 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / May 2004underwater camera advice please
Hi everyone, I'm looking to splash out and buy my first underwater camera and strobe. I would say that my knowledge of underwater photography is intermediate and my technical ability likewise. I have used a friends Nikonos unit and a Sea and Sea unit ( can't remember the model, but i think it was S&S's better camera )Could anyone give me sound advice on which camera and strobe to buy? The majority of my diving will be in daylight in clear conditions such as the Red Sea or Caribbean. Would i be better with a 35mm or digital? Which is the better format for prints? Thanks for helping me out. Safe diving..... Submersible Sid sidinbermuda@hotmail.com (Submersible Sid) pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :Hi everyone, :I'm looking to splash out and buy my first underwater camera and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] :be better with a 35mm or digital? Which is the better format for :prints? You are better off with digital rather than film. If you want something pretty good and not that expensive, look at the SeaLife Reefmaster. The most sound advice I can give you is to always remember that the most important part of an underwater photographic system is the diver. Dan Bracuk If at first you don't succeed, you run the risk of failure. The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/ > sidinbermuda@hotmail.com (Submersible Sid) pounded away at his > keyboard resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > The most sound advice I can give you is to always remember that the > most important part of an underwater photographic system is the diver. I will echo Dan's opinion on the Sealife Reefmaster. I recently got one and got the external flash and the macro lenses with it also. So far I am very pleased with it and the quality. I am still getting used to it and the features. The model I got was the DC310 which has the advanced controls on the UW housing. Even blowing pictures up to 8 X 10, I still don't see any pixalation (sp) on the paper copy (when I am using maximum resoltion). The only thing I really "don't like" about the camera is its a bit too bouyant for me. I am going to experiment with some type of weighting to get it more where I want it. Another "bonus" out of this camera. When you take it on vacation and are not diving with it, it is designed to be removed from the housing and function as a neat little digital land camera. Andy  SignatureHydrogen & Stupidity...the two most common elements in the universe. Nitespark <nitespark@h8spam.cox.net> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :Another "bonus" out of this camera. When you take it on vacation and :are not diving with it, it is designed to be removed from the housing :and function as a neat little digital land camera. I find this to be a weakness with the 1.3 megapixel version. On land it has a slow lens and weak flash so unless you have lots of ambient light, you might get underexposure. The very very clever Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper) did something interesting in Cozumel last year. He used the underwater strobe with the camera to take land shots at night. I didn't see his photographs, but the idea has merit. Dan Bracuk If at first you don't succeed, you run the risk of failure. The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/ > Nitespark <nitespark@h8spam.cox.net> pounded away at his keyboard > resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the camera to take land shots at night. I didn't see his photographs, > but the idea has merit. I have been experimenting with this, both in and out of the housing (simply holding the strobe close enough to the camera to catch the internal strobe and trigger the flash). It certainly helps but it takes a little bit of experimenting. I also got the diffuser with the strobe. My camera is the 3.3 megapixel version. One thing I found out about my camera (overlooked this when I reviewed the instructions). There are 3 flash settings. Land, Sea, and flash. When I first took some underwater pictures, I had it set to "Sea". Wrong!(if you are using an external strobe). In the "Land" and "Sea" settings, the camera sets off a "pre-flash". This of course triggers the external strobe prematurely, so the end result is you do not get the benifit of a flash. When you set the camera to "Flash" mode, it just flashes one time. Live and learn. The other thing I learned about the camera is you have 3 settings in the menu when you are in "Flash" mode. Near Flash, Far Flash, and normal. The "near flash" dampens the exposure so the picture doesn't get washed out say in a macro shot. The "far flash" increases the exposure of distant objects so the flash is more effective over a wider area. Of course anything close to the camera could get overexposed. Like I said, I am still playing with it. Got some good shots of manatees last month in Florida. SignatureHydrogen & Stupidity...the two most common elements in the universe. Nitespark <nitespark@h8spam.cox.net> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: : The model I got was the DC310 which has the advanced :controls on the UW housing. It was the lack of controls of the housing that I liked about the original version. When there are only two buttons, the worse that can happen is that you turn the camera off instead of taking the photo. Not that I would ever do anything like that though. Dan Bracuk If at first you don't succeed, you run the risk of failure. The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/ > Nitespark <nitespark@h8spam.cox.net> pounded away at his keyboard > resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > original version. When there are only two buttons, the worse that can > happen is that you turn the camera off instead of taking the photo. I like the ability to review what I have taken if time permits and delete it if necessary. I got the 128mb card with mine and also took advantage of the SeaLife rebate offer they had last year and got an additional 32mb card, plus the screen sun shield, and a small canvas equipment bag. In anycase, it is certainly a lot more advanced camera than what I was using. > Not that I would ever do anything like that though. Heaven forbid. SignatureHydrogen & Stupidity...the two most common elements in the universe. Nitespark <nitespark@h8spam.cox.net> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :I like the ability to review what I have taken if time permits and :delete it if necessary. I got the 128mb card with mine and also took :advantage of the SeaLife rebate offer they had last year and got an :additional 32mb card, plus the screen sun shield, and a small canvas :equipment bag. You don't have to do this underwater, in fact, underwater is a bad place to do it. If you are on on land, you can do your reviewing and deleting in your hotel room. Bring all your cables because there might be either a computer or television around so you can get a better look. If you are on a liveaboard, you can do this between dives. 128 MBytes represents a couple hundred images, and it is very unlikely that you are going to fill it on any day of diving. With my version, if you are in Sea or External Flash Mode, every time you take a picture, you get to view it and decide whether or not to save it. If you do nothing, the image gets saved, but, it is a good way to instantly cull the obviously bad shots. Dan Bracuk If at first you don't succeed, you run the risk of failure. The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/ > I'm looking to splash out and buy my first underwater camera and > strobe. I would say that my knowledge of underwater photography is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > be better with a 35mm or digital? Which is the better format for > prints? Uh oh... Here we go *again*... Hi guys Thanks for all your advice. I'll be making a purchase this week. Submersible Sid > Hi guys > Thanks for all your advice. I'll be making a purchase this week. > Submersible Sid of which camera? SignatureLife is NOT a dress rehearsal. > > I'm looking to splash out and buy my first underwater camera and > > strobe. I would say that my knowledge of underwater photography is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Uh oh... Here we go *again*... It really is a huge YMMV with a lot of factors. A frequent statemetn for UW photography is that the person doesn't want to spend a lot; what they're really probably driving for is a "Good Value". IMO, a large percentage of the whole "What's Best?" question can't be determined without taking the individual photographer in mind. As such, my rule of thumb recommendation is to get an UW camera that's generally similar to what you prefer for topside use. For example, if you use a full-blown SLR topside, you're probably better off getting something similarly advanced for UW because you're more likely to outgrow a simple PhD system pretty quickly. Similarly, if your idea of a camera is a PhD, then don't get an SLR for Underwater. Insofar as all of the digital stuff, the "digital-vs-film" angle is a personal YMMV, influenced in no small part by your intended use, as well as what amount of significance you want to put on having reserve capability in resolution. There's lots of probably very good digital stuff out there...my inclination would be to narrow down a list of nice land camera that meets your interests and see which ones have housings available for them, and decide from there...IMO, you're probably better off avoiding an UW-only system. At present, I personally like the Canon A60/70/80 product line, partly because its battery form factor uses AA's, and partly because Canon makes a quality product IMO. I believe that there is a housing for this camera too, and if the cost of the camera is an assumed sunk cost because of its utility on land, the additional widgets to take it UW probably aren't really all that expensive. -hh Dan wrote (sorry, I half-broke the thread link): > " H. Huntzinger" <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba@huntzinger.com> > pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > here in rec.scuba, that you can get some pretty good results > using a digital camera's built in flash. Sure, but just how deep? Keep in mind that the request was for a system that could go to 40m. Personally, I can agree that an internal flash can be enough to get the job done in clear tropical waters when shallow, but even for these ideal conditions, I'd put the practical limit at probably 20m (60fsw) or thereabouts before you're going to "blue out". I've tried using the Mandrake Process to compensate for insufficient strobe output on some shots in the ~85ft depth range and it didn't do squat. Similarly, another rule of thumb is that you need to open up at least one full stop in this general depth range, and another full stop when you bottom out at 130fsw (40m). While some of the better digital cameras allow you to set the cameras effective ISO, the higher you go, the more noise you introduce into the image, which is just like the grain you get from using faster speed film. The reality is that there is no such thing as a free lunch