where some fascinating creatures live! Digital allows me to shoot raw and adjust files to produce vibrant, interesting images of these creatures which were IMPOSSIBLE on film! And I'm not going to argue this one. Film certainly has its positive aspects but to ignore its limitations and suggest that digital is an 'easy option' is simply not correct. Getting it 'right' on digital can produce stunningly good images and whilst digital does enable the production of acceptable results from less than perfect image captures this is hardly a negative side of the technology.

Lastly, I've worked with several advertising photographers all of whom are shooting digital - because their client's require it, and the cost of their shoots are substantial. I doubt that high fees are paid in order to use a technology which is not as good as film.

I haven't been on one of Alex's trips but whenever I have attended one of his talks (NUPG will be in touch again Alex) I have found him to be inspiring and very willing to share his ideas and techniques).