Underwater film cameras that have more than 36 exposures

AgX · Dec 4, 2021

With this argumentation you can question most if not any work here at Apug.

Concerning this very topic Alan made the good point of questioning whether there actually was a big need for such film reserve.
The OP had it about "sports-reporters" using bulk 35mm magazines (though I have not seen one such evidence on this for Europe), but this approach not necessarily is to apply on divers.

eli griggs · Dec 4, 2021

With some media sources preferring film again, you might try watching some boxing matches to see if anyone is shooting a bulk back or more than one camera, which might indicate film rather than digital.

I've never seen one of these backs, in 35mm, ever used without a high powered miter drive and I suspect it's pretty much imposable to do so.

Power winders vs. M.D. is no even a question, two - three frames a second with fresh batteries just does no cut it, five or more does, imo.

The closest I've ever came to being a sports photographer, other than Ballet and Modern Dance events and a marathon here in Charlotte, was being asked if I'd like to shoot the new Charlotte Soccer Team when it started up about 1980 - '84 here, which I was no interested in.

Both the marathon and the soccer games would have been good opertunities to use a 250 frame back, but I found Canon F1s n and N with M.D.s more than sufficient with fast rewind.

Try to see if any marathons in your area, have any film photographers shooting bulk backs.

I know that Digital storage has more storage, but many pros perfected, in the past at least, using smaller than available cards, so they do no lose large sections of a shoot to misadventure, including bugs , etc

Cheers and Happy Holidays to All.
Eli.

Sirius Glass said:
My point is that a digital underwater camera [with flash?] is definitely the way to go. I mentioned Hasselblad because I usually go that route and because the Hasselblad route is so expensive when a underwater digital camera is the best solution.

AgX said:
With this argumentation you can question most if not any work here at Apug.

Concerning this very topic Alan made the good point of questioning whether there actually was a big need for such film reserve.
The OP had it about "sports-reporters" using bulk 35mm magazines (though I have not seen one such evidence on this for Europe), but this approach not necessarily is to apply on divers.

Sirius Glass · Dec 4, 2021

eli griggs said:
With some media sources preferring film again, you might try watching some boxing matches to see if anyone is shooting a bulk back or more than one camera, which might indicate film rather than digital.

I've never seen one of these backs, in 35mm, ever used without a high powered miter drive and I suspect it's pretty much imposable to do so.

Power winders vs. M.D. is no even a question, two - three frames a second with fresh batteries just does no cut it, five or more does, imo.

The closest I've ever came to being a sports photographer, other than Ballet and Modern Dance events and a marathon here in Charlotte, was being asked if I'd like to shoot the new Charlotte Soccer Team when it started up about 1980 - '84 here, which I was no interested in.

Both the marathon and the soccer games would have been good opertunities to use a 250 frame back, but I found Canon F1s n and N with M.D.s more than sufficient with fast rewind.

Try to see if any marathons in your area, have any film photographers shooting bulk backs.

I know that Digital storage has more storage, but many pros perfected, in the past at least, using smaller than available cards, so they do no lose large sections of a shoot to misadventure, including bugs , etc

Cheers and Happy Holidays to All.
Eli.

I do not shoot like that. Even when I went to Laguna Seca raceway to photograph the motor cycle races, I shot one a time, waiting for each shot, never machine gunning. I find it better to develop the skill to anticipate the moment. Otherwise I would just shoot movies and pick the best frame.

macfred · Dec 4, 2021

Sirius Glass said:
My point is that a digital underwater camera [with flash?] is definitely the way to go. I mentioned Hasselblad because I usually go that route and because the Hasselblad route is so expensive when a underwater digital camera is the best solution.

eli griggs · Dec 4, 2021

Yes but there is a vast difference in covering the human action of many people and shooting human scale mechanical action such as cars, carnival rides, boat races, etc, where your focus is dependent on the mechanical action before you.

I can easily see your point that in your car races there's plenty of time to change film or camera, but human activity, in most team and large runs, is passing in front of you in a meer few seconds and the shear number of things going on, particularly in running activities, does no allow time to capture everyone and everything even from the best position possible.

The fact is, your going to miss shots, even if you do have a fast assistant helping you, changing out cameras and waiting for film reloads.

This is my experience, limited as it is and I still see value in a 250 back (and in an A70 back with 70 frames for general non-shooting events), as no one is going to want a photographer to "machine gun" film on bad shots, blurred images and just a small section of the event.