ever. You can get by without an external strobe, but your yield will suffer as the consequence. So long as you go in with open eyes accepting this, that's fine. -hh > > That's the popular theory. We have some recent evidence, right > > here in rec.scuba, that you can get some pretty good results [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Mandrake Process to compensate for insufficient strobe output on some > shots in the ~85ft depth range and it didn't do squat. Personally, I think you're both giving the internal strobe to much and too little credit. Even in very clear water, reds are pretty much gone before you get anywhere near 60 feet. Normally they're gone in the first 10 feet and, for sure in the first 30. On the other hand, an internal flash is fine at any range it can reach, no matter how deep you are. I've taken some nice shots with a built in flash at depth in the 130 foot range, but it required that I be quite close to the subject. In my underwater photography experience, I've found that many of the subjects I most want a picture of, will just barely let me get close enough for my Nikon strobe, which is a whole lot more powerful than any of the built in strobes I'm aware of. I've not found depth to be the issue relative to a strobe. The problem, as I see it, is the limited power and dispersion of built in strobes. They just don't provide much range or coverage. Lee >> > That's the popular theory. We have some recent evidence, right >> > here in rec.scuba, that you can get some pretty good results [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >dispersion of built in strobes. They just don't provide much range or >coverage. Lee, Hugh, don't you also have an issue with the flash being so close to the lens that back scatter from particles becomes a problem? I seem to remember having this problem with my MX-10 before I bought the remote flash and turned off the onboard. >Lee Signaturedillon When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark and the horse's name was Bob. > Lee, Hugh, don't you also have an issue with the flash being so close > to the lens that back scatter from particles becomes a problem? Backscatter is definitely one of the limitations with built in flash. While it may not seem important on the surface, in UW photography it's useful to consider that you're not taking a picture of your subject, but rather you're capturing light with the lens. If everything was perfect all that captured light would be only what's reflected by your subject, but if there's any particulate matter in the water between the lens and the subject it's going to reflect light. With an onboard flash, some (maybe a lot) of the output of the flash is going to bounce back from the particulate matter. Since the particulate matter will be closer than the subject, it's also going to be overexposed, which makes it even more prominent in the resulting photo. With a strobe that can be positioned further off-axis, you may be able to avoid lighting the particulate matter, and even if you do light it the angle of reflection may mean that much of the light is reflected to someplace other than the lens. In theory an onboard flash could be just as powerful as the best external flash, but even in a vacuum there's a good reason to get the flash away from the lens. Lighting is almost always better when it isn't head on. FTM, lighting is almost always better when it comes from at least two different directions. You can definitely get by with just the onboard flash. The question is whether you want to take snapshots or good pictures. Even if you just point and shoot, your typical results will be better with an external flash. SignatureSteve The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable belief that it was intended as a statement of fact. If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address. > >Personally, I think you're both giving the internal strobe to much and too > >little credit. Even in very clear water, reds are pretty much gone before > >you get anywhere near 60 feet. Normally they're gone in the first 10 feet > >and, for sure in the first 30. I agree that I was was liberal with the potential depth range of available reds; IMO, around 40fsw is the practical limit, but I just didn't want some Blackling anklebiter to fuss over relatively small depth variations when the OP was asking for a 130fsw capable system. In any case, its going to vary tremendously with local water conditions anyway...I can remember while working on an Oceanographic RV doing some water clarity measurements in DE Bay and found that "all wavelengths" were absorbed in less than 6ft, because of the water's turbidity :-) > >On the other hand, an internal flash is fine at any range it can reach, no > >matter how deep you are. I've taken some nice shots with a built in flash > >at depth in the 130 foot range, but it required that I be quite close to the > >subject. Understood & agreed. Unfortunately, a not-uncommon problem here (particularly on the more inexpensive systems) is that by the time that you've gotten close enough for the small built in flash to give satisfactory illumination, you're often right at the limit for the camera's minimum focus distance, so you risk end up with blurry, out of focus images and lose the shot anyway. FWIW, the macro option built right into some digitals does help prevent/minimize this problem (assuming that the photographer remembers to invoke the feature). > Lee, Hugh, don't you also have an issue with the flash being so close > to the lens that back scatter from particles becomes a problem? I > seem to remember