response 25 of 67:

Nov 21 20:43 UTC 1997

Ok, here's my question: has anybody ever taken any underwater shots? I have
decided that I want to take some... suggestions on film type, shutter speed,
etc? PLus, there is the obvious question of has anyone ever seen a
"camera-condom" (something that will keep a camera dry) that won't noticeably
degrade image quality? I saw something meant to do this, but it was plastic
and I figured that it would just smear my image to hell... anybody ever tried
this?

response 27 of 67:

Nov 29 23:50 UTC 1997

Yeah, I use those disposable ones and, if the water is pretty clear, and the
sun is bright enough, you can get good shots.  Obviously, the deeper the water
the more light needed.

I once saw a plastic bag type thing that had a glass lens, sort of like a
large dive mask.  The bag was flexible enough to manipulate the camera, but
I could never figure out if you'd get distortion in the event the lens was
not parallel to your focal plane/lens.  Never used one...didn't trust it to
keep my camera safe either.

response 29 of 67:

Dec 3 01:00 UTC 1997

ditto that. I am sure there are professional devices intended for this though.
Maybe i will go take a look at Canons website -- considering a lot of the
other stuff they make, I have a feeling that they might have something along
these lines...

response 31 of 67:

Dec 27 09:10 UTC 1997

Ok, here is what I have found: there is in fact at least _one_ company that
makes waterproof camera's that use standard 35mm film and are waterproof to
a substantial depth (200 feet and more).

Here is the company that I found (actually I kind of stumbled across this by
accident in a sailing magazine).

Pioneer Research
97 Foster Rd, Suite 5
Moorestown, NJ 08057
Telephone: 1-800-257-7742

The Autofocus SLR that was in this particular ad is called the "Sealife
Reefmaster." I had an opportunity to check one out, and it looks pretty nicely
built, very sturdy. The price tag is sorta hefty, though -- it will probably
cost at least $125 (probably closer to $200 if you buy it in Ann Arbor), for
a camera that if it wasn't waterproof would likely cost around $50. If you
do a lot of underwater shots, or need to take an underwater shot that is more
than the 9 feet or whatever that the Kodak disposables allow, this is quite
likely a good bet.

I did find a few companies that make camera housing. For _video_ camera's,
check out aquavideo.com

So, you are planning on taking the next epic underwater photo series for
National Geographic, huh? You need something more than a point and click
camera? Check out the Nikonos system (no, that is _not_ a typo) at larger
camera shops, or check out ikelite.com, which also distributes underwater
color filters and camera housings.

The camera housings they make look pretty dependable (plus, they ahve been
manufacturing them for 31 years now...) They have housings fitted for
Minolta, Nikon, and Canon SLR's and lenses, as well as color corrective
filters. Oddly enough, they also have a housing fitted for the SONY Mavica
digital system, but I have no clue why someone would use a CCD system for
an underwateer shot, where the image quality is going to be negatively
affected by lower light levels. The Mavica system seems to work okay for
closeup shots, though there is still some visible aliasing on close
inspection, but for wide angle shots, the system is terrible, especially
when there is a wide variance in light levels (this is a problem with CCD
systems). I have put a _good_ example of what can be done with the Mavica
system in an underwater setting here on Grex as
/a/a/g/agent86/mavica-fish.jpg -- if you have internet access, just check
it out directly at http://www.ikelite.com/web_pages/mav_pic5.html.

Ah, well, thats all for now.

response 33 of 67:

Jul 18 20:46 UTC 2000

A fine camel's hair brush is usually used, after blowing. You can wash
the slides in distilled water, if you take them out of their mounts.

response 35 of 67:

Jul 19 04:30 UTC 2000

There are different kinds of slides *in* glass - old ones with thick glass
and paper around the edges, and more modern ones of plastic with
ultra-thin glass inserts. The former come apart by cutting the tape, and
inside the photo is held in a paper frame. The latter snap open. In the
former, the film is at most tacked with spots of glue on the edge. I'd
suggest if you have the former that you remount them in the latter kind
holder - they are thinner and lighter. 

response 37 of 67:

Jul 19 13:59 UTC 2000

Open a few and find out - it is easy enough to close them back up with
new black tape.

response 39 of 67:

Jul 27 01:49 UTC 2001

You'd be amazed at how much information is contained in a 35mm negative.  I
used an 1800 dpi slide scanner to archive family photos, and even at the top
resolution (yielding 13Mb files) I could zoom way in and see that there was
still some stuff on the slide being messed up by the scan quantizing.

response 41 of 67:

Jul 27 12:23 UTC 2001

Yup.

Also note that films shown in movie theaters (much bigger than poster size!)
are shot and printed on 35mm film.

response 43 of 67:

Jan 30 04:11 UTC 2003

The decor itself is dated - the shrubery, the upholstery, statues, the
wall paint. I'm not sure the "tonal quality" has much to do with it. 

response 45 of 67:

Jan 30 19:50 UTC 2003

Dark walls, dim lighting, low contrast.  The lighting and filtering used is
giving a brownish cast, too.  That's part of it -- dated decorating sense.

However, I've noticed that older pictures seem to have a more muted color
quality than modern ones.  The colors are less bright and vibrant.  I don't
know if this is a result of the film stock used or a result of fading.  I'm
not sure exactly how you'd duplicate that in Photoshop.

response 47 of 67:

Jan 30 22:30 UTC 2003

the herringbone is due to my crappy flatbed scanner.

I should clarify what I meant.....  

Theoretically if you had a regular 3 MP digital camera and
were in that same place, time, setting, etc...as the original
photographer and took a photo with the digital camera, you
would capture quite a different look...irregardless of the 
dated drappery and carpet..

anyways...looking over the same book, i'm starting to
wonder if some of those "photos" were actually very realistic
illustrations.

you can probably see what I'm taking about in this picture.
specifically the photo to the left with the blue curtains.

http://members.triton.net/eprom/decor2.jpg

response 49 of 67:

Feb 29 06:22 UTC 2004

Why is a focal length of 50mm considered a standard? I've been
reading that 50mm is very close to what the human eye see's.
I'm wondering which human is that? when I measure my perphial
viewing angle it's slightly greater than 90 degrees.

which according to this nifty little .swf applet:

http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/lens101/focallength

is somewhere between 20mm and 28mm...(i'd estimate 24mm). 

Am I gifted?