AmbergrisCaye.com Home
Posted By: mickeyo diving buffs camera question - 02/19/04 06:46 PM
Ok now I am in a quandary about underwater cameras. I have used the use'm and toss'm camera's the last few trips and they were great, EXCEPT for the camera that went a little to deep and cracked and it contained the pictures of my sailfish that was thiiiiiiiis big! ;-) So Since nancyo and I take lots of tropical trips we were looking at getting a decent underwater camera, but we don't want to go digi and don't want to spend a trips worth of cash on the camera. Soooo please feel free to chime in with suggestions. The one that we are leaning toward is the SL515 Reefmaster RC. thanks everyone and can't wait to get down there in May. MickeyO
Posted By: Bobber Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/19/04 08:00 PM
Hi MickeyO. The camera I use is an SL515 Reefmaster, and I am perfectly satisfied with it. Just have to stick with the recommended film, watch the distance, and make sure the strobe (if you are using it) is correctly oriented. I might also suggest checking out the Bonica cameras. www.bonicadive.com If I hit the point where I want to invest more, I would go with a digital, as I have a problem remembering what I did between when I did it and the film comes back. I have gotten a lot of nice pics with the Reefmaster, so I guess the main problem is me and not the camera. When you use something once or twice a year, it tends to get dicey.
Posted By: BNBelizeSoon Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/19/04 08:47 PM
I have the Olympus digital camera and I am thinking of buying the housing for it to take underwater pictures.... does anyone know how much it is to rent a digital camera for underwater pics? I am thinking that it would be cheaper to buy the housing for my camera. The strobes are kind of expensive, can I get good pictures without? I am a newbie to my digital camera and to taking pics underwater.
Posted By: Phoenix East Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/20/04 03:50 AM
Most cases are pretty expensive for the digitals, as they have all kinds of functions and features youll need underwater. Some ive heard of being 500 just for the case. The deeper you go the more your gonna need a strobe. I would say after 30 feet your gonna need one, it will really make the picture worth your while to have. Try to always use 2 hands and try to be as neutrally buoyant as possible when you take the shot, also makre sure to have a good idea of how long your delay is with that camera between shots There is a funtion on most digital cameras that is called bracketing, this funtion will allow you to take 3 recordings of the same picture for you and at different shutter speeds and aperture sizes. If you have a good sized memory card, say over 64mb, you can take a good ammount of shots in this mode and youll be able to chose between the better of the 3 for each shot you take.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/20/04 04:46 AM
Don't want to give a photo lessen, but since you do not want a digi camera which would require a expensive housing, overprice sync cords, over priced tray and incredibly expensive strobe which all equals 2 dive trips (6 to 9K). I would recommend a Nikonos-V camera starter kit, about $1800. Just remember one thing, light is everything in underwater photography, so look at the best strobe, speed light or flash (what ever you want to call it) you can afford. Without light you will never produce decent photos.

The Nikonos-V basic system.

[Linked Image]
Posted By: Dave in WSNC Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/20/04 05:47 AM
mickeyo

I have a sea and sea motor marine II. Have had alot of good pics with it, and bought it used. Was real fortunate to be in a camera shop and saw that they had the strobe, wide angle lens, 2 close up lenses, wide angle view finder, a couple of trays and a few other goodies that were traded in and was able to get all of that stuff at a very reasonable price, was able to bargain them down a bit to a price that was less than the retail price of the view finder alone. But you will need light for good pics. Get a good strobe and after you learn how to use the camera, mainly pointing the light at were the object you are photographing really is instead of were you think it is, you will be pleased with the results.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/20/04 06:42 AM
Dave, " mainly pointing the light at were the object you are photographing really is instead of were you think it is, you will be pleased with the results."

That's a good point, the subject is not at the distance that is appears it is, for the most part for a 35mm lens at 2ft away I point the strobe slightly downward, at 4 ft I prefer to aim the strobe in the same direction as the lens, If you aim the strobe directly at the subject you will illuminate particles in the water that is between the lens and the subject (known as back scatter)

Also since the subject is not where it appears to be, the focus can be misjudged very easily as well.
Posted By: charliec Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/20/04 08:20 AM
Check out the pics on my website . I used a Canon S200 Digital Elph with it's corresponding underwater case and was pretty satisfied.

