33 replies to this topic

[uwfan]

I've reached the point where I want to take some pictures underwater with a digital camera. I may go with a Canon G12 or similar as it seems to be what people are talking about as a pretty good camera set up for starting underwater photography. But I'm hoping to get shots that aren't just "blue". Is it a must to have a strobe to get color shots underwater? Is there another option? If you do go with a strobe, what options are out there and what will get some good color in your pictures?

TIA for your responses

[Landlocked Dive Nut]

Heidi, you've seen my pics. I'm still an amateur with this underwater photo stuff. I don't use an external strobe, just the internal flash with diffuser, and I'm happy with the results for the most part. I do use my underwater flashlight sometimes to help with lighting. I've seen cameras with one strobe - or two - used by amateur photographers, and they completely 'blow out' a shot with too much light, or light on just one side of the picture.

Regarding the blue issue, I think if the picture is a 'distance' shot, it's going to be blue. If you're taking pictures of things close-up, you can get the colors with internal or external flash, depending on the camera. When I'm in video mode, there isn't much color correction done by the camera, but brightly-colored fish do stand out on my videos....but there's a lot of blue in my videos!

It also depends a lot on post-production. If you shoot in RAW, you can fix a lot of things, including color, if you learn how to use Photoshop (expensive software!) or something similar. Not all cameras can shoot in RAW. If you shoot in JPG mode, regardless of the file size you pick to shoot in, you are limited in the corrections you can make in post-production. I can usually add a bit of red back in, or adjust the contrast or brightness, with JPG files. But, a blue shot is going to stay a blue shot with my camera.

Bottom line is, your budget and your purpose for taking photos will drive what you buy. If you want to take some memories home with you, start with a Canon. Get one that will be compatible with a strobe......so you can add trays, arms & strobes later if you want to.

Just my 2psi.

[Greg@ihpil]

Heidi, I just got a SealifeDC1200.After alot of research & asking questions.I went with it.Yes,one of the reasons was the combatibility with my Strobe ,with a diffuser I had ,from a previous Sealife.As for the blue or green water.This model allows you to correct or compensate for those concerns ,as well as depth.Tammy mentions the Cannon.Good name ,my other land camera is a Cannon.Couldn't find a underwater case for it.As she mentions the "flood" factor".I had that happen with my other one. I am on the ground floor as well.So my .02 is limited .I think for the $ investment,it should be fine for my needs. I just got into the Underwater Digital world.I plan on doing the class with Tina in Cayman,to get some pointers..I'm sure there will be more Photo Chef's here to answer your question..I think most would agree ,it's practice,practice,after purchase..Good luck with your quest.

[peterbj7]

I have never used an SLR under water - too much money to lose when it floods! In fact, much of the time I use an old 5mp Casio in its generic housing, and I get remarkably good results with it. I also use a Canon G10, but although the resolution is 3* that of the Casio and it shoots in RAW I often prefer the results from the Casio. But in general a G12 should work well for you. Always shoot in RAW, and learn how to post-process. Get as close as you can to your subject, to minimise the blue effect. Only use flash or strobe if you're really close to your subject and the water is clear - otherwise turn it off. Often your eyes will adapt to the muck floating in the water and you won't see it but the camera will, so try to mix up shots with & without flash/strobe. For the G12 I'd just use Canon's housing - the Ikelite costs way more, is much bigger (and hence more positively buoyant), and until you really know what you're doing won't give any better results.

I should have added - I do have an external strobe and it's not through lack of one that I don't use it. I just don't like it for 95% of my shooting. I use the internal flash, but if you do that (as I recommend) make SURE the housing's flash diffuser is in place. You'll get very odd results if you use it without the diffuser, as the "nose" of the housing obscures the flash from the bottom of the subject in the close work you'll be doing under water.

Edited by peterbj7, 20 June 2011 - 08:36 AM.

[Dave L]

I'm still a beginner at u/w photography. All the above advise is excellent. I'd suggest getting the latest version of Photoshop Elements. It can usually be had pretty inexpensively with some searching on the net and will help a lot with post diving enhancement of your photos. I'd also suggest getting Classroom in a Book for the Elements you buy as it is an excellent tutorial.

Dave

[peterbj7]

There are many views on PP software. I have (full) Photoshop, but I know barely 5% of it and the learning curve is horrendous. Mainly it's Adobe's philosophy, as none of their software is remotely intuitive. I honestly think it's because their procedures and Help menus are written by programmers who know the product inside-out, and I think it's gratuitously difficult. IMO the user interface could be made much easier if they employed the right sort of people. It's a bit like signposts on roads being designed by people who know the rlocal roads really well - they never see the problems strangers encounter.

