Opinions from experience please

[Puffer Fish]

Bill, Your nudi shot is absolutely lovely. Wish I had animals that looked like that where I dive. But the particular image is easy with a good point and shoot....you just have to know how to do it. In fact, the easiest to control is macro images (which is why I showed one also)..

Strobes today are controlled by time (that was not the case years ago), so the duration of the flash changes with the amount of light needed. If you only use a tiny amount of the flash, then you get a really short duration if you are using a leaf shutter. Focal plane shutter don't work that way (please review how they work to understand what limits a vertical shutter.)

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/fototech/focalplane/index.htm

So if you have a camera with a 1/200th flash sync, and it is bright out, in shallow water, you can either:

1. Use a really high F stop and get a diffraction limited image, while making the water look dark and unnatural, or

2. Let a lot of the light in and while the strobe time is now really short, it's impact is minimal.

Neither would seem to be a good thing, for some images.

There is a place for the dark background, but not every image, and if you use both technologies, Dslrs are actually more difficult to control that balance.

But if you want to freeze motion, and let some light in, it can be done far better with a leaf shutter:

The G10... well you have to again, understand the technology... and know exactly which settings to use. If you just shoot a picture, using the jpeg and whatever the camera wants to use, you will get a crappy snap shot. Dpreview has lots of identical images taken at each camera's best setting, all you or anyone has to do is down load and look at them...but make sure they are the raw images.

I like the NEX -5, just not the lens that are available for it.

Please keep in mind that I only make prints up to 13 x 19 inches..if I wanted to something bigger, I would get a full frame camera and put it in a housing...

 

[AussieByron]

So if you have a camera with a 1/200th flash sync, and it is bright out, in shallow water, you can either:

Or put on your Tokina 10-17mm Fisheye lens and shoot the big stuff like (BTW about every DSLR user I know has the Tokina 10-17mm):

ISO 100, f11, 1/200th

ISO 100, f10, 1/200th

ISO 100, f10, 1/200th

I simply love black back grounds as they give the subject so much punch and frame isnt clattered up with boring background:

Regards Mark

 

[Puffer Fish]

Love the octo image...

I happen to own the Canon 10-22mm and the Panasonic 7-14, and don't own a fish eye lens. I see ten bad images to one good one with a fisheye.

I like black background images also, but they tend to be over done by Dslr users, where every image is one, or images like your manta's, where one does a "photo technic" of having the sun behind the fish.

Yes, I do the look up images also (new photographers seem to really like that look, not sure why)...

What is commonly missing is subtle mixes of sun and fill flash, but I suspect that takes a bit more control of lighting, and is not something one can adjust after the fact.

Here is one of the most commonly photographed animals, with a mix of sun and fill flash...

As with most of my images, just click on it to bring it up in it's own window, and then click on it again to see it in a larger size. This is actually half the size of the the original.

Note: Anyone notice that the guy showing the large images is the one using a point and shoot?

This image is typical of the image quality one can get with a point and shoot, I just downsized it to make uploading easy.

So if you have a camera with a 1/200th flash sync, and it is bright out, in shallow water, you can either:

Or put on your Tokina 10-17mm Fisheye lens and shoot the big stuff like (BTW about every DSLR user I know has the Tokina 10-17mm):

ISO 100, f11, 1/200th

ISO 100, f10, 1/200th

ISO 100, f10, 1/200th

I simply love black back grounds as they give the subject so much punch and frame isnt clattered up with boring background:

Regards Mark

 

[AussieByron]

Well I have to disagree with the see 10 bad images with the fisheye before one good one. It comes down to the photographer and their ability to use the fisheye lens. I see far more bad shots taken with a point and shoot for one good shot. There is a difference between owning a wide angle lens and actually using it underwater. I find the Fisheye the only lens to use on largae animals underwater. The 180 degree view of the Tokina 10-17mm allows me to put little water between the subject and myself allowing my strobes to provide ample coverage. I believe the distortion of the Fisheye isnt an issue underwater as often there are no straight lines in the frame and the distortion only really shows when the subject is really close. This also provides some interesting and creative shots.

You have informed us many times that the point and shoot has the ability to shoot a much higher flash sync than the DSLR. Great, it freezes the motion of fast moving fish but I dont see the point of this benefit when most of the macro work in my opinion is on stationary or slow moving subjects. You said yourself the point and shoot is lacking in wide