It's only a 2 megapixal. Of course, this is not the rig to get if you are serious about underwater photography!
Posted By: cromedomer Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/20/04 03:06 PM
If you intend to go digital for above water shots you may want to buy a case for it. This company sells cases for Olympus digial cameras,and others, http://www.marinecamera.com/oly_pt016.html for around $200. They do take fair pictures without an external strobe, which you can add later. The best part is you only take home the keepers.
Posted By: Zagnut Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/20/04 06:39 PM
I'm with Bobber on this one. Reefmaster RC is the way to go. Buy it online from Leisure Pro. They are about as cheap as SCUBA gear gets. I've used Leisure Pro several times and had no problems whatsoever. $110.25!! Man! I bought mine from them about a year or two ago and paid twice that! I guess the digital camera market is really bringing the price down on these film cameras.
Get the macro lens as well. With that you are set for just about anything.

Quote
I would recommend a Nikonos-V camera starter kit, about $1800. Just remember one thing, light is everything in underwater photography, so look at the best strobe, speed light or flash (what ever you want to call it) you can afford. Without light you will never produce decent photos.
Forget anything with the Nikonos name on it...unless your either filthy rich or really serious about underwater photography. For what you are asking for, the Reefmaster is what you want. I've taken many surprisingly good photos with just my Reefmaster and no external strobe. You just have to be mindful of back scatter situations and do your best to avoid those shots..sometimes, however, with out the external strobe, it is unavoidable. Just shoot in good vis and make sure nobody has finned up any sand in front of you when you shoot. Shallower pix = more ambient light and less chance of backscatter.

It will go deeper than recreational diving limits(130'). Some of the cheaper cameras won't.

Here's a link to the reefmaster page on their site:

http://s1059kxm.leisurepro.com/webapp/commerce/command/ProductDisplay?prrfnbr=6307&prmenbr=946

Hope this helps.
Posted By: Phoenix East Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/20/04 09:48 PM
BNBelize soon, You will have excellent shots with a digital, thats without a doubt. You will have alot more flixibility with your digital. I have taken hundreds of underwater shots in Belize, some with film and others digital and can tell you the digitals were by far the best quality. Do have a flash, and just review your shots as often as you can to re-adjust the position an angles your shooting at. Make sure to stay off the bottom, the corals are very fragile, take forever to grow and should not be touched.
Posted By: evening Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/20/04 11:52 PM
check bhphoto.com or leisurepro.com web site - cheapest prices on underwater housings I've found, and I live in the photo district. Probably on underwater cameras as well. The housing for the Canon s400 is only $169.

After years of going through as many as 6 hand inspections in 3 airports RTP for a 1 week trip with 800 ASA film for underwater camera I AM DONE! $169 for the housing well worth it to me!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/21/04 03:46 AM
Hey Zagnut,

I'll put up my photographs taken with my Nikonos-V against your snapshots you get with your Reefmaster any day. I'm not filthy rich, but I do demand quality results from a camera. If I'm willing to spend thousands on dive trips for my family I want to produce quality photographs, not ones that have a greenish/bluish color tint or under exposed, and even blurry and everything those cheap cameras/housings produce. Like I said I'll put mine against yours any day...

My Nikonos has not flooded/leaked at 150' and even worked as smoothly as if it were at the surface.

Have a nice day smile
Posted By: nancyo Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/21/04 03:47 AM
Thanks to everyone for their input! Since MickeyO and I only snorkel and don't dive - not sure if it would be worth while to invest in an underwater camera - as the disposables have always provided great pics. Sounds as though most of you dive. Guess we have 3 long months to decide ...
Posted By: BNBelizeSoon Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/21/04 07:46 AM
The housing I am looking at is about 150.00, the strobes are quite expensive. We are relatively new scuba divers but I am very comfortable in the water and would really like to take some pics. I can probably swing the housing but not the strobes at this time. Can you just rent the strobes I wonder? The housing would be great too since we will snorkel and do the cave tubing. I have a 256 mb card so lots of room for practicing. is it possible to get good pics 60' w/no strobes?
Posted By: BNBelizeSoon Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/21/04 07:48 AM
oh ya, and thanks to everyone for answering my questions too. you are all awesome and i can't wait to get to belize....
Posted By: Anonymous Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/21/04 08:10 AM
"is it possible to get good pics 60' w/no strobes?"

No, but you can get good results shooting upward for a silhouette shot if you can position yourself below your subject and the sun above.

You can get fair to good pics to the depth of 10 to 12' on a sunny day (water filters the warm color), but make sure the sun is to your back and lighting up your subject.

