The tip of the iceberg

[TimIngmire]

Just read this by Thom Hogan

Tip of the Iceberg by Thom Hogan

which is very interesting. Of course, the scary thing is, as UW photographers, just how much extra we add onto the list he has provided.

Tim

[Mike W]

Back in the old days of 35mm film my better half, a pharmacist, worked for Boots in a largish city centre branch. People then were just as keen on getting the best possible pics as they are now, and they based their camera buying on the same sort of principle we do today: the more expensive the camera(body), the better the pics.

Since Boots sold film she saw lots of cameras, and more than her fair share of really expensive cameras; Nikon F's of various types, Canon F1's and New F1's and so on. Many of the people she sold film to asked for the new film to be put into their camera for them, and that included the Nikon F/Canon F1 users. Usually that film would be a 24 exposure colour print film, often Boots own brand, because it cost a bit less than the Kodak or Fuji equivalant.

Here's the point. Camera bodies in the old days never had any influence on the final shot, beyond the very, very small amount of extra speed and ease of use provided by the body ergonomics. The factors defining image quality were the lenses, film stock and, in certain circumstances, a tripod. Put the same lens and same film stock on and in any 35mm body and you would get the same picture quality, regardless of whether that body was a £1000+ professional body or a sub-£100 budget amateur unit. So whilst Thom Hogan is quite correct that body costs are only the tip of the iceberg, it has always been so. The only difference these days is that body choice actually does influence the shot, because the sensor and the in-body processing of data, even the data used for RAW files, influences the final picture. Digital has therefore flattened the iceberg by making the tip a bit bigger. It has also increased the size of the equipment iceberg (My digital SLR Ikelite housing cost £1000, give or take, but a film housing would have been £600 or so), but has substantially decreased the size of the film iceberg. On a weeks liveaboard I'd have used 20 rolls of 35mm slide film, say £180 processed and delivered home, and had 720 shots to show for it. I now take probably four or five times as many images per trip, and there's no additional cost.

And today, just as before, so long as you don't change lens mount, alll the accessories you buy for you Canon or Nikon or Olympus or whatever will be there for you when you upgrade the body to a new D300 or whatever.

[ChristianG]

Originally Posted by Mike W

Back in the old days of 35mm film my better half, a pharmacist, worked for Boots in a largish city centre branch. People then were just as keen on getting the best possible pics as they are now, and they based their camera buying on the same sort of principle we do today: the more expensive the camera(body), the better the pics.

Since Boots sold film she saw lots of cameras, and more than her fair share of really expensive cameras; Nikon F's of various types, Canon F1's and New F1's and so on. Many of the people she sold film to asked for the new film to be put into their camera for them, and that included the Nikon F/Canon F1 users. Usually that film would be a 24 exposure colour print film, often Boots own brand, because it cost a bit less than the Kodak or Fuji equivalant.

I can, as you can, relate to that. Started with a Nik II (or was it Nik I?). Qualification: that's my own cameras, actually started with a Hans Hass Rolleimarin, but then Hans had them scattered around the boat (Xarifa) anyway and as soon as he thought I could handle one he handed it to me. Little did I know what a treasure I was carrying, ignorance is bliss.

Originally Posted by Mike W

Here's the point. Camera bodies in the old days never had any influence on the final shot, beyond the very, very small amount of extra speed and ease of use provided by the body ergonomics. The factors defining image quality were the lenses, film stock and, in certain circumstances, a tripod.

Bingo.

Until recently I'd never taken abovewater shots except once in a blue moon. Until recently I'd never even owned an abovewater camera (one, long ago, exception) so when I bit the bullet I asked a favourite Canadian friend, those who actually bother to read my stuff will know of him, what he thought of the two lenses I was considering buying. He said get the 28-50mm and replace the other with a decent tripod. What Charles actually said was as follows:

>What I would find daunting is the problem of handling movement without flash to stop it, both the movement of subjects and the movement of the camera. Now that immediate feedback has made exposing easy, I find this to be the second most difficult technical aspect of photography. (The only thing I now find more difficult is creating the appearance of movement while taking a picture with flash.)

Now Charles wouldn't know underwater if it came and bit him on the posterior but what he does know is that underwater mostly means flash, which mostly freezes those shots, an important consideration sometimes not even understood by the photographer. If that weren't the case we would get a lot more blurred pics unnawata and it's another important consideration for buying a strobe or two.

I now have a good tripod, carbon fibre no less, which I use at every opportunity, and I am in the throes of buying 10-20 and 50-150mm lenses to compliment the 18-50. Fortunately I have no legacy lenses to confuse the situation.

[Mike W]

Originally Posted by ChristianG

I can, as you can, relate to that. Started with a Nik II (or was it Nik I?). Qualification: that's my own cameras, actually started with a Hans Hass Rolleimarin, but then Hans had them scattered around the boat (Xarifa) anyway and as soon as he thought I could handle one he handed it to me. Little did I know what a treasure I was carrying, ignorance is bliss.

Now that's what I call name-dropping!!

I've a couple of Hans Hass' books, including a very tattered and almost cover-free copy of 'Under the Red Sea' that's sat on the table in front of me now - 100% brilliant. There's a very non-eco-friendly plate just before page 129 of Lottie Hass ('The author's wife..') sat on a coral head photographing fish that makes diving look so straightforward and, well, fun! Then you read and find out that ending the day with an oxygen toxicity hit or nearly dying because the sorb got wet, or being stung and almost killed by marine life they'd never seen before was a routine "Oh, nearly died again, dear? Better luck this afternoon!" experience.

I was a Cousteau-inspired diver, as I suspect a lot of people my age are, but the Hass's deserves as much respect.

[KenByrne]

Yes what a name to drop. I remember being glued to our B&W TV watching Hans and the gorgeous Lottie Haas if I remember correctly the series was called 'Diving to Adventure'. It was this series that first got me interested in the underwater world. I watched Cousteau in my teens and twenties but it was Hans and Lottie Haas that were my first inspiration.

I was lucky enough to attend a talk given by Hans Haas at the Dive Show at the NEC a few years ago. Still just as interesting and Lottie was still gorgeous.