Composure and setting up the shot is still the top priority and good shots that fit or exceed expectations of your boss are what you are there to deliver.

You and I just have different perspectives and that's just fine, it's a big World and we each navigate it as best we are able.

Cheers and Godspeed!

PS; I still hate my spell check.

Sirius Glass said:
I do not shoot like that. Even when I went to Laguna Seca raceway to photograph the motor cycle races, I shot one a time, waiting for each shot, never machine gunning. I find it better to develop the skill to anticipate the moment. Otherwise I would just shoot movies and pick the best frame.

Sirius Glass · Dec 4, 2021

eli griggs said:
Yes but there is a vast difference in covering the human action of many people and shooting human scale mechanical action such as cars, carnival rides, boat races, etc, where your focus is dependent on the mechanical action before you.

I can easily see your point that in your car races there's plenty of time to change film or camera, but human activity, in most team and large runs, is passing in front of you in a meer few seconds and the shear number of things going on, particularly in running activities, does no allow time to capture everyone and everything even from the best position possible.

The fact is, your going to miss shots, even if you do have a fast assistant helping you, changing out cameras and waiting for film reloads.

This is my experience, limited as it is and I still see value in a 250 back (and in an A70 back with 70 frames for general non-shooting events), as no one is going to want a photographer to "machine gun" film on bad shots, blurred images and just a small section of the event.

Composure and setting up the shot is still the top priority and good shots that fit or exceed expectations of your boss are what you are there to deliver.

You and I just have different perspectives and that's just fine, it's a big World and we each navigate it as best we are able.

Cheers and Godspeed!

PS; I still hate my spell check.

However, I am not interested in photographing those things.

eli griggs · Dec 5, 2021

That's just fine.

No one should photograph what does no appeal to them that are no in a professional setting, having to accept the terms and conditions and products that pay for baby's new shoes.

This is why I never shot weddings, for friends and others and why I enjoyed photographing Ballet and Modern Dance, etc, so much.

Thanks for sharing your perspectives.

Sirius Glass said:
However, I am not interested in photograph those things.

Sirius Glass · Dec 5, 2021

I shot two weddings. Never again. I can attend a wedding or photograph a wedding but not both.

wtburton · Dec 5, 2021

"digital camera is the best solution"

Are you on the right forum?

Sirius Glass · Dec 5, 2021

warrebphoto said:
"digital camera is the best solution"

Are you on the right forum?

Don't you mean am I in my right mind?

wtburton · Dec 5, 2021

Sirius Glass said:
I do not shoot like that. Even when I went to Laguna Seca raceway to photograph the motor cycle races, I shot one a time, waiting for each shot, never machine gunning. I find it better to develop the skill to anticipate the moment. Otherwise I would just shoot movies and pick the best frame.

I think you guys misunderstand the point here... you cant reload film underwater.

Sirius Glass · Dec 5, 2021

warrebphoto said:
I think you guys misunderstand the point here... you cant reload film underwater.

I recommend a digital camera for underwater photography so that one does not need to reload film. Also some underwater cameras have color correction to remove the excess blue from the photographs.

wtburton · Dec 5, 2021

Sirius Glass said:
Don't you mean am I in my right mind?

of course digital would be more convenient, but it makes me sick. Its uncanny. I can immediately tell if an image is digital or not. No amount of filtering or editing can lie, its just a non-passing forgery of reality, put through algorithms to sharpen and machines to correct. Film is nicer on the eyes. It is most like what we see normally. It is also superior for its development, I can change the intensity and saturation of the colors chemically (and I do). Its nothing like siding a saturation bar slider. Now if I really wanted to get an accurate representation, id take a Lippmann plate camera down there, not a digital camera. Silver will always be superior imo.

Sirius Glass · Dec 5, 2021

warrebphoto said:
of course digital would be more convenient, but it makes me sick. Its uncanny. I can immediately tell if an image is digital or not. No amount of filtering or editing can lie, its just a non-passing forgery of reality, put through algorithms to sharpen and machines to correct. Film is nicer on the eyes. It is most like what we see normally. It is also superior for its development, I can change the intensity and saturation of the colors chemically (and I do). Its nothing like siding a saturation bar slider. Now if I really wanted to get an accurate representation, id take a Lippmann plate camera down there, not a digital camera. Silver will always be superior imo.

You are new to the Photrio so some background. I was doing digital photography way before everyone else. I worked on the Voyager I & II Science Sequence Team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Among other remote sensing work I did include the Voyager I three days after launch turning the science platform to the first photograph of the full Earth and Moon in the same frame, Voyager I & II Jupiter Approach movies and the Voyager I & II Red Spot movies.

