Here's the thing about underwater photography

[sabbath999]

I am no great underwater photographer, or no great scuba diver for that matter... but I have taken a few pictures that have been well received.

But here's the thing about underwater photography that I would like people to understand...

If I see an outstanding underwater photo or video, I realize that it is outstanding not because the photographer or videographer is great but rather because the subject... our underwater world... is great.

Yes, you do have to have the photographic technical skills to take underwater pictures and videos and have them come out looking like what we, as divers, are seeing with our own peepers. Even more importantly, you have to have the critical core diving skills like buoyancy and the ability to maintain your position in surge...

But really, when it comes down to it, that stuff isn't very hard get decent at with practice. The technical part of photography is actually quite simple (which, by the way, does not mean it is inexpensive).

Underwater photography and videography is technically a bit challenging because of the main thing you need for imaging is light... and water messes with light in different ways.

But it really isn't about imaging... it is about helping people SEE what we SEE.

What we SEE when we are diving is a world that is absolutely amazing, and you just can't see that stuff anywhere else.

A successful underwater picture is really nothing more than the photographer eliminating the technical problems to show the viewer what the underwater world looks like.

I am a land photographer, and frankly I can take a lot of REALLY boring pictures of stuff all day long when I am wearing my land-fins. I find it almost impossible to take boring underwater pictures, because the underwater world is so INTERESTING. Don't get me wrong, I can tall all kinds of BAD underwater pictures because I screw up the technical stuff or miss my shot of a moving subject... but I don't tend to take pictures that BORE people who don't spend time underwater.

In underwater photography, the subject is really all that matters... just like in recreational diving without a camera, what the world around you looks like is all that matters.

When I look at some of the amazing underwater pictures that I see, I realize that what the photographer is doing is eliminating the obstacles placed between the camera and the underwater world...

When I work on my photography (and I DO work on improving my skills in the same systematic way that I work on any other part of my dive training) I concentrate on figuring out what technical issues are getting in the way of me showing the viewers what I am seeing with my own eyes, and fixing them.

I could have posted this in the photography section, but I didn't because I think most people here end up taking underwater photos from time to time and so this affects us all. I hear a lot of people say "I just can't take a good picture" and I get frustrated by that... because I know it is just like anything else, if you find a mentor, read, study and practice enough ANYBODY who is a good diver can get really good at taking underwater pictures even with very modest equipment.

Just my .02 PSI.

What say you?

 

[caymaniac]

Nice HDR

 

[Hoomi]

I do wonder, though, if UW photography isn't following the same problematic path that astrophotography has been following - that of creating unrealistic perceptions of what the subject looks like to the naked eye.

Many people are disappointed when they look through a telescope, because the view is nothing like the photographs they've seen of the cosmos. The photos have colors and details that the eye will never see through a telescope, because the camera is capable of accumulating the light exposure, not just sensing it.

We see a similar thing in UW photography. When the photos are taken with the addition of artificial lighting, there are nuances of color and detail that even the diver didn't see. Rather than showing the underwater world as we divers see it, many photos show the fish, invertebrates, and coral more like they would look in a shallow aquarium with full-spectrum lighting. It's beautiful, but unless we're always diving with optimal lighting around us, either from the sun at shallow depths, or electric lights on deeper dives, we're not going to see those colors that vibrantly.

Figure in digital correction on the computer before the photo is published, and we're one more step removed from the real view.

Don't get me wrong; I'm awestruck by some of the incredible photos and videos taken by skilled UW photographers, and seeing what the subjects look like under optimal lighting conditions is fascinating. I just think we need to be sure we let the world know that what we're typically seeing through our masks at depth is a bit different than what we're showcasing in the magazines and documentaries.

 

[DCBC]

Great post; thanks.

 

[sabbath999]

Nice HDR

Not an HDR. Post processed but one single shot.

 

[fppf]

Not an HDR. Post processed but one single shot.

And that is what I hate about photography. Almost to the point of quitting. Its not about who can take good pictures in tough elements anymore. Its all about who can take a really bad shot and has mad photo shop skills.

The only post process my shots get is a little cropping. I don't even own photo shop and I'm proud of it. It really blows my lid when someone comes to my house, sees a great shot, and says "that must of took a lot of photo shop work" :chairfight:

I took me years to get the skills to take "good" shots, not "great" shots, and not "mind blowing" shots. I'm happy with good natural shots. Sometimes I get lucky and take a great shot. Mind blowing shots are very rare, unless there fake.

 

[Blazinator]

I agree that the subject should be praised more than the photographer. I also want to point out that the simplest rules to UW photography can make a huge difference for those frustrated divers that claim to not get great shots: Shoot horizontal or up from below to get blue water background (quit shooting down!), SHOOT CLOSER, and manual white balance UW. There are many other "rules", but those two make such a huge difference, and are not that hard to employ, even with inexpensive setups.

You can even get decent shots without a strobe. My first shots were with a just a $50.00 UK dive light and an OLY 1020 SW ($300 for the cam, $150 for the housing):

I still shoot without a strobe, but use a cheap 24 watt HID (Great for video).

 

[fppf]

Freeport Bahama
Canon A640 with Ikelite housing, internal flash with diffuser.
NO PHOTO SHOP!

 

[Teamcasa]

Photoshop is here to stay and can turn a mediocre photo into an amazing shot but it can not make you a better underwater photographer.

Digital photography makes it simple to shoot a zillion shots hoping for a few great shots, but it does not make you a better underwater photographer.

Having the best gear does not make you a better underwater photographer.

What makes you a better underwater photographer is perfecting you diving skills first, having a very understanding buddy and then working on your composition and the mechanics of shooting underwater.

 

[merxlin]

My wife doesn't dive. Most of my friends don't dive. My photo's give them a glimpse of what I see, and why I dive. I spend very little editing time. A bit of cropping, maybe some color enhancement, but I don't have the time nor the patience to make lots of changes. And I disagree that adding light somehow makes the photos unrealistic. I use a dive light, even on daytime dives because in our So Cal waters lately there isn't much natural light some days. So they are seeing what I see.

Digital has ceratinly opened up the hobby to a lot more divers. I say it should be good for diving (provided the divers learn good diving skills first) as it exposes many more people to what our underwater world looks like, especially locally. My reefs aren't like the reefs in Palau, or Catman, but have color and life all their own. If someone gets excited by that then maybe they will take up diving.