But then again, everybody has a different definition of 'good'...
Posted By: Bobber Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/21/04 05:30 PM
Idaho, I've seen your pics and they are definitely better than mine. Satisfied? I do take some consolation in the fact that I enjoy myself and whatever I do, wherever I do it, without going totally anal.
Have a nice day. smile
Posted By: Anonymous Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/21/04 11:00 PM
Sorry Bobber,

You say "I am perfectly satisfied with it" and "Pics are loaded. I will apologize for the quality of the underwaters, I was trying a faster film that didn't pan out."

So what is it, you are 'perfectly satisfied' or apologizing for the quality? Faster film to try to improve the inadequacy of the camera is proof you don't know what you're talking about.

Again, "Hi Nancyo. I used a Sealife Reefmaster with strobe. About a $400 dollar outfit. I am disapointed with these pics, previous ones were much better. I used a faster film this time and the results weren't as good as I've had with slower film"

Rolling my eyes...

"Take a look at the pics. The faster film needed more light, which the flash and ambient couldn't supply unless I was really close. The current pics are pretty faded."

Now I'm laughing my a$$ off, faster film requires less light, 400iso/asa is 2f-stops different than 100 iso/asa or the shutter speed difference of 250 and 1000 per sec. Does EV mean anything to you? (exposure value)

You also say "as I have a problem remembering what I did between when I did it and the film comes back"

Sounds like to many beers to me, do you suffer from blackouts as well?

And, "When you use something once or twice a year, it tends to get dicey."

Don't give photo advice, Nuff said...

Zagnut,

Here's some of my stuff.
http://community.webshots.com/user/idaho_diver

Sorry to sound anal, but some shouldn't give advice when they don't know what they are talking about...
Posted By: Bobber Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/22/04 04:42 AM
Full of yourself aren't you? I would hesitate to suggest a very expensive camera to a snorkeler. I do a lot of things just to see what would happen. If it doesn't turn out, I don't go catatonic.
Just real glad I'm not you, and my state doesn't begin with a vowel. laugh
Posted By: Anonymous Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/22/04 07:08 AM
Vowel, lol, you're funny. I think you are the one that is full of hot air, or is it passin gas...

But you're right, I would not suggest a expensive camera to a snorkeler either. I never seen or read in the first post that they were snorkelers.

You crack me up, LOL...
Posted By: Bobber Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/22/04 05:59 PM
I will admit that you are correct about the film speed versus light. My original thought was to go with a more light sensitive speed to enhance the photos. Didn't work out. The camera specifies either 100 or 200 only. I stopped worrying about f stops when I went point and shoot 20 years ago. I put the film in and snap the picture and don't try and think it to death.
As for you, planning another trip to AC? I seem to recall you made one trip a few years ago, found just about everything to be unsatisfactory and not up to your standards. Funny that you keep haunting this message board and presenting your opinions as more factual than others opinions.
Have a nice day. smile
Posted By: Anonymous Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/23/04 02:56 AM
[Linked Image]
Have a nice day yourself laugh
Posted By: Phoenix East Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/23/04 04:53 AM
What a worthless argument, hahahahaha hahahahah ahahaha ahahahahah hahaha hahah
Posted By: Bobber Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/23/04 03:54 PM
Oh, I don't know. Anybody learn anything? I did. Maybe I should have gone Liberal Arts and taken a photo course. Anyway, bumping heads with an immovable ego is always a challenge.
Posted By: Zagnut Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/23/04 05:14 PM
Quote
Hey Zagnut,

I'll put up my photographs taken with my Nikonos-V against your snapshots you get with your Reefmaster any day.
Well... at $1,800.00 for a starter kit...they damn well better be better than mine!

Idaho Diver,
I'm sure you pix are just super!..but, before you get all caught up in your passion (photography), why don't you go back and read a little closer what the needs of the person asking the question are.

Quote
I have used the use'm and toss'm camera's the last few trips and they were great, EXCEPT for the camera that went a little to deep and cracked and it contained the pictures of my sailfish that was thiiiiiiiis big!
This person states that they thought the single use cameras were "great". The only real problem they had with the little single use cameras was that thay couldn't go to depth.
Now do you honestly think somebody that is completely happy with the single use cameras is wanting to go out and drop $1,800.00 on a "starter kit"???

More than likely, not. See, I tried to answer the person's question with the best answer for THEM...not with the best answer for me (or you for that matter).

