Camera with automatic color correction?

[b2skier]

Hello, Are there any cameras available that do automatic color correction? It can't be that difficult: an algorithm that subtracts "X" amount of blue per foot of depth, based on a crude pressure sensor. You might have to set it up once per dive, to account for local conditions, but it could be automatic from that point. I think the SeaLife just makes a flat correction, right?

Also, has any manufacturer implemented one of the many technologies that improve viewability of the LCD? Much of the time I can't even see what I'm shooting in the display.

While I'm wishing, I want something lightweight, compact, fast (I get a lot of "fish tails" with my current camera), and doesn't cost a year's pay.

Thanks for any pointers.

 

[under water]

If the camera is using a sensor that means it is a dedicated underwater camera without a case or a unique coupling between the case and the sensor.
The market for such a camera would be very small and therefore the camera would be very expensive compared to the options available today. What you see today are mass market cameras with dedicated cases.
Even though you lose the red as you go deeper, it is not a fixed amount and depends a LOT on conditions.
Just do a white balance as you change depth & condition. It's easy and a lot cheaper. Better yet, use a strobe and bring the sun with you. If you were to combine the color balance offset that you are desiring and also use a strobe, your pictures might end up being too red.

Regarding fish tails. I think that comes down to how you approach the fish. Try to get in a position where you slowly go around them and are looking up at them if possible.
Also, usually you can half-press the shutter button to prep the camera and then when you get the picture you want.. press all the way down.

 

[DesertEagle]

I'm with Frank on white balancing. It's easy and makes a huge difference. Sealife and other cameras have an underwater mode, which makes some automatic white balance adjustments. There really isn't a need for a special underwater camera. It's all about white balance.

You should really consider an underwater filter. I find that they work better than the underwater modes. In this case, you leave the white balance on auto, or calibrate manually- you wouldn't want to use the underwater mode with a filter. I use a Magic Filter. They are inexpensive and give good colors down to about 40 feet. M A G I C - F I L T E R S Reef Photo in Florida sells them. The biggest advantage is that a blue background will stay blue, not gray.

As for a camera, if you want to do this relatively cheap get a model with a slightly wider lens. some of the Canon SD series and Panasonic FX cameras have them. Many of their housings are also compatible with a full system of lenses and strobes.

Here is a photo taken at 25 feet with a filter.

 

[RTRski]

The problem with blue isn't that there's too much blue, it's that there's too little red. The sensor can only pick up the light that gets to it, and the longer wavelengths attenuate more. So if you drop the blue, you just end up with a DARKER picture overall.

Using a color filter does use this technique, by attempting to filter down the blues so that the reds etc that are there are more proportional. But you do lose light in doing so overall. I don't think a camera that has a continually graded 'desensitization' of the blue channel would do much good beyond a couple of stops of effective light loss, which is what the filters give anyway.

As far as fish tail, others already gave some advice, but with a PnS the delay between when you hit the trigger and when it actually snaps the picture (shutter delay) is always going to be working against you somewhat. You just have to learn the behavior of whatever you're shooting by watching it a little, and anticipate.

It's not a great picture by any means, but as an example here's one I managed to take with my old Canon A520 of a fairy basslet. These guys are pretty fast, and they like to 'circle' around an obstacle - they'd duck behind some growth (this was a crossmember on a rig dive), then dart out, stop for a half-second or so, then dart back behind again. There were three of them doing it on slightly different periodicities and I just managed to catch a couple in an okay position relative to my focus range.

 

[b2skier]

Thanks to all who replied. I checked out the Magic Filter site and it looked great, but did say it was good to only 40' - 50'.

What is the best tecnique for tuning white balance? I've tried both aiming at a piece of white plastic and just rolling over and aiming at the surface. Any other technique suggestions would be appreciated.

 

[DesertEagle]

Patience will get you a long way when photographing fish! Even the pros using the fastest cameras will shoot over and over to get the right shot.

If you want to make white balancing fairly foolproof, shoot a camera that captures RAW images. As these are unprocessed, you can go back later and edit the white balance. Not many point 'n shoot cameras have RAW. I use an Olympus SP-310 which has it. The current top of the line point 'n shoot is probably the Canon G9 (there will soon be a G10). When shooting RAW, I usually set the white balance to auto or cloudy.

For point 'n shoot cameras without RAW, a white slate will usually do. Another option is to wear a white cotton glove on your non-camera hand.

Don't forget the number one rule. Get close, then get closer. Looking at RTRski's photo, it's obvious that the reef & fish are right up front. That's how you do it.

Shoot with a strobe. My first post was taken with an Olympus SP-310 that was being used as a backup camera. I'll post a photo taken with a strobe and no filter. This photo taken looking up would not be possible with a filter.