having this problem with my MX-10 before I bought the > remote flash and turned off the onboard. There's that issue too, and it will be aggrivated by the diver's skill level in how much silt he kicks up to become backscatter. The contribution of the strobe's location comes down to two basic factors that make an away-from-lens strobe location desirable when it comes to limiting the effect of backscatter, although its important to realize that the particulate never magically disappears: The first is that backscatter is only created along the path that the strobe's light passes through -AND- which is visible to the lens. As such, if you have a strobe off to the side, some of the path is out-of-frame and thus not seen in the final image. The built-in strobes have nearly their entire path out to the subject and back within the viewing area seen by the lens, so you have little choice in the matter for "placement" of your backscatter away from the center of the frame. The second is also an angles game: you only ever light up "half" of the particle, so how much of this the camera lens is able to see can also be manipulated. This can be a bit harder to visualize, so please humor me: think of the camera lens as a person standing on Earth, looking up at the sky. The moon is our backscatter particle, and how much of the moon is lit up (1st quarter, half full, etc) is a function of where the strobe is, which in this case is the sun's position relative to the Earth and Moon. The sun 'always' lights up a full 180 degrees of the Moon, but our location on Earth is not always able to see it: this is why we perceive different moon phases. When its a full moon, its because we're alligned with the sun...this is analogous to a strobe location right next to the lens: a built-in flash will create "Full Moon" particles in your image. A half moon is analogous to the strobe being off to the side: the far half of the moon is still illuminated, but we're simply not able to see it from our lens location. The result is that sidelit particles aren't as big/bright as perceived by the camera, and are thus less noticable as a backscatter disruption within the image. -hh that is what photoshop is for. to me the trade off is taking a large bulky camera plus arms underwater or a small (good) digital camera and then doing color correcting later. i like the latter. i also use a red lens; it helps somewhat, especially shallow. elliott goldstein >Dan wrote (sorry, I half-broke the thread link): > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >-hh > > that is what photoshop is for. Yes, you can use Photoshop and the Mandrake Process to bring back the colors in a UW photo, but my point is that this generally only works when the photo was taken at a relatively shallow depth...it doesn't work to bring in a deep photo this way: its not as if people haven't tried. For example, take this photo and try "Mandraking" it, or any other "unblueing of UW photo" Photoshop tinkering that you care to try: http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2002/galapagos/021204.3-3.jpg > to me the trade off is taking a large > bulky camera plus arms underwater or a small (good) digital camera and > then doing color correcting later. i like the latter. i also use a red > lens; it helps somewhat, especially shallow. Sure. But the OP had asked for a housing good to 40m (130fsw), so they're IMO clearly not interested in limiting themselves to shallow water photography only. -hh my digital pics weren't that dark. i have a bunch from caymans taken at ~100 feet that i think came out very nice. the water is very clear. > Elliott's scuba pics <http://www.public.asu.edu/%7Eelliotg/> look at the caymans pics, especially the black coral. that was quite deep. elliott goldstein > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >-hh > > my digital pics weren't that dark. i have a bunch from caymans taken > at ~100 feet that i think came out very nice. the water is very clear. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > look at the caymans pics, especially the black coral. that was quite > deep. the color and clarity in those is almost too good to be true !! I really enjoyed them. one pinnacle even looks familiar. > elliott goldstein > my digital pics weren't that dark. i have a bunch from caymans taken at > ~100 feet that i think came out very nice. the water is very clear. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >> -hh >> " H. Huntzinger" <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba@huntzinger.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :Yes, you can use Photoshop and the Mandrake Process to bring back the :colors in a UW photo, but my point is that this generally only works [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : :http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2002/galapagos/021204.3-3.jpg Just for fun, I gave it a shot with Microsoft Digital Image Pro and the the bottom line was, not enough light. I have had similar experience with under exposed land shots. Dan Bracuk If at first you don't succeed, you run the risk of failure. The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/ > Yes, you can use Photoshop and the Mandrake Process to bring back the > colors in a UW photo, but my point is that this generally only works [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2002/galapagos/021204.3-3.jpg and of what point is there in correcting a hidiously under exposed pix in the first place? if the shot had of been exposed correctly it could have been saved easily. PS can easily reduce the over exposed back ground but it'll never be able