Now that I've gotten over my mourning period from losing my camera, I'm back to film for a while. I took the Nikonos V out to Sunrise and Redondo this week. At Sunrise I was shooting with a 1:1 extension tube. On full-frame 35mm the depth of field is ridiculously shallow. Even at f22 it's only a few mm. I forgot how hard it is to get right. Then all my pics are not framed correctly. I need to get used to how far into the framer the imaging area is.
At redondo, I switched to a 1:3 which is quite a bit easier be still challenging. I'm actually amazed ho close I could get the framer to some of the subjects. Film definitly has some nice advantages in dynamic range but I can't wait to get a new digital. I'm lusting for a Oly PEN in a 10bar housing.
Anyone looking for a Nikonos V and Substrobe MV (TTL). I need to fund my new camera.
Back to film for a while
Back to film for a while
- Attachments
"Well as much as this pains me I am gonna have to pull out" - pogiguy05
Re: Back to film for a while
That eye picture has amazing clarity.
**Pinch it, don't stick your finger through. You're just pinching a bigger hole.
CAPTNJACK - 2012**
CAPTNJACK - 2012**
Re: Back to film for a while
where are te rest of the film pics..? More More more
NWDC Rule #2 Pictures Or it didn't Happen
Re: Back to film for a while
I told you, doc! Digital can't touch film in clarity and color saturation......
Nice job, James. I look forward to seeing you with a new camera in the next couple of weeks.
Nice job, James. I look forward to seeing you with a new camera in the next couple of weeks.
-Ron T.
"When I'm 80 I'll take up real diving, which is done in a pub..." Ray Ives.
253-227-0856
My Dive Pics...
https://www.facebook.com/RETOPPPHOTOGRAPHY
"When I'm 80 I'll take up real diving, which is done in a pub..." Ray Ives.
253-227-0856
My Dive Pics...
https://www.facebook.com/RETOPPPHOTOGRAPHY
Re: Back to film for a while
The rest were too horrible to post but since you asked, here are a few more plus a few of my favorites shot with the same camera in Cozumel.H20doctor wrote:where are te rest of the film pics..? More More more
I think the nudibranch shot does really show off the high DR of film and the superb metering that the camera is capable of. This is just the TTL of the camera, no EV adjustments.
If I keep playing around with this camera, I need to get some better film and scan them myself. Perhaps I need to get chemicals for processing E-6 slide film and have a little lab fun.
"Well as much as this pains me I am gonna have to pull out" - pogiguy05
Re: Back to film for a while
I know , That fish eye picture Rocks... thats a Photo contest winner for sure
![Super :supz:](./images/smilies/icon_super.gif)
![Super :supz:](./images/smilies/icon_super.gif)
![Super :supz:](./images/smilies/icon_super.gif)
NWDC Rule #2 Pictures Or it didn't Happen
- dphershman
- Aquanaut
- Posts: 697
- Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 11:42 am
Re: Back to film for a while
I'm curious as to what type of film you used for these.... I'm trying to work up the courage to take my nikonos out again sometime. Kodak Ektachrome VS has to be the best color film in the universe for UW photos! But it's nearly impossible to find a lab that will develop slide film anymore.
As for dynamic range, color negative film is a bit better than slide film, slide film is slightly better than a 'full-frame' digital SLR, a 'full frame' SLR is a bit better than a consumer level DSLR and point and shoots are the worst. The difference in dynamic range for film is based upon the differences in positive vs negative film, while with digital it all has to do with the physical size of the photosensor.
Digital images are sharper than film though.....so there's at least one advantage we can point to!
![:rawlings: :rawlings:](./images/smilies/oldtimer.gif)
As for dynamic range, color negative film is a bit better than slide film, slide film is slightly better than a 'full-frame' digital SLR, a 'full frame' SLR is a bit better than a consumer level DSLR and point and shoots are the worst. The difference in dynamic range for film is based upon the differences in positive vs negative film, while with digital it all has to do with the physical size of the photosensor.
Digital images are sharper than film though.....so there's at least one advantage we can point to!
![:rawlings: :rawlings:](./images/smilies/oldtimer.gif)
Dan Hershman ![:computer: :smt024](./images/smilies/024.gif)
![:computer: :smt024](./images/smilies/024.gif)
- Grateful Diver
- I've Got Gills
- Posts: 5322
- Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 7:52 pm
Re: Back to film for a while
I agree ... the "fireworks" effect is quite striking ...H20doctor wrote:I know , That fish eye picture Rocks... thats a Photo contest winner for sure![]()
... Bob (Grateful Diver)
Threats and ultimatums are never the best answer. Public humiliation via Photoshop is always better - airsix
Come visit me at http://www.nwgratefuldiver.com/
Come visit me at http://www.nwgratefuldiver.com/
Re: Back to film for a while
The new shots are with Kodak Gold 200. It was the only color film I could find at the local camera shop. They did not have any slide film. The Cozumel shots are on Ectachrome, ISO 400 IIRC. I'm really tempted to get an E-6 chemical kit. I think I still have my developing tank somewhere around the house.dphershman wrote:I'm curious as to what type of film you used for these.... I'm trying to work up the courage to take my nikonos out again sometime. Kodak Ektachrome VS has to be the best color film in the universe for UW photos! But it's nearly impossible to find a lab that will develop slide film anymore.
As for dynamic range, color negative film is a bit better than slide film, slide film is slightly better than a 'full-frame' digital SLR, a 'full frame' SLR is a bit better than a consumer level DSLR and point and shoots are the worst. The difference in dynamic range for film is based upon the differences in positive vs negative film, while with digital it all has to do with the physical size of the photosensor.
Digital images are sharper than film though.....so there's at least one advantage we can point to!
I definitely will not be sticking with film as a long term solution but it is fun to do once in a while. Particularly using extension tubes, the framing is fixed so you really have to be creative in finding things to shoot that work with the frame you've chosen. I'm eyeing micro four thirds for my next camera but I'm still a little undecided. If I could get a housing for my DSLR, I'd go that route instead so I could take advantage of the lenses, etc that I already have.
"Well as much as this pains me I am gonna have to pull out" - pogiguy05
- SeattleYates
- Aquaphile
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 1:18 pm
Re: Back to film for a while
Wow - that eye photo ROCKS!
There's a reason so many images that graced the pages of dive magazines (and won contests) in years past were taken with the Nik V! You're right - the trick is getting the subject juuuuust right in the framer. But when you do, this eye shot shows how stunning the results can be! Great job!![notworthy :notworthy:](./images/smilies/notworthy.gif)
![Super :supz:](./images/smilies/icon_super.gif)
There's a reason so many images that graced the pages of dive magazines (and won contests) in years past were taken with the Nik V! You're right - the trick is getting the subject juuuuust right in the framer. But when you do, this eye shot shows how stunning the results can be! Great job!
![notworthy :notworthy:](./images/smilies/notworthy.gif)
Bruce Yates
Photography: http://www.UnderwaterReflections.com
"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damned fool about it." WC Fields
Photography: http://www.UnderwaterReflections.com
"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damned fool about it." WC Fields