Hello again guys,
First of all let me say that what I wrote a few days ago was never intended to be or intended to be construed as a personal attack on Alex Mustard. It was mostly intended to point out the fact that after saying for months (or years) that manual strobe shooting was as good as TTL, even to the starting of a topic called TTL anonymous (not unlike alcoholics anonymous) Alex had crossed over to the “dark side†and was suddenly embracing TTL, which I had said a long time ago was one of the major reasons I was still staying with film. And which (Alex’s change) I found rather ironic, considering the ehthusiasm with which he had previously said that TTL wasn’t of particular value for digital.
Secondly, I have not and do not attack digital as a capture medium. It is merely another capture medium, not unlike the sea change that took place when Velvia was first introduced challenging Kodachrome’s dominant place in the film market.
I absolutely believe that digital has many things to offer, particularly to the new photographer. And especially for the new underwater photographer. Digital is a great teaching medium because of its instantaneous feedback. And great for news and other places where immediacy is a vital issue. But I also feel these is no substitute for really learning how to use the camera properly and not to depend on the feedback of digital. Too many good shooting opportunities come along just once, and for a brief moment. And to take the attitude that you just make a close guess, and then correct on the second shot or on the computer later is, in my opinion, a philosophy that just doesn’t work in the real ocean.
My comment about those that do – do, etc. Was meant to be just a parody on Woody Allen’s comment in the movie “Looking for Mr. Goodbar†in which he said, “Those that can do. Those that can’t do teach. And those that can’t teach, teach phys. Ed.†At the time I was married to a teacher of physical education who didn’t really find Woody very funny either. And in the age of political correctness and having seen how the topic on shark feeds degenerated to the point where the topic was closed, I should have been more cautious.
Again, I want to apologize to Alex if he took any of what I wrote as a person attack. I also know that many people appreciate the educational cruises where there is a resident pro to help provide guidance and assistance. I do sometimes go on dive boat cruises. And on the cruise I go on, or virtually whenever I meet other underwater photographers, I have been willing to share any of the technical information or techniques that I use. And I tried to do just that almost a year ago when I suggested the quick two-shoot TTL fill flash technique I use that gives me professional quality satisfactory results over 90% of the time. And as quality TTL finally is achieved by strobes for digital cameras, this technique should work equally well.
As background for everyone. My name is, as was suggested by either Eric or James, Fred Bavendam. I am now 60+ years old and was recently, two years ago, in a car accident that came very close to ending my diving forever. Fortunately, it did not. I still make my living just shooting underwater pictures, which I sell directly to magazines myself, or through photo several agencies. I have done this for the last twenty years. But my main motivation isn’t making a lot of money or being famous. I simply love being in the water so much there is nothing else I can think of that I would rather do. And having been able to do only that for twenty years makes me one of the luckiest people in the whole world. I love being in the water so much, and watching all the fish and other animals that there are times that I think I am a fish that was born into the wrong body.
I did briefly own a Nikon D2X. And a Fuji S2 before that. But I found that digital did not offer enough advantages to ME to justify the expense of switching to digital for underwater shooting. I gave my S2 and its Ikelite housing to a friend and sold the D2X to a friend who uses it topside and loves it. Digital, at this time, just requires too much time on the computer to suit me. I would rather spend my time traveling, diving, and meeting people. I also bought my first cellular phone a year ago but rarely use it.
Just call me DAD – Digital Age Dinosaur
I own three SeaCam F5 housings, which, at the time I bought them (before George Bush destroyed the value of the US$) cost me only a little more than one SeaCam for the D2X would cost today. I now have 5 Nikon F5 bodies with action finders and multiples of all the lenses I use most. I usually travel with two complete sets of housings, strobes, ports, and F5’s. In set in separate check-in pieces of luggage so that if the airline loses one of the check-in’s, I arrive with enough gear to keep shooting. I try to hand carry the lenses and film.
I would be much more interested in digital, particularly for my topside shooting, if Nikon offered a full frame digital camera similar to Canon’s 1Ds MkII. But currently, the lenses offered for the smaller digital chip interest me much less. I didn’t find Nikon’s 12-24 f4 lens was as "usable" as the 17-35 f2.8. And there is nothing even remotely similar to the 70-180 Micro-nikkor for the digital chip. And there is nothing on the market that I know of that offers the perspective of the 60mm Micro-nikkor.
What interests me the most, equipment-wise at the moment, is that Zeiss starting to offer lenses in the Nikon mount. And I might mention that Zeiss says that one of their new lenses has resolved over 300 lines per millimeter ON ACTUAL FILM, at ideal apertures. The D2x has 182 sensors per millimeter, and because the digital image has to be magnified 50% more linearly to fill a particular size print or page, that means a theoretical maximum resolution of 120 lines. Fuji says Velvia, Provia, and Astia can resolve 150~160 lines.
But all this is just lab numbers, not the real world. Each recording medium has its own advantages and its own disadvantages. And it is up to the photographer to decide what is important to him, or her.
Nikon has just introduced a new 105mm, at double the cost and weight of the older model. But on the digital chip it acts like a 158mm, which means even greater water distance between the photographer and the subject. And a different perspective visually. 105mm was first popularized as the virtually perfect people portrait lens. Good perspective rendition, no noticible forshortening (ie nose too big) without flattening the features too much. Nikon's 180 f2.8 never really caught on for portaits because of feature flattening and an excessive working distance in the studio. So why a new 105mm? Why not 70mm, the digital chip equivalent unless maybe (I hope) Nikon is seriously thinking full-frame?
Again, I meant no offense to Alex or anyone else personally. And offer a sincere apology if my comments were taken as a personal attack.
On the other hand, if my comments have brought new energy and new thinking into the film-vs-digital debate, there has been some positive benefit. But regardless of the recording medium, I feel that it is the final image that matters. Not how it was taken.
divegypsy
