It has long been held as true that we know more about space than we do about our oceans. Quite possibly true, though I don’t know how you measure it, what I do know is that club member Julie Kaye’s presentation on underwater photography went down, if you will forgive the unintentional pun, very well. Julie brought her equipment as well as prints of her results and took us through the mechanics, the necessities of adapting the human body and her camera equipment to the realms where no human is naturally equipped but for the very briefest of visits.
The equipment needs are not merely image critical, they are life supporting and diving is a dangerous sport if the basics are not attended to. The conditions under which you are shooting are a challenge too and this is one of the more difficult areas of photography to master. For those of us brought up on the Undersea World of Jacques Cousteau the mysteries of the oceans were a childhood staple.
Possibly most associated by most as branch of travel photography, the underwater milieu goes back to the end of the Nineteenth Century, the first underwater camera and lighting rig was invented by another Frenchman, Louis Marie Auguste Boutan in 1893, when certainly photographs would have been taken but the oldest extant photo of a diver, a selfie by Boutan is dated to 1899 (and apparently damned near killed him through Nitrogen narcosis in the process). The gap is accounted for by Boutan’s work on a lighting solution, a highly explosive mix of oxygen in a barrel and magnesium powder to provide a flash held in a glass container triggered by an electrical current. Remember that film (read glass plate) speed was very low at these times with normal photographs being taken with what we would consider long exposures.
Prior to Boutan, the first person to take photographs whilst submerged, there had been underwater photographs but these had been obtained by using a camera in an almost-waterproof housing lowered on a tripod, was William Thompson, who took them in Dorset in 1856. Unfortunately the glass plates don’t seem to have survived.
Colour came along in 1926, National Geographic staff photographer Charles Martin and naturalist Dr William Longley taking a picture of a Hog Fish in the Gulf of New Mexico for that august journal. Following on in Boutan’s tradition they still executed the image with pounds of explosive magnesium flash powder. The difference was that they sensibly left it floating on the surface in a raft rather than build a submersible flash unit as Boutan had.
Cousteau remains the most famous pioneer though, operating from his famous boat the RV Calypso, which came to near sticky end in Singapore in 1997 but on which restoration work began last year (after a 20 year story worthy of a soap opera), he developed not only Scuba gear but the underwater camera as well. The Calypso, before coming in to Cousteau’s hands, was built as a Minesweeper for the Royal Navy and served as such from 1943 to 1949, then as a ferry in Malta for 4 months before being bought by Thomas Loel Guinness MP and leased by him to Cousteau for one French Franc a year on grounds of anonymity for Loel Guiness. There were, at the time, around a thousand Francs to the pound, so bit of a bargain. For those of us brought up on the TV show (1968-1976 and endless repeats) the Calypso was as much of the show as Cousteau.
Cousteau wasn’t just an explorer (naturalist, conservationist, etc etc), he was an inventor too. He conceived the idea, which was designed by Jean de Wouters, of an underwater camera which was called, wait for it, the Calypso. It came with an f3.5 35mm lens, with 45mm and 28mm optional lenses and a shutter speed of 1/30th to 1/1000th of a second shutter, which was redesigned to a 1/15th to 1/500th of a second range which was the one carried on to the Nikonos, licensed and built by Nikon, through three variants and which lasted in production until from 1963 to 2001. Basically it was killed off by digital but it is still to be found second hand.
Underwater photography is also a sport, not big here, admittedly, under the auspices of CMAS. The World Championships run thus: Basically at least four 90 minute dives (including decompression time) are undertaken and the first 100 images from the relevant memory card are downloaded and then the competitor selects which images go forward to (anonymous) judging. Then it gets complicated: ” During the last day of the competition, the jury will review all submitted images to rank these within the photographic categories described in the Specific Rules. An individual classification will also be compiled by allotting scores to the top ten images in each photographic category using a fibonacci sequence. The names of top ten competitors in the photographic categories and in the individual classification will be publicly announced.” Not so catchy, maybe.
There is a wider range of photographic equipment and accessories available to the modern diver, of course, specialist housing, lighting (non explosive), but all at a price and a half. It has to be precision engineered of course, able to withstand pressure greater than found at sea level and whereas it is popular with people on holiday (who can buy pouches and boxes for their cameras for shallow depths if their camera isn’t already waterproof) who go snorkelling, if you are serious and a scuba diver and a regular photographer, then the outlay garners the returns.
So a big club thank you to Julie for an interesting and unusual evening.