I also designed remote senses, not limited to visual cameras, for Hughes Aircraft, TRW, Jet Propulsion Laboratories, Kodak and others.

For reasons similar to yours I prefer film however for some situations including remote sensing digital photography is better.

Now you understand the back ground for posts #17, #25 and #35.

Helge · Dec 5, 2021

Sirius Glass said:
You are new to the Photrio so some background. I was doing digital photography way before everyone else. I worked on the Voyager I & II Science Sequence Team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Among other remote sensing work I did include the Voyager I three days after launch turning the science platform to the first photograph of the full Earth and Moon in the same frame, Voyager I & II Jupiter Approach movies and the Voyager I & II Red Spot movies.

I also designed remote senses, not limited to visual cameras, for Hughes Aircraft, TRW, Jet Propulsion Laboratories, Kodak and others.

For reasons similar to yours I prefer film however for some situations including remote sensing digital photography is better.

Now you understand the back ground for posts #17, #25 and #35.

Please tell us all you can about the cameras of the Voyager probes. The details are scarce.
And, of course anything else you want to write down about the Voyager missions.

It’s been a lifelong fascination of mine.

So much groundbreaking work done there.
Even the Voyager flyby animations by James Blinn was trailblazing.

Helge · Dec 5, 2021

To the OP, you want a solid flash system, in almost any circumstances underwater.
Preferably off camera. Old fashioned slave triggering and having the main flash in a thick plastic bag would work I think.
Using IR film could also be worth experimenting with if colour is not mandatory all the time. It cuts through silt and floating micro particles. You’d only want to filter the flash, and maybe not even that, getting a super pan chromatic exposure.

I agree that 36 exposures is probably all you need. Dry off the camera and your hands and change the film when you change tanks.

Sirius Glass · Dec 5, 2021

Helge said:
Please tell us all you can about the cameras of the Voyager probes. The details are scarce.
And, of course anything else you want to write down about the Voyager missions.

It’s been a lifelong fascination of mine.

So much groundbreaking work done there.
Even the Voyager flyby animations by James Blinn was trailblazing.
View attachment 292592 View attachment 292591

I have to think about how to do it. Q&A? I just write and write and write? Zoom?

Helge · Dec 5, 2021

Sirius Glass said:
I have to think about how to do it. Q&A? I just write and write and write? Zoom?

To start with, just a rundown of the most important and interesting points, in a form and length that fits your temperament and time.

It would be nice if it could be here for everyone to read over next decades.

I and many others would be eternally grateful.

Like the Lunar Orbiters and moon landing photos this is photographic history at its finest.
It’s as important as, if not more, than Niépce first photo.
I even bet film was involved at some point in the chain.

Alan Edward Klein · Dec 6, 2021

Sirius Glass said:
I recommend a digital camera for underwater photography so that one does not need to reload film. Also some underwater cameras have color correction to remove the excess blue from the photographs.

Color correction in Epsonscan does that pretty well too.

film_man · Dec 6, 2021

warrebphoto said:
of course digital would be more convenient, but it makes me sick. Its uncanny. I can immediately tell if an image is digital or not. No amount of filtering or editing can lie, its just a non-passing forgery of reality, put through algorithms to sharpen and machines to correct. Film is nicer on the eyes. It is most like what we see normally. It is also superior for its development, I can change the intensity and saturation of the colors chemically (and I do). Its nothing like siding a saturation bar slider. Now if I really wanted to get an accurate representation, id take a Lippmann plate camera down there, not a digital camera. Silver will always be superior imo.

Without turning this into a digital vs film debate (come one we're all shooting film here), I thikn you've asked a rather niche question that nobody really knows much about beyond "I may have seen someone in a pool with what looked like 250 exposure back". Consider that even if you did find such equipment, what housing would you put it in, assuming you did find that housing what state would it be (watertight...ha). If David Doubilet says he had to carry a bunch of cameras with him to get more than 36 shots I can only imagine that this is probably the definitive answer in what the most reasonable and practical solution is for diving.

And by the way...if digital is forgery because it goes through software and algorithms...well sorry mate but the film you load has already had an opinion on what things should look like...and you havent even't put it through the chemicals yet, let alone chosent the paper to print it. Just saying. Photography is forgery, always was always is. People seem to think Photoshop was the beginning of all evli things, Photoshop tools that do such forgery are named after the original tools used to perform the forgery, dodge, burn, toning blah blah.

film_man · Dec 6, 2021

Sirius Glass said:
I have to think about how to do it. Q&A? I just write and write and write? Zoom?

