Originally published in "The" Dive Shop Feb/Mar 1992 Newsletter, © John Wall & "The" Dive Shop, all rights reserved

People often ask, “What is the best medium for underwater images – film or video?” This question should be grouped with, “Which tastes better – chicken or fish?” and, “Which has better diving – Cayman or Bonaire?” The final answer is up to the individual asking the question.

 Nevertheless, the following scenario is frequently cited at photo and video seminars: If the best underwater photographers in the world were showing their work at one end of a gigantic hall, and at the other end of the hall was a television showing an average underwater video, where would the crowd be? Watching the video. The magic of video is that it captures the movement which is so much a part of underwater exploration.

 Video is demonstrably easier to master than still photography. It took me years to get to the point where I could expect my underwater photos to come out successfully. In addition to the time spent, there was considerable film to purchase and process in that photographic journey from hope to certainty. And don’t forget the frustration factor!

 A recent article in a major publication proclaimed that you need to have a sense of humor to be an underwater photographer. I’m not sure that article helped very much when a friend flooded three amphibious cameras in one day. On the other hand, current video technology does not touch the resolution that slide film has when capturing images. A long-time still photographer friend named her company “Captured Moments”. The magic of underwater video remains in the captured movements.

 Many people think that video is the ultimate choice for underwater images. I believe that it is the best place for most divers to start. Here’s why: 

• Video imaging is practically automatic, both on land and underwater. It does not require extensive photographic knowledge and is as easy as turning the camcorder on.
• New underwater videographers have less impact on the environment than new underwater still photographers. Videographers can record images while remaining neutrally buoyant; still photographers frequently damage the living reef while using it for support.
• Video imaging is less costly. A two-hour videotape costs approximately the same as a 36-exposure roll of film and processing. The catch is, videtape is re-usable; film is not.
• Video offers instant gratification. Face it: No one enjoys waiting around for film to be developed, hoping that the image came out the way you wanted it to. Video can be played by through the camcorder – at the very least on the viewfinder monitor. Liveaboard dive boats and many resorts have monitors (television sets) for full-screen, color playback. The next best thing to diving is re-living it again on the boat with an audience to share it.

 Video camcorders and housings offer great underwater imaging opportunities. Wide angle down to macro with nearly instantaneous auto-focus and through the lens viewing.

 Ultimately, the most serious underwater photographers will divide their time between still photography and video. Nevertheless, I believe that the natural progression of underwater imaging has changed. Now, it’s video first.