Here's the thing about underwater photography

[RonFrank]

I will agree digital makes things easier than film. But the settings on my digital are not any different than someone with a film camera.

Digital makes things a LOT easier. First, you have instant feedback, and image review. That is HUGE. I think instant feedback is the biggest factor in the digital revolution which happened very fast.

If you find that the settings on your digital camera don't differ much vs. film, you either have limited options on your digital camera, or you have not been paying much attention.

Film is limited to 5500K color temp (or tungsten and BW if you shoot that stuff). Digital color temp is highly adjustable, and that alone is an entire set of menu options. Photographers used to collect filters like precious gems.. now, no need.

Digital has made things easy for the majority of people out there taking photo's. They push a button, and get reasonable results. In the days of film students would show me entire rolls of film where they screwed up maybe just one thing, but that was enough to render an entire roll, or rolls of film useless.

For UW work using film, well forget about it unless you were willing to spend thousands on a camera/lighting, and even then things were not all that good. The Nikonos was a rangefinder, and focus was by in large, a guess. There were a couple of models that introduced AF into the mix, but they cost a mint.

Ohh how quickly we forget!

 

[fppf]

I think we are confusing development type of processing, which what happens in the dSLR today, and image processing. You can't do anymore or less in a dSLR than you could with 35mm and a BASIC photo lab. When I shoot I do everything manually, manually flash, WB, ISO, shutter, apiture, I turn off all processing for sharpness and others.

You can't remove back scatter, totally change color hues and contrasts, modify backgrounds and foregrounds in the camera. Does it not irk you that the first post in this thread is someone saying "nice HDR" even though that photo must have been "processed"

I have yet to see some of the "scenes" depicted in some "professional" shots. There just not natural. But because there is so much "processing" going on people now expect the world to be perfect.

Yes its really cool to be able to do some things you can today. But when is "photography" really photography, and when does it become abstract art? Guess its just what my opinion is, everyone can disagree if you like.

 

[Blackwood]

Digital makes things a LOT easier.

On the other hand, most digital sensors have far less resolution and dynamic range than your average piece of 35mm film (super-high-ASA stuff notwithstanding).

 

[InTheDrink]

My key objective is to make a photo like how I saw it. That is a major challenge (for me at least).

A lot of post processing just seems like a lie to me. It somehow detracts from the beauty of a truly wonderful shot.

 

[Blackwood]

You can't remove back scatter, totally change color hues and contrasts, modify backgrounds and foregrounds in the camera.

Not in the camera, but you can in a photo lab (if you're good at it) or in photoshop (same caveat).

Does it not irk you that the first post in this thread is someone saying "nice HDR" even though that photo must have been "processed"

The dynamic range in that photo looks realistic to me. I doesn't look like multiple exposures. And HDR doesn't bother me, particularly when multiple exposures are required in order to accurately convey what something looked like. The dynamic range of a digital sensor is what, 4-5 stops? Not very good.

Yes its really cool to be able to do some things you can today. But when is "photography" really photography, and when does it become abstract art? Guess its just what my opinion is, everyone can disagree if you like.

Good question. Personally, I consider what the Ansel Adams and the f/64 group did to be photography, but I'm also a huge fan of Jerry Uelsmann (who did stuff in the darkroom in the 70s that I couldn't replicate today with all the photoshop training in the world), and consider him to be a true photographer as well.

 

[emoreira]

With digital UW photo you can do things prior or post.
Prior means you will adjust the white balance.
Post means you will correct red filtering with photoshop.
It's quite difficult to be sure that what you saw UW is what has been taken by the camera in terms of colour.

 

[Blackwood]

My key objective is to make a photo like how I saw it. That is a major challenge (for me at least).

On the one hand I agree, but on the other hand I completely disagree.

A large percentage of the "best photographs" out there don't accurately convey what it really looked like in the eyes of the photographer.

One difference is the aforementioned dynamic range (or lack thereof, when compared to the human eye), but another major difference is the depth of field. Photographers often use shallow depths of field in order to make the subject pop, whereas unless you've been staring at the sun and your pupils are dilated to the size of your eyeball, you'll see a more-or-less infinite DOF.

Adams and the f/64 group (so called because they stopped down to get every inch of DOF from their lenses possible) and other landscape/architecture photographers notwithstanding, most "good" photographers use shallow DOF to their creative advantage. This is extremely true in wedding, commercial, and wildlife photography, as well as much "fine art".

 

[mikerault]

Your brain does an amazing amount of color correction, sharpening and other things to the image you see underwater. Cameras, film or digital just can't do that, especially deeper than 10-15 feet or less if the viz is impaired. InTheDrink and Fppf, show us your RAW shots directly from the camera. If your camera doesn't shoot RAW or you don't use the RAW option then you get color temp, sharpness correction and AWB sometimes even if you "turn it off".

Most photos simply cannot accurately reflect what our brain tells us we saw. Therefore some post processing is usually needed.

Mike

 

[InTheDrink]

Your brain does an amazing amount of color correction, sharpening and other things to the image you see underwater. Cameras, film or digital just can't do that, especially deeper than 10-15 feet or less if the viz is impaired. InTheDrink and Fppf, show us your RAW shots directly from the camera. If your camera doesn't shoot RAW or you don't use the RAW option then you get color temp, sharpness correction and AWB sometimes even if you "turn it off".

Most photos simply cannot accurately reflect what our brain tells us we saw. Therefore some post processing is usually needed.

Mike

I'm not sure you'd want to see my raw shots. In any event I mostly shoot video as my stills are so crap. But I'm not sure you'd want to see my videos either

My simple point is that my objective is to show it how it was. If that objective can be achieved with post processing then great but I don't think that's normally how it works. People get carried away and go OTT even when they think they're not. This is really just my opinion as a minus minus not even amateur uw photgrapher. I like life raw.

J

 

[Blackwood]

, show us your RAW shots directly from the camera.

Mike

problem is, that isn't possible/doesn't make sense.

A RAW file isn't an image that can be viewed. It MUST be processed, be it by the built in camera hardware (applying default and menu settings) or by third party software.

The RAW contains brightness values (0-255) for each pixel. To view it, something needs to know 1) what color is associated with each brightness: red green or blue, 2) what to do in between pixels (JPEG uses a different algorithm than TIFF, BMP, etc.), 3) a bunch of settings (black level, color balance, contrast, sharpness, and the list goes on).

Setting aside differences in the accuracies of our computer screens, what that RAW will look like even with no manual post processing will depend on the software used.