No. The Reefmaster isn't the best camera out there. Far from it. I'll be the first to admit that...but it didn't sound like they were looking for the best camera out there. They just wanted something that would let them bring a few snapshots home and the Reefmaster is perfect for that. It takes better pictures than single use cameras because it has a flash and it can go to 150' so it won't flood like the single use cameras.

Yss. The Reefmaster can take good pix without using an external strobe(camera's flash only) at 60' in Carribean waters. I've done it. Granted, probably a smaller percentage of my photos come out lookin like National Geographic photos than yours with your Nikonos. I would post them but I don't have a scanner or a website to post them on....and I'm not going to go to all that trouble just to prove a point to you. You can believe me or not, I don't care either way. Come to the Lake Conroe Fundraiser Shindig and I will show them to you. You can criticize them there.

Not everbody needs to "WOW" the whole world with their photos. Some folks just like to flip through them with friends.. and when they do this their fond memories and good times come right back to mind. They would rather experience their trip with their own eyes and minds rather than spend their trip peering through a viewfinder and then recalling their trip later in photographs. For some folks, a few snapshots are just fine.

I didn't lay into you because you are so anal about "quality" photos... so why don't you return the favor and don't lay into the rest of us because we're not....fair enough?

I'm sure your photos are lovely. I'm not taking that away from you. It's just that not everyone cares so much whether or not they get award winning photos...and reading the original question, it just seems that since this person is quite happy with the quality of single use cameras, they probably don't want to shell out $1,800.00 for your starter kit. I could be wrong on that, though, so I would say that it is good that you showed them that option. I was just giving them another option. That's all.
Posted By: Chloe Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/23/04 09:05 PM
This much I know to be true....you only have a split second to photograph fish under water, before the view differs.

Our educated family photographer, gets on our last nerve, we yell "take the picture already".

Loved the lively debate, tho.
Posted By: seashell Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/23/04 09:55 PM
Zagnut said among other things: "See, I tried to answer the person's question with the best answer for THEM...not with the best answer for me (or you for that matter)."

seashell replies: Sadly, trying to answer the person's question with the best answer for THEM, is often discouraged on this board.

To Zagnut and any others that would try to answer questions with the best answer they can give FOR THE PERSON ASKING, I say please keep up the good work!
Posted By: BNBelizeSoon Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/23/04 11:36 PM
i'm all for an amusing and informative topic such as this one. thanks for the smiles and the info.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/24/04 05:29 AM
Hey Zagnut, where did one of your last posts go? Did you delete it? Did the censorship button pushers do it?

Sphincter isn't it? Besides it was Bobber who indicated I was anal.

I will agree with much of what you said above, (if they don't have the skill it won't happen) but any way, you are NOT going to get a colorful photo at any depth from a box type camera withOUT added light, (I haven't used those red filters so I can't speak about those)

The need for light... the primary purpose of a strobe underwater is to reproduce the subject's color. At a depth of 10 ft. the red content of the subject will begin to be absorbed by the water, resulting in a photograph strong in blue cast. (orange and yellow is not far behind)

This phenomenon, know as 'selective light absorption' increases as you go deeper underwater and go further from the subject. Think about it for a second, if the light leaves the strobe and hits the subject 8 ft away and reflects back another 8 ft to the camera, has the colors already started to be absorbed by the water? Using a strobe will effectively restore the lost color to your photographs and create better contrast if used properly. Have you ever been in a grandstand and noticed all the flashes go off all over? Even onland most flashes don't do any good after 30 ft. (underexposed or blurry because the camera decided it needed more light)

No I am not an expert, I have thrown away more pics than you can imagine. I started underwater photography about 13/15 years ago with an old Nikonos-III and no strobe, (loaned to me). The underwater lighting needs are very much different than a land based SLR or today's digitals, so to compared what you learned in "I also took a couple of college courses in black and white and in color photography as required for my art degree." don't hold much water in underwater photography. But keep talking your Sphincter is starting to blow...

One last word for you Zagnut, if photography is a 'enigma' don't squeeze the shutter... you may not like what you find...

I'm glad some of the regular readers found this thread amusing and informative, just consider what most are doing here. You recite what he said/she said, a lot of misinformation...
Posted By: seashell Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/24/04 08:11 AM
Idaho is Pedro1's twin brother from another mother.
Posted By: NYgal Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/24/04 03:28 PM
Is this one Seek or Reap smile
Posted By: seashell Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/24/04 04:17 PM
smile smile
Posted By: Zagnut Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/24/04 07:35 PM
ID,
I pulled it. *sshole was the word I was thinking of and after posting it, I got to thinking that it would just turn this thread into a p*ssing match between you and I and that wasn't really fair to the folks that are legitimately trying to gain something from this thread.