to fix that dolfin - you blew the shot. > and of what point is there in correcting a hidiously under exposed pix > in the first place? if the shot had of been exposed correctly it could > have been saved easily. There's two points, really. The first point is that horrible pictures do happen. This one's insufficent illumination was because only one strobe fired. Its a halfway decent example of the implications of a weak strobe at depth (~80fsw). And despite the good things that Photoshop can do to salvage images, I agree that this one is beyond salvaging. The second point is that we'll probably try to salvage it anyway. This is because we're recreational amateur photographers, not Pro's. Such examples of "opportunity" encounters are our memories and we are strongly motivated to try our best to keep an image of it, regardless of how poor its technical quality may be. It doesn't matter if its a blurred turtle, an out of focus seahorse, an underexposed dolphin, or whatever. This is simple human nature. > ...it'll never be able to fix that dolfin - you blew the shot. Agreed. I had ISO 100 film where I really needed ISO 400, which pushed my system's capability to its limit. From there, the lack of my Slave strobe pushed it over the edge. -hh >>and of what point is there in correcting a hidiously under exposed pix >>in the first place? if the shot had of been exposed correctly it could [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > depth (~80fsw). And despite the good things that Photoshop can do to > salvage images, I agree that this one is beyond salvaging. without knowing what you had for a lens, it's hard to judge distance but it would appear that dolfin is more than 15ft away (and likely >20) - No strobe would do much, and strobe light isn't additive 2 strobes of the same power doesn't give you twice the light - it gives 1.4 times the light - 1/2 stop, the pix is at least 3 stops under. the error is in not exposing for ambient light. > The second point is that we'll probably try to salvage it anyway. > > This is because we're recreational amateur photographers, not Pro's. actualy I am a pro - I make my living shooting pictures and until last year trained begining pros to do it. > Such examples of "opportunity" encounters are our memories and we are > strongly motivated to try our best to keep an image of it, regardless of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > my system's capability to its limit. From there, the lack of my Slave > strobe pushed it over the edge. the lack of fill would hurt but the pix would still be a keeper. invest in a meter and use it regularly to keep a track of ambient light - that's what you keep the camera set on unless you need to make a change afterwards reset it for ambient you'll be ready for that fast action "snap" shot. > -hh > without knowing what you had for a lens, it's hard to judge distance but > it would appear that dolfin is more than 15ft away (and likely >20)... It was a 15mm. Range was much longer than I liked...10ft, maybe more. > the lack of fill would hurt but the pix would still be a keeper. > > invest in a meter and use it regularly to keep a track of ambient > light...that's what you keep the camera set on Normally I don't have any problems with being metered to a preset. This was a new diving environment for me (Galapagos) and there was a lot less illumination than what I had been expecting. With ISO 100 film, I was unprepared...IIRC, my default settings were along the lines of f/4 and 1/30...pretty much nearly fully wide open. I don't recall why I didn't just decide to push some film by 1-2 stops; probably because it was mostly just this one sight at Wolf that was so dark, partly due to topside weather; it was 'Galua' season. -hh >>without knowing what you had for a lens, it's hard to judge distance but >>it would appear that dolfin is more than 15ft away (and likely >20)... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > -hh basic rule #5 "for handheld shooting, shutter speed should be no slower than the reciprical of the lens length" - a 15mm lens can be shot at 1/15 sec without shake, underwater ( and with care ) you can go 1 - 2 stops slower, of course that has nothing to say about the subject - a moving subject will still blur. you said you shoot slide film, forget pushing it more than 1/2 stop, most slide film will only push a stop at most and even then the contrast increase is pretty bad. C41 film doesn't 'push' well either - you make up if difference in printing it not in exposing/devloping it. no dye cloud film really likes to be pushed/pulled - thats more a BW (silver) tecnique. Sorry for the delay...I had a stack-up of trips. > basic rule #5 "for handheld shooting, shutter speed should be no slower > than the reciprical of the lens length" - a 15mm lens can be shot at > 1/15 sec without shake, underwater ( and with care ) you can go 1 - 2 > stops slower, of course that has nothing to say about the subject - a > moving subject will still blur. Agreed, but on a Nikonos V, the slowest shutter speed is 1/30sec. And you can't use the "A" mode to try to get around this if you're using a strobe...the strobe synch forces it to 1/90sec. -hh > Dan wrote (sorry, I half-broke the thread link): > > " H. Huntzinger" <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba@huntzinger.com> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Mandrake Process to compensate for insufficient strobe output on some > shots in the ~85ft depth range and it didn't do squat. The biggest problem with a built in flash is the direct reflection of paritcles, usually sand, that create a triangular image in the photograph.......at any depth. With the light source up and away at an angle, this does not occur. I started with a Canon AS-6 with built in flash in the 80's, with the inherent reflection problem, which went way with the Nikonos system I currently use. Although particulate matter in the water still will show up, the large triangular images do not. > Similarly, another rule of thumb is that you need to open up at least > one full stop in this general depth range, and another full stop when [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > -hh again, the photos i took in the caymans (first dive of the day) were all at ~100 feet. sony P7 digital, red lens cover, no flash, all camera setting were on auto (it's why i bought that camera). auto color corrected in photoshop elements 2. the water is probably exceptionally clear there. > Elliott's scuba pics <http://www.public.asu.edu/%7Eelliotg/> look at the caymans pics, especially the black lace coral. it is one of may favorites. the (deep) akumel pics were taken at 80-100 feet. elliott goldstein > > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > as long as photographers are reading this thread, i have a question about where and how you get your prints. i don't want to print my own. the last batch had poor and incorrect colors. shutterfly said it was because they always do an auto color correct which messed up my photoshop color correct. they said they could turn it off, but the reprints looked just like the originals. so, if you have color prints made, how do you do it and who do you recommend? thanks for the help, elliott goldstein Elliott Goldstein <e.goldstein@asu.edu> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :as long as photographers are reading this thread, i have a question :about where and how you get your prints. i don't want to print my own. I print my own. Why don't you want to? Dan Bracuk If at first you don't succeed, you run the risk of failure. The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/ i would have to get a new printer, mine is only decent. i read a lot about how difficult it is to get the print colors to match the screen colors in photoshop. elliott goldstein >Elliott Goldstein <e.goldstein@asu.edu> pounded away at his keyboard >resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- > > as long as photographers are reading this thread, i have a question > about where and how you get your prints. i don't want to print my own. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > thanks for the help, > elliott goldstein I, too, print my own for exactly the reasons you mention! It is CHEAPER especially if you like to print 8x10's and the quality is MILES better IMHO. You can get a good photo-printer for a few hundred dollars now and a GREAT photo-printer for under $1000 - either will get you the results you want. Not the answer you want I'm sure but - that's life :-) HTH Tack PS are you sure that the results you got aren't a result of a poorly calibrated monitor on your computer? > as long as photographers are reading this thread, i have a question > about where and how you get your prints. i don't want to print my own. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > so, if you have color prints made, how do you do it and who do you > recommend? I avoid the problem a few different ways. For UW, I shoot slide film. Yes, its narrower exposure lattitude is more demanding, but it avoids the problem of the photo store's computerized auto-color corrections of prints. If I do shoot prints, I take all of my film to a local, small, in-house, good quality photo developers whose service includes hand-checking of all images. It costs more, but when you give them a special request (eg, UW images), they actually do try their best to color-correct them. BTW, do note that you can also often request "NO CORRECTIONS" too at this kind of place, which is very necessary when you're trying to compare the results of different hardware, techniques, and/or brands of film to see what works best for you. If I really want a print when I've shot slides, I have three or four options: - ship it out to have an Ilfrachrome made - pay for local photo shop to shoot an internegative & make print - pay for local photo shop to digitize, adjust & print it themselves - scan it & print it out myself I've listed these in decreasing order of _apparent_ cost...the reality is that "saving money" by doing it assumes that your free time is worth nothing, plus that you get your inkjet & paper supplies somehow a heck of a lot cheaper than the rest of us. In your case, if what your local photoshop offered was to "turn off" the autocorrect, this is giving you some feedback as to what your camera actually saw...if they are bluecast and you don't like that, then you're going to have to decide how you're going to color-adjust while still in the water (most likely, time for a new strobe). IMO, a better photo shop should be willing to do more than just used the "on/off" computer switch, as they should know how to manually adjust your prints, plus be willing to do this if they are advertising "hand checking" and satisfaction guarentees. If not, go find a better shop. Finally, if you are thinking about getting a photo-quality printer, be aware that there's going to be a healthy price jump between standard letter size printers and those that can handle the next size up in paper sizes (11x14). Between time, paper and ink costs, it may be really worth thinking about leaving the larger print enlargements to your local photo store. -hh |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.