-
Welcome to the DeeperBlue.com Forums, the largest online community dedicated to Freediving, Scuba Diving and Spearfishing. To gain full access to the DeeperBlue.com Forums you must register for a free account. As a registered member you will be able to:
- Join over 44,280+ fellow diving enthusiasts from around the world on this forum
- Participate in and browse from over 516,210+ posts.
- Communicate privately with other divers from around the world.
- Post your own photos or view from 7,441+ user submitted images.
- All this and much more...
You can gain access to all this absolutely free when you register for an account, so sign up today!
How???
- Thread starterAmphibious
- Start date
Thread Status: Hello
, There was no answer in this thread for more than 60 days.
It can take a long time to get an up-to-date response or contact with relevant users.
It can take a long time to get an up-to-date response or contact with relevant users.
How?
Here`s how:
I know I`m a bit late, but as a photographer I might be able to tell you how the picture was made. Cliff is right when it comes to the lens and flash. Wide-agle and fill flash. Flashes for UW photography are normally mounted with quite some distance to the housing, that is why only the glove and the fish`s head are flash-lighted. The only way to get any colour other than blue under water is taking a flash or other artificial light. For the clarity and color rendition of the picture i`m almost sure that slide film was used (Fuji RDP III, Kodak EPP, or something similar). Or it is digital and photoshop enhanced, can`t tell that when sample is so small, but slide film is the only way to get this result without any corrections afterwards.
Quite a good shot, after all! With the flash, the attention is drawn to the main subject, the fish, while the diver is still in the foreground through wide angle and the whole thing is placed into an nice background with rocks n all which gives a nice feeling of the depth and environment...
Greets, joe
Oh, and to DiverD: don`t know what you been told, but slide film IS transparency film and drum scanning is only used for pictures that are supposed to be professionally used (especially for ads) and most are 100+ mb big! No average user will be able to afford this kind of treatment...
Hope I could help
Here`s how:
I know I`m a bit late, but as a photographer I might be able to tell you how the picture was made. Cliff is right when it comes to the lens and flash. Wide-agle and fill flash. Flashes for UW photography are normally mounted with quite some distance to the housing, that is why only the glove and the fish`s head are flash-lighted. The only way to get any colour other than blue under water is taking a flash or other artificial light. For the clarity and color rendition of the picture i`m almost sure that slide film was used (Fuji RDP III, Kodak EPP, or something similar). Or it is digital and photoshop enhanced, can`t tell that when sample is so small, but slide film is the only way to get this result without any corrections afterwards.
Quite a good shot, after all! With the flash, the attention is drawn to the main subject, the fish, while the diver is still in the foreground through wide angle and the whole thing is placed into an nice background with rocks n all which gives a nice feeling of the depth and environment...
Greets, joe
Oh, and to DiverD: don`t know what you been told, but slide film IS transparency film and drum scanning is only used for pictures that are supposed to be professionally used (especially for ads) and most are 100+ mb big! No average user will be able to afford this kind of treatment...
Hope I could help
Last edited:
DiverD
Hear ya groats, however...
I've worked as a professional drumscanner and, no, slide film is not the same as transparancey film -- it is transparent but the difference is in the grain and how much enlargement can be made before the grain shows. A slide is about 1 x 1 inches or so and stand an enlargement of about 500% or so before it shows grain -- it cannot be used in quality reproduction at anything larger than 500% or so. A 4x5 transparency film can be used to fill a magazine spread without showing any grain. Transparrency film is loaded one piece at a time into the back of a camera, as opposed to a roll of slide film that fits in almost any old camera.
:wave
Hear ya groats, however...
I've worked as a professional drumscanner and, no, slide film is not the same as transparancey film -- it is transparent but the difference is in the grain and how much enlargement can be made before the grain shows. A slide is about 1 x 1 inches or so and stand an enlargement of about 500% or so before it shows grain -- it cannot be used in quality reproduction at anything larger than 500% or so. A 4x5 transparency film can be used to fill a magazine spread without showing any grain. Transparrency film is loaded one piece at a time into the back of a camera, as opposed to a roll of slide film that fits in almost any old camera.
:wave
DiverD
groats, your right about the dictionary, here's what my online dictionary had to say:
Slide: An image on a transparent base for projection on a screen.
Transparency: A transparent object, especially a photographic slide that is viewed by light shining through it from behind or by projection.
They sound identical. Its common here in USA to refer to the type that comes in a roll as a "slide" and to refer to the 4x5 single loading sheets as "transparencies." I'm with cliff, after doing lots of photo scanning at work it's a thrill to go digital and cut the scanning step out of the process. But I do miss working as a drum scanner, it was a fun, relaxing job.
groats, your right about the dictionary, here's what my online dictionary had to say:
Slide: An image on a transparent base for projection on a screen.
Transparency: A transparent object, especially a photographic slide that is viewed by light shining through it from behind or by projection.
They sound identical. Its common here in USA to refer to the type that comes in a roll as a "slide" and to refer to the 4x5 single loading sheets as "transparencies." I'm with cliff, after doing lots of photo scanning at work it's a thrill to go digital and cut the scanning step out of the process. But I do miss working as a drum scanner, it was a fun, relaxing job.
I think I got it now, thanks then!
For me, there`s still nothing like analogue photography. I just don`t want to replace lovely film grain by those pixels (what`s that in english, the rose, green and blue spots in plain colours, in german it`s "bildrauschen", well anyway, I don`t like THAT!). But i notice that more and more customers want digital files, so I`ll scan them. Maybe one day I`ll have to convert, but as long as i cannot get digitally what i get on silver film i`ll stick with it.
At least it`s not the technique but what comes out that counts. Just please, please, stop making those freaky, ugly, 70`s colour convertion techniques like solarisation n stuff.
So let me now go back to the studio and load some funky old 4*5` inch TRANSPARENCIES (its just a big slide, innit?
) into the good old sinar p1 and shoot some ............... flowers! haha, naah, not flowers, where are the women? Alright, i`ll quit now as this is going too far...
Cheers joe
For me, there`s still nothing like analogue photography. I just don`t want to replace lovely film grain by those pixels (what`s that in english, the rose, green and blue spots in plain colours, in german it`s "bildrauschen", well anyway, I don`t like THAT!). But i notice that more and more customers want digital files, so I`ll scan them. Maybe one day I`ll have to convert, but as long as i cannot get digitally what i get on silver film i`ll stick with it.
At least it`s not the technique but what comes out that counts. Just please, please, stop making those freaky, ugly, 70`s colour convertion techniques like solarisation n stuff.
So let me now go back to the studio and load some funky old 4*5` inch TRANSPARENCIES (its just a big slide, innit?
) into the good old sinar p1 and shoot some ............... flowers! haha, naah, not flowers, where are the women? Alright, i`ll quit now as this is going too far...Cheers joe