N E X T M E E T I N G
NB: The AGM has been postponed for a couple of weeks, our next session is table top photography so bring cameras, tripods and something small to photograph.
An evening out last meeting where a goodly number of brave souls battled the elements and congregated on the Tramway Centre for a spot of light trailing. Actually it wasn’t that inclement, but it sounds more epic if there are elements to battle. Also skateboards, bicycles, motor vehicles, the occasional well oiled passer-by and the odd curious body wondering why so many people were taking pictures of buses. Buses, it appears, aren’t usually that popular even for the people riding them, so their prompted inquisitiveness was understandable, but each to their own.
As we have already done a brief tour of light painting and light trails recently so we will take a little tour around some other items of interest. Probably the most immediate impact to photographers is the future of Yahoo, particularly Flikr, which Yahoo acquired in 2005. Aside from the bile that periodic changes to its format from a percentage of entrenched users generates (the fate of all user platforms, which will lose users if they are not seen to evolve, it’s pretty much no win). Rumours have been around that Yahoo might be looking to dispose of the E-Mail, Search, Photo, that for which the general population probably know them best, their core business. They used to be King of the Hill in the web sector, but are seen to be in trouble, at least in the terms of the market. The way that they value this core (core is not the same as profitable) business means that it is worth virtually nothing. To the shareholders.
To the 112 million free-lunchers, give or take, who use Flikr, that virtually nothing is a whole lot more. It is primarily for free, but for free still needs paying for. The Pro, paid for version, doesn’t, it appears, generate sufficient income for that. So Yahoo sell off some royalty free (creative commons)images on its servers, as well as some other users images as creative wall art, which upset some people and not others. The creative commons pictures don’t get royalties. Huffington Post, when it was sold by its founders Huffington and Lerer to AOL, attracted some controversy as it had, in part, been grown by the traffic attracted by the unpaid bloggers who used its platform. There was an unsuccessful class action by some of them against Huffington and Lerer for a share of the proceeds. The bloggers lost their action broadly on the basis that no payment had ever been promised. The bloggers did it for exposure, one assumes, as they were free to cross post. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
One person’s fair use is still another person’s theft. Groupon finds itself on the end of a law suit under local copyright laws in Illinois on the grounds that they regularly raid Instagram for photos to use in their publicity misrepresenting the people who posted them. Misrepresentation takes many forms and the rights and wrongs of the Groupon case will be settled in a court of law. Others are not so serious. A small, local competition was recently won by a striking image which was duly praised and published by the company running it. But the photo was badly Photoshopped and the company running it was a local incarnation of a rather large one. A rather large camera company. Nikon. It went viral and much hilarity ensued. Canon Canada is even running its own version. All very embarrassing but it will blow over and I doubt it will affect either Nikon’s or Canon’s sales one jot. The individuals involved were duly chastised but, given the nature of modern communications, internationally, which might strike you as being a little disproportionate. This is the world we live in.
As Canadian photographers are granted the first copy right as authors of their own images, the thorny issue of other people’s property and the reproduction rights therein have been back in the news. The issue was a snap taken and entered into a competition run by Thompson Holidays, a £2,000 holiday being the prize. A horse photobombed a father and son in the winning entry. The owner of the horse wanted a cut of the prize, after all, the horse was their property (animals count as property) and was on private land and had not given permission for it to be included in the photograph. Not sure how that would pan out, it not being a cash prize. The photograph, as I understand, was taken from a public right of way and that is a salient fact as there is the idea of a right of panorama, which includes the idea that that which is on view from public land does not require prior permission to be photographed (as long as no offence is committed in order to take it).
Photo-releases are a part of the necessary process of commercial photography. They are not the exclusive domain of the professional photographer. Any photo that is paid for, whether it was taken with that purpose in mid or not, should have the basis of its copy right subject to written confirmation, even those taken in public, as far as is reasonably practicable. It can save a lot of grief later on.
I’ve said it before in this post, but there is no such thing as a free lunch. Petapixel reports that wedding photographers are not on the list of suppliers worthy of being fed according to Brides Magazine. Written by a Wedding Planner, apparently Wedding Planners are on the list of worthies. Now there is a surprise. This appears to be predicated on an idea of how long a supplier attends, and seems to me to be a good way to limit the attention you get from the people who create the record of your day. It is no longer the case that the photographer is expected to turn up at the church, take a few photos, go to the reception and ditto, before leaving for the next appointment.
N E X T M E E T I NG
R.O.C. creative round judging.