My calling UW photography and enigma was a smart*ss attempt on my part to say that photography, UW or otherwise, ain't rocket science..as much as you'd like the rest of us to think it is. I guess the harder you make it out to be, the cooler you make yourself seem to the rest of us. My taking jabs at you personally, doesn't help anyone so I will try to refrain from it even though sometimes it is hard not to. Your last post was much more helpful to the thread. Although it is tinged with yourself important attitude, it does have some good info.

Anyhows, let's talk about the stuff that is useful. I know about the color loss at depth. Really anybody that is certified should know that because it is taught in OW class, but you did a pretty good job of explaining it.

As far as my Reefmaster goes, you are correct in your last post. After about 8' or so, my camera's flash becomes useless. No way it can compare to yours. But when I use my macro lens for pix where the subject is 1' to 3' away, the flash works fine. That is of course unless there is stuff floating in the water. Then I obviously get backscatter. I think you might be surprised at some of the colors in some of my pix. Granted without the external strobe, a much higher percentage have some flaw it them due to backscatter or the blues and greens taking over, but I still get some shots that would compare to yours. I get bright reds and yellows as long as my subject is close up, which it is in many of my (as well as your) photos. I considered getting an external strobe for it, but decided not to invest that kind of money into such a crude setup as the Reefmaster. If I'm going to start to build on a setup, it's going to be a setup that can grow with me unlike the Reefmaster.
At that point, it's getting to the range of where I'm getting serious about UW photography and if you look back at my 1st post, I said forget anything with the Nikonos name on it unless you are filthy rich, or "serious about UW photography". If you start to get serious about UW photography (as you, and to a much lesser extent, myself have done) then I agree the Reefmaster would not be up to the task. But you have to realize that most folks don't take it near as seriously as we do.

External strobes will really help to cut down on the number of bad pix, but there is a trade off..well for me at least. External strobes are bulky and I don't like taking alot of stuff down with me on a dive. If I take a camera down, I want it to be small so I can tuck it away when I'm not using it.

Also, I have found that if I'm taking a bunch of UW photos, I tend to "get into my own little world" down there as I'm sure you do as well. This tends to cut down on my interaction with my buddy and I tend to miss some of the cool stuff that my buddy finds and I also lose some of the "togetherness" that I share with my buddy who is also my wife.

Another thing that happens is I use my gas up quicker when I take alot of pix due to inhaling or exhaling prematurely to get into position for a good macro shot. When I 1st started taking UW pix, this really ate up my gas, but as I've done it more, I constantly stay aware of my gas usage and it has improved dramatically. Even with my camera, when I dive with a DM and a group, I'm one of the last to come up, but I still use gas a bit faster when I'm taking pix, so I deprive myself of precious bottom time.

The serenity of being UW is a big part of my enjoyment of being a diver. When I take UW pix, I get wrapped up in that and lose some of the serenity of being down there. If I could bluewater dive all the time, I would definately get a nice camera with an external strobe and would do lots of dives dedicated soley to taking pictures. I don't get to bluewater dive that often, so I tend to try to enjoy the dive more while it's actually going on and store my experience in my memory rather than my photo album...but to each his own, I guess.

It's great that you are so into UW photography. You take good pix. Just don't go around knocking other people because they aren't as into it as you. It doesn't make you any better...or any worse than anybody else...

BTW, alot of my local divebuddies are avid UW shutterbuggers like you. We met through the Scubaboard website and it has a section of the site dedicated to avid UW photographers like you. I have picked up alot of good tips and equipment advice from them. You might enjoy the site. It is: www.scubaboard.com
Posted By: ilandhoper Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/24/04 08:05 PM
Well Mickeyo,

You can't get this kind of support from the booklet that comes with the camera. Interesting discussion> Leave some feedback when you figure out what you are going to do. Will be interesting to see what you gleaned from this thread......
Posted By: Phoenix East Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/24/04 09:20 PM
Yeh, UW photography is not rocket science and you spend more, you get more with underwater photo equipment. Flashes work great if you point them the right way and nikonos are for the filthy rich, or "serious" and all the colors of the rainbow filter out as you go deeper starting with red through blue and every color in between, though divers learn that in basic OW class. Yippy, Im gonna fill out an application for national geographic, I want to be a UW photgrapher!!!!!!!!
Posted By: KWIBMF Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/24/04 11:59 PM
Phoenix, Did you have a few martinis for lunch?
Posted By: Phoenix East Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/25/04 12:23 AM
No why?
Posted By: seashell Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/25/04 04:21 AM
Idaho, I'm with you regarding physical interaction with the animals of the sea. However, this is hardly "fisting". Alphonzo has been hugging/petting these animals for many, many years before anyone appreciated that it was inappropriate.

There are still many people out there that are new and/or uneducated with regard to oceanic experiences and fishlife interactions, whether that be in San Pedro or elsewhere. Since you feel so strongly about this issue, it behooves you to attempt to educate them as to why it is wrong and not be so crass in your derision. The manner that you are approaching this matter is not helping a thing.
Posted By: seashell Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/25/04 04:24 AM
LOL, Idaho got pulled while I was putting up my response to him.

Someone is "johnny on the spot"!
Posted By: NYgal Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/25/04 04:32 AM
Is that a tissue issue laugh
Posted By: Anonymous Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/25/04 04:36 AM
seashell, I know I don't go about everthing the right way, but why hide what the guides are doing? If your truthful about the amount of diving you have done around AC you should be one of the first to scream foul. The problem with this board is everybody is looking though some rossy red glasses and don't want to tell the truth or let it be known. I don't give a crapp if the guide has done it for years, he should not be diong it. You tell why we pay a marine reserve fee? Is it not to protect the reef and fish? How would it go over if I or some other vistor did the samething? Are you the censorship god that cut my post?
Posted By: Chloe Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/25/04 04:52 AM
Idaho, why ask Seashell if she deleted your post, when she replied to you.

Please don't attack Seashell, thanks.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/25/04 05:54 AM
Chloe, well... between the time I posted and seashells reply my post was deleted, I had not seen her response before I asked the question.

I ask you now, are you the 'censorship god' that is looking through the rosy reds?

And if so, can you answer my other questions?

What is the purpose of a marine reserve when the guides do what they do? Why do so many of us pay a marine reserve tax/fee. Why was my posted deleted when I brought it up? Why do so many of you people look the other way? Why give kudos when none are do.
Posted By: Chloe Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/25/04 06:05 AM
Chloe is the Ole Wise One, not the censorgod.

Marine Reserve, I've posted before the Rangers need to be more watchful, IMO.

But I do not make the rules in Belize or anywhere else infact.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/25/04 06:23 AM
"Chloe is the Ole Wise One, not the censorgod."

I think one should get their eyes checked and leave the shades off, and leave the 'report post' button alone... Ole Wise One...
Posted By: klcman Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/25/04 06:31 AM
tsk tsk tsk
Posted By: Marty Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/25/04 07:01 AM
i deleted the post in question, cause i know how tender and experienced alfonso is with the beasties of the sea. he's a special guy.

i know idaho has his own opinion, but it was rather harshly expressed, and maybe just maybe he doesn't have the experience in this area that some including i have.

i will also chip in that i think underwater photography is not super simple, it takes good experience and knowledge to do well.

and idaho takes some really rad pics. he's got excellent skills.
Posted By: Marty Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/25/04 07:04 AM
generally speaking, if a post is deleted, it is done by me or the originator of the thread.

the originator of a thread can delete a message, and then in that case the whole thread goes away.

there is an other with the power to delete but it is rarely used except by me. and rarely by me.
Posted By: Marty Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/25/04 07:05 AM
awesome thread. the photography part.
Posted By: seashell Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/25/04 07:58 AM
Idaho, your answer to Chloe is a bit ridiculous. You accused me of censoring your post at the same time that I was replying to you. Regardless, I'll let that go. I am on record here as being against censorship on this board, as a rule. Further, while I have often disagreed with you in the past, I have also from the first been against deletion of your posts. My position on censorship has softened just a little bit though over my time here. All that said, in this instance I was not particularly surprised to see your post(s) disappear. As I said in my earlier post, and you've concurred, your approach is not always the best.

With regard to your challenge to me, as it happens, I have said on this very message board any number of times, that it is IMO inappropriate to physically interact with the sealife. While on the island and on the dive boats, I have taken the opportunity to express my opinion gently from time to time and more forcefully other times, depending on the transgression or manner thereof.

All that said, I am not quite the know all/be all
in this regard that you seem to be. Alphonso has been interacting gently with these animals for most of his and their lives. It is completely inappropriate for me to tell him to stop. In some ways, his behavior is not too different from a caregiver at the zoo. I do wish that he (and others) would stop, because to my mind, it delivers the wrong message to those that are uneducated in this regard. That said, I have never been snorkeling with him, so for all I know, he takes an opportunity to explain to others that they should not do as he does.

One of the reasons that Alphonso is so popular with the tourists is because of his very gift with the animals. You would have him lose a portion of his income because of what you have learned versus what he has learned in his lifetime.

The world evolves ever so slowly. You and I can attempt to express our views in hopes that others will see where we are coming from, but abusing Alphonso in the process is just wrong.

Can you honestly tell me that you have NEVER touched?
Posted By: seashell Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/25/04 08:01 AM
Oh, and I also want to add, your attack on Chloe is unwarranted. She has often maintained that she is not able to censor and does not apply to Marty. (My thanks to Chloe for her defence of me)

And NY, yes, it is a tissue issue. smile Someone's got to clean up the crap from time to time. Marty is the best one for that job.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/25/04 08:16 AM
" cause i know how tender and experienced alfonso is with the beasties of the sea. he's a special guy."

Sorry marty, don't care how tender or experienced he is, how would you like a hand/fist shoved up your nose? There is no excuse for his actions! Especially if he has been doing it for years, the rangers should bar him from the reef , JMO

Marty, this whole thread has became a moot point. Your bunch of zybotes can't be taught a thing, except Zagnut, I'm gettin to like him/her.
Posted By: seashell Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/25/04 08:25 AM
Idaho, I think you'd better put your reading specs on and go and look at that picture again. That is not Alphonso's forearm by the gills, that is the sharks fin. True, Alphonso's right arm is extending down just behind the fin and therefore, his forearm is with little doubt, under the belly. He is holding the shark gently, one hand on top and one hand on its underside. He, in no way, has one of his hands 'into' the shark despite a slight optical illusion created by the picture. You'd think such a great underwater photog as yourself, would have picked right up on that.
Posted By: NYgal Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/25/04 03:47 PM
Whew, we got that all straight now smile

What issues !

Photography is for those that wish to see beauty and hold on to it, not swipe it across our faces.
That's a tissue.

And thank you very much for all the informative portions.
Now, on with the shoe laugh
Whew, I'm glad that was cleared up. I thought that Alfonso and the nurse shark were demonstrating the Heimlich maneuver. Personally, I'm disappointed that a skilled photographic eye could have clearly misinterpreted the composition of that picture.
Posted By: Marty Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/25/04 04:47 PM
huh? a hand/fist shoved up your nose?

what the heck are you talking about? never seen such an action.
Posted By: NYgal Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/25/04 05:33 PM
dscallah had some very nice underwater photos. One of them is the eye candy of the idahoe_diver.
It's a visual thing.

Not anything that will be admitted to by apology, I'm sure frown ( but maybe, one never knows what will be said next on photography )
Posted By: Chloe Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/25/04 05:50 PM
A picture is worth a 1000 words? Answer: True

What are a 1000 words worth? Answer: BS

A great picture is a great picture, no matter the equipment use, if the subject shot is great.

Good morning Marty good to see you.
Posted By: Marty Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/25/04 08:15 PM
and a very good morning to you too Chloe!
Posted By: goody2shuz Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/25/04 09:01 PM
WOW...talking about beating a dead horse...please don't take offense...I've been truly entertained by all the responses to the original question since I too have utilized the buy 'em toss 'em cameras but in the end the old saying "you get what you pay for" comes into play!! And to each his own...some people rationalize the cost of a camera to the amount of use we hope to get out of it....same goes with just about anything from snorkel equipment to the vehicles we drive. Having very little experience with underwater photography...I have to say that even I could see that Alphonso was not sticking his arms up the sharks gills. I was actually trying to make out his tatoos more than anything and amazed at how the shark wasn't scared off by them!!!(HA,HA) Just thought I'd lighten up this board a little.....
Posted By: Phoenix East Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/25/04 09:07 PM
I agree with the tatoo part, pretty nice work!!
Imagine this though, what if someone came from another country and told you not to pet your dog or hold him like that. I would shove my fist down there throat indeed.
Posted By: goody2shuz Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/25/04 09:14 PM
Don't get me wrong, Phoenix, I agree that one should be respectful of all nature and one's habitat. If you actually really think about it...we are invaders of these seacreatures world and we should do everything we can to respect it. Personally, I believe we can learn alot by mere observation than manipulation and as for me my highest respect goes out to the sharks...we are better off just leaving them alone.
Posted By: goody2shuz Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/25/04 09:18 PM
Oh...btw where do I find those photos of Alphonso...I wanted to show them to hubby last nite and can't locate the original post
looks like beavis and butthead to me.
Posted By: Phoenix East Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/26/04 12:11 AM
Oh indeed, I agree that we are invaders of lots of things, thats why I DONT TOUCH ANYTHING but my inflator and instrument panel down there. But when a person growns up with dolphins and sharks and swims with them everyday, he deserves to handle them, with EXPERIENCE and CARE! Thats all im saying. Beavis and Butthead was a horrible show.
Posted By: Catatonic Motivator Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/26/04 12:12 AM
Hello again to trusty fellow board members.

I was wondering, can anyone advise me as to useful underwater cameras, the color spectrum of light at depth, stroboscopic effect on sensitive ecosystems, the depth of a nerf shark's gills in relation to the human elbow and whether my state begins with a vowel?

Oh, wait. I just re-read the thread and had all my questions answered.

My, my. I go off down to Key West to shoot some innocent groupers and hogfish for a few days and it turns out I'm behaving less violently than the board members or residents on AC.

Damn. I hate it when that happens.
Posted By: goody2shuz Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/26/04 12:30 AM
Yeah...Phoenix....I get it and totally agree. And CM...as I said on my first comment this has gone on far too long...you must be going through AC withdrawal...get the man a Belikin and fast!!!!
What I love most about this board as a newbie is that everyone is free to express their opinions...some standing on soapboxes and some like me that sometimes don't know how to interpret comments...but overall it's a very positive experience and when it goes negative there's always someone to put out the fire.
Posted By: Zagnut Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/26/04 12:46 AM
Wow. I sit out a little while and I miss a whole lot... I missed the jump from cameras to harming marine life!?!.. laugh

If y'all think this thread is beating a dead horse...why are you still whacking the carcass?
Posted By: Phoenix East Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/26/04 01:53 AM
The carcass is whooped. Lets eat!
Posted By: nancyo Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/26/04 04:56 AM
Wow, sure am glad I asked for camera advice (and then some). Everyone back to their corners and grab a beer!
Posted By: Zagnut Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/26/04 05:17 PM
I prefer to just poke it with a stick...

It's a good way to check it for tenderness.
Posted By: seashell Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/26/04 05:23 PM
What happened to Idaho? He certainly hasn't had much more to say. wink
Posted By: NYgal Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/26/04 05:34 PM
Silence is Golden....but my eyes still see smile
[Linked Image]
Posted By: seashell Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/26/04 05:41 PM
How'd you get that picture of me in the Blue Hole, DP? However, I'd swear that the shark was a lot bigger than that.
Posted By: NYgal Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/26/04 05:46 PM
S-L-O-W- Loading... and you know the vis isn't that good in the Blue Hole, no where near the lighting needed laugh
Posted By: Phoenix East Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/26/04 08:28 PM
Jeez that guys weighted down pretty good, looks like hes got at least 20 pounds on. Guess he compensates for not having a tank and using surface support.
Posted By: Phoenix East Re: diving buffs camera question - 02/26/04 08:30 PM
this is a joke..............

In the hospital the relatives gathered in the waiting room, where their
family member lay gravely ill.

Finally, the doctor came in looking tired and somber.

"I'm afraid I'm the bearer of bad news," he said as he surveyed the
worried faces.

"The only hope left for your loved one at this time is a brain transplant.

It's an experimental procedure, very risky but it is the only hope.

Insurance will cover the procedure, but you will have to pay for the

brain yourselves."

The family members sat silent as they absorbed the news. After a great
length of time, someone asked, "Well, how much does a brain cost?"

The doctor quickly responded, "$5,000 for a male brain, and $200 for a
female brain."

The moment turned awkward. Men in the room tried not to smile, avoiding
eye contact with the women, but some actually smirked.

A man unable to control his curiosity, blurted out the question everyone
wanted to ask,

"Why is the male brain so much more?"

The doctor smiled at the childish innocence and explained to the entire
group, "It's just standard pricing procedure. We have to mark down the
price of the female brains, because they've actually been used."
© Ambergris Caye Belize Message Board