I have several other items of photo processing software and I usually reach for them first. Although it's ultimately nowhere near as powerful or capable as PS, I far prefer using Roxio Photo Suite. In fact I commonly find myself using PS to interpret my RAW images and make basic adjustments, then switch to Roxio for the more artistic stuff.

That said, the latest version of Photoshop (12) has some extremely useful features once you learn how to use them.

[Dave L]

Yeah, I agree on full photoshop, that is why I got elements. It is kind of a bare bones program. Classroom in a book walked me through it pretty good to the point I can use it. It can certainly be complicated. I finally had to decide if I was a photographer or a computer jock LOL. I've used Roxio too and it is pretty good.

Dave

[libra89]

I have a strobe, but there is a learning curve to it, in terms of placement for your specific shooting scenario at the moment you are shooting, what camera settings to use, what power to use on the strobe, diffuse or not diffuse... it's a lot.

I've been doing UW Photography for about a year and I'm just starting to get reasonably good results. What I have had very good results with is using my camera on Av or Tv settings (Aperture and Shutter priority, respectively), with a Magic Filter in place. This is a very simple natural light setup that is easy to learn. The Magic Filter is a small bit of specially colored acetate that compensates for the red loss at depth. You will get the best results from it at shallower depths with good sunlight, and you have to remember that any filter at all will trim down the light available to your camera. You have to be able to compensate with that by raising ISO (to a point, else you get other undesired effects), using larger apertures, or slower shutter speeds. I have been mostly happy with the results I get with mine, although there is a soft quality to the photos that I don't prefer.

Here is a link to photos I took in Fiji, all of them under natural light with a Blue Water Magic Filter, because my strobe was BROKEN!!! Bad thing to find out on a major trip like that, but because I'd done lots of natural light photos, all was not lost.

https://picasaweb.go...feat=directlink

You can compare these with the more crisp photos I got using the strobe this past weekend in Cozumel. You will also be able to tell that the strobe certainly enhances the backscatter effect from the particulate in the water, as a previous poster mentioned. I can clean that up in Adobe Lightroom or Photoshop Elements, but I didn't bother this time. Maybe later

https://picasaweb.go...feat=directlink

I personally feel that eventually you will want a strobe, but since full automatic mode isn't appropriate underwater (usually), it's a complication to add when you first start. You might have better results with a very capable camera like the G12 (or Canon S95, which is the latest version of what I shoot) and a Magic Filter. You just have to know your limits in terms of how deep you can go with what available light you have, and then whatever color you are still losing you can correct in post processing if you shoot RAW. That's what I do. Strobe eliminates a lot of that, but adds in a host of other things you have to master.

I know that's a lot of info, but I also know that when I introduced a strobe (way) too early in my learning process, it was frustrating, and I missed more shots than I got. Natural light will help you master the process before you add complexity.

Hope this helps,
Tina

[Parrotman]

I recently went on a trip and used a strobe for the first time. I am sold on it. I don't think I would take a camera down with out one now that I see the difference in my pics. I take mostly macro shots so I am very close to the subject. You can see my most recent attempts here.

https://picasaweb.go...CLLnv5f2kZDpxwE

You can see in a couple of the pics where I had the strobe set to high. The sea horse, the sexy shrimp and the porceline crab are a bit over exposed but other wise I am happy with the results. I have a single strobe. The camera is set on auto focus, 100iso and force flash so that he strobe goes off every time. I also have a small focus light mounted on the housing and I found this very useful for night dives.

Jim

[libra89]

I recently went on a trip and used a strobe for the first time. I am sold on it. I don't think I would take a camera down with out one now that I see the difference in my pics. I take mostly macro shots so I am very close to the subject. You can see my most recent attempts here.

https://picasaweb.go...CLLnv5f2kZDpxwE

You can see in a couple of the pics where I had the strobe set to high. The sea horse, the sexy shrimp and the porceline crab are a bit over exposed but other wise I am happy with the results. I have a single strobe. The camera is set on auto focus, 100iso and force flash so that he strobe goes off every time. I also have a small focus light mounted on the housing and I found this very useful for night dives.

Jim

Jim, these are great!

Tina

[peterbj7]

It's always been a puzzle to me why people call a device intended to provide a single flash of light at a particular instant a "strobe". As I have always understood it, a "strobe" by definition provides a series of flashes, great for a video camera but irrelevant to a stills camera. I find it particularly confusing as there are such things as 'strobes" that look superficially like external "flash" devices - I have one that in fact I only use for single flashes though it's capable of multi - and when p[eople use the term 'strobe" I have to interpret from the context what they mean. Anything to do with stills cameras refers to a single "flash".

But maybe the language has moved on and I'm behind the times. Anyone any views?

[Parrotman]

I recently went on a trip and used a strobe for the first time. I am sold on it. I don't think I would take a camera down with out one now that I see the difference in my pics. I take mostly macro shots so I am very close to the subject. You can see my most recent attempts here.

https://picasaweb.go...CLLnv5f2kZDpxwE

You can see in a couple of the pics where I had the strobe set to high. The sea horse, the sexy shrimp and the porceline crab are a bit over exposed but other wise I am happy with the results. I have a single strobe. The camera is set on auto focus, 100iso and force flash so that he strobe goes off every time. I also have a small focus light mounted on the housing and I found this very useful for night dives.

Jim

Jim, these are great!

Tina

Thanks Tina. You motivated me on the Turks and Caicos trip to try and get better pictures.

Jim

[Parrotman]

It's always been a puzzle to me why people call a device intended to provide a single flash of light at a particular instant a "strobe". As I have always understood it, a "strobe" by definition provides a series of flashes, great for a video camera but irrelevant to a stills camera. I find it particularly confusing as there are such things as 'strobes" that look superficially like external "flash" devices - I have one that in fact I only use for single flashes though it's capable of multi - and when p[eople use the term 'strobe" I have to interpret from the context what they mean. Anything to do with stills cameras refers to a single "flash".

But maybe the language has moved on and I'm behind the times. Anyone any views?

here is a basic explanation of the difference. Personally I don't care what they call them. If the manufactures all call them the same thing then the customers all know what they are talking about. I don't know any diver that carries a camera that does not know what one is talking about when referring to a strobe.

http://photo.tutsplu...ur-photography/

[libra89]

I recently went on a trip and used a strobe for the first time. I am sold on it. I don't think I would take a camera down with out one now that I see the difference in my pics. I take mostly macro shots so I am very close to the subject. You can see my most recent attempts here.

https://picasaweb.go...CLLnv5f2kZDpxwE

You can see in a couple of the pics where I had the strobe set to high. The sea horse, the sexy shrimp and the porceline crab are a bit over exposed but other wise I am happy with the results. I have a single strobe. The camera is set on auto focus, 100iso and force flash so that he strobe goes off every time. I also have a small focus light mounted on the housing and I found this very useful for night dives.

Jim

Jim, these are great!

Tina

Thanks Tina. You motivated me on the Turks and Caicos trip to try and get better pictures.

Jim

Well thanks! And I am on a constant quest for exactly the same thing I'm getting there slowly. I am fairly pleased with some of the shots I got in Cozumel this past weekend, but the currents were ripping there this time (more than I've experienced in the past) so I didn't get much success with small and tiny that required me to be still. Hoping in Cayman this October I get some practice. I'm trying to line up some Cathy Church lessons for that trip!

Tina

[peterbj7]

here is a basic explanation of the difference. Personally I don't care what they call them. If the manufactures all call them the same thing then the customers all know what they are talking about. I don't know any diver that carries a camera that does not know what one is talking about when referring to a strobe. http://photo.tutsplu...ur-photography/

Interesting, but I specifically think the writer is wrong. He says quite directly that a flash is always mounted on a camera, and that once it is detached it becomes a strobe. That's not so - a flash (also known as a speedlight) if not built in to the camera can be positioned anywhere on or off the camera, and it doesn't thereby switch from between being a flash or a strobe. I use flashes (speedlights) on and off my camera, and at least one of those I can use underwater. I also have a strobe intended for underwater use, but that isn't a speedlight - it's designed so it can give multiple flashes if called on to do.

In stills photography there's rarely any confusion so I suppose it doesn't particularly matter. But get into video and it makes a great deal of difference. A strobe is not the same thing as a flash/speedlight.

Reading on in that article he starts talking about Alien Bees. AB's are neither strobes nor flashes, but permanent-on lamps. They are generally used in a studio, but they can be used on location given an adequate power source. But they don't strobe - they are on for the duration they are switched on. Some have the ability to be on at low power for framing and positioning, then turned up to full power for shooting. But that is a manual process not triggered by the camera. But only for use on land.

To complicate the matter further, speedlights can be used in a similar way when combined with co-located low power lights, usually LED. All positioning is done with the LEDs on, then the camera triggers the flash(es). Also only for land use.

A "strobe" is so named because it "strobes". As Wikipedia says "A strobe light or stroboscopic lamp, commonly called a strobe, is a device used to produce regular flashes of light. It is one of a number of devices that can be used as a stroboscope. The word originated from the Greek strobos, meaning 'act of whirling.'" The OED gives a similar definition, and I daresay Webster's does the same.

Edited by peterbj7, 22 June 2011 - 05:18 PM.