Zoom please! When setting up make sure you have your Hasselblads on the shelf behind!

Helge · Dec 6, 2021

film_man said:
Without turning this into a digital vs film debate (come one we're all shooting film here), I thikn you've asked a rather niche question that nobody really knows much about beyond "I may have seen someone in a pool with what looked like 250 exposure back". Consider that even if you did find such equipment, what housing would you put it in, assuming you did find that housing what state would it be (watertight...ha). If David Doubilet says he had to carry a bunch of cameras with him to get more than 36 shots I can only imagine that this is probably the definitive answer in what the most reasonable and practical solution is for diving.

And by the way...if digital is forgery because it goes through software and algorithms...well sorry mate but the film you load has already had an opinion on what things should look like...and you havent even't put it through the chemicals yet, let alone chosent the paper to print it. Just saying. Photography is forgery, always was always is. People seem to think Photoshop was the beginning of all evli things, Photoshop tools that do such forgery are named after the original tools used to perform the forgery, dodge, burn, toning blah blah.

This could easily roll into a pages long pocket philosophy guide to authenticity and art, as a billion other threads has done since the seventies when forums and online discussion emerged.

But. What the OP is talking about is interpretation of the pictorial data at a certain level or strata and in a particular way and to a particular degree.
Might I suggest you google demosaicing algorithm to get a faint idea of how much interpretation and guessing is involved at the pixel level to get a digital photo to look palatable.
I’m not just talking de-bayering here.

Those artifacts, has both created a new normal and they are hard to point out positively by simple inspection (for starters you often don’t have anything to compare against).
They create more of a subtle general vibe over the image, like 60fps does to motion or a very high pitched whine just a the edge of hearing. Not something most people could put a finger on.

MattKing · Dec 6, 2021

As this is a thread about high capacity underwater film cameras, can we please acknowledge the advice that digital cameras may be more practical - consider it acknowledged here - and then get back on topic.
I would hate to have to close down or move this thread to the Soap Box.

reddesert · Dec 6, 2021

I don't dive, but my feeling is that in order to do what the OP wants - explore a rubble pile at the foundation of a pier in an urban river - you would need to get at least your diving skills and lighting dialed to a high level, before worrying about a 36 exposure limit.

Focomatter · Dec 6, 2021

macfred said:
Accorting to the Hasselblad UW housings made by Hugyfot:

... the housing for the Hasselblad was manufactured by Hugyfot for Hasselblad in Belgium in the 1970's. Not many of the units were made and they only support 3cameras: the 500c, the 500c/m, and the SWC.
There are actually two versions of this housing, one for the 500 series with a built in prism (and room for the 70mm back) andone for the SWC which has the same exact front section but lacks the prism in the rear
section and the ability to fit the 70mm back ... (from a thread at Photo.net)

I own and have used Hasselblads under water. Hasselblad sold various underwater housings over the years. The above quote applies to the earliest models that were sold in the 1960s. These were grey in color and sold when Hugyfot was located in Switzerland. I bought a second hand copy of one but there were too many missing parts to be useful so I sold it to someone for a "project" housing. In the 70s Hasselblad sold their blue colored housings built with the same modular principal as the grey model but used a vastly different non-Hugy closing mechanism. I have one of these and there is nothing inside to suggest it was made by Hugy. Hugy continued selling their own Hasselblad housings that were not marketed by Hasselblad. In the late 70s Hasselblad came out with a stainless steel housing for the EL series cameras that is rated to 200m water depth. I have one of these too. Still more recently Hasselblad USA marketed a housing for SWC/M and 903 Superwides (both models could be adapted) that was made in the USA by Gates called the H38. I owned one of these but sold it. All of these housings accepted 70mm backs which is what I used. I shot mostly Ektachrome 200 that had to be special ordered so was somewhat of a PITA as I had to plan way in advance. I used Citizens Photo in Portland, OR to process the film. At my request, they would return the empty jumbo sized film cassettes so I could re-load them for additional usage. Nikon came out with the Nikonos RS underwater SLR in the 90s at which point I hardly used the Hasselblad for underwater photography. I still have two H housings. Besides several Nikonos cameras I have a Nikon SLR housing but use digital as my primary underwater photo tool. I now get far more than 70 shots, AF and a bunch of other advantages.

Underwater film cameras that have more than 36 exposures

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency