Digital imaging was controversial and the critics were vocal and articulate. Legendary underwater photographer Chris Newbert denounced digital systems entirely and noted that he had no objections to persons using them, but he preferred that they not be allowed to call their results photography since so much of the craft was turned over to “auto” systems that tended to “enable mediocrity to a new level”. Newbert echoed the ethos of the pure film professional who labored over manual focus, f-stop and shutter speed selections, the limits of a 35-frame film load, etc. His points were well taken and reflected the opinions of many who prided themselves on the “craft” of photography and disdained the “point-and-shoot” masses that were the first to embrace the digital revolution.

My own criticisms at the time were with the blatant and, at times, absurd manipulations that were happening in various computer software programs like PhotoShop and then passed off for the “real” thing. I noted that the believability of the image had been left behind when pieces of several shots were combined into one, South Pacific species were dropped into Caribbean reef scenes, and a litany of fraud ended up being perpetuated on the naïve viewer since these “photos” rarely had any disclosure that they had been “doctored” to achieve the end result. Some of the worst offenders were advertisers who seemed to believe that any alterations to reality were acceptable if it made their product or resorts more likely to sell.

I saw advantages in the digital technology, and I switched in 2004 when they finally came out with professional quality SLRs, but still adhered to the ethos of the film shooter who captured the image and then presented it without alteration except for the necessary minor sharpening and color correcting that brought the shot out of the digital RAW file. I concluded by saying that digital cameras were presenting new and valued advances… if used with honesty. Newbert concluded that digital systems marked the death of photography, as it had been known historically.

Actually, we were both right as it turned out.

There were some unanticipated benefits to the diving industry. Digital cameras have been one of the single biggest things to keep people interested in diving. Why? Because now divers can actually take photos underwater that are damn good and without an apprenticeship lasting longer than astronaut training for a Mars voyage. Underwater photography used to be hard and unforgiving. Hand a Nikonos to the average diver and, even with excellent photo classes and hands-on coaching, the results were simply piss poor at best for most shooters. How many tedious slide shows did you have to sit through over the years at resorts or on liveaboards? I can tell you that I’d rather be “water-boarded” than endure another slide session of “Fred’s Excellent Diving Adventure”.

Digital systems with their instant feedback underwater via the LCD screen and later review on a laptop computer have flattened out the learning curve for amateurs to the extent that newbie hackers sometimes come back with better images than the pros. Digital cameras are also more forgiving with exposures, especially in natural light situations. Now I’ll gladly sit down with a glass of wine and help a new photographer review his shots on the computer screen. They quickly learn to hit the delete button and how to hone the craft of composition. Style is still a fleeting mystery for some but the nuts and bolts of achieving a useful image are greatly enhanced.

Underwater photography has become a dominating motivation in today’s divers. And that’s a good thing. It spurs their own interest and keeps them diving. It also attracts their friends into the sport. No matter how you slice it… it’s good business.

The Bottom Line

Newbert was right: photography as we knew it is dead. And it’s not coming back. Old film cameras now have so little value that it’s not even worth paying to ship them to a buyer. Kodak stopped manufacturing slide projectors years ago. Most photo labs don’t process film at all and if they do, it’s only a couple times a month when enough rolls accumulated to justify a run. Almost all magazines and art designers want photo submissions now in digital formats. And when was the last time you could find a retail outlet that sold film? Yeah, it’s right next to the VHS tapes.

I still have no patience for artificially and fraudulently manipulated images that are derived through computer programs. That’s not art or photography any more than loading up Madden Football on your laptop is like getting tackled in the NFL for real.

But a lot of these changes are good. Great photography is no longer for an elite cadre of dedicated craftsmen. It’s within reach of the masses through extraordinary innovations in digital cameras. And I’m okay with that. We may not produce another Chris Newbert or David Doubilet but what will come forward is pretty damn good and will enrich those divers’ lives and perhaps some others to find an appreciation for the underwater world that previously would have been missing.

I appreciate Newbert’s perspective as well as revering his incredible talent. I come from the same old school film ethos of long suffering hard knocks to achieve success. But just like I discarded my dive tables long ago for a modern diving computer, I’m willing to embrace digital imaging as a welcome innovation that deserves its place at the table.

Just don’t make me buy the latest new model camera when it’s released on Monday. I’m still trying to read the 300-page manual from my last one.

Bob Halstead is a purist just like Newbert and so many of us who drove ourselves insane trying to capture underwater images on film with no auto-focus, no auto-exposure, no post-dive PhotoShop to salvage your mistakes, and only 35 frames to do it in. Yes, it chafes my butt as well to see obviously manipulated images passed off as the real thing. But that’s life… most of us in the age range of Halstead and Newbert can take smug satisfaction in knowing that we saw the underwater environment when it was truly pristine and that we actually got paid a fair value for our work. Today, with the advent of digital cameras and the fact that almost anyone can produce a passable image, the compensation rates to photographers has dwindled to practically nothing and print media has largely died out.

I’m with you, Bob. But the train left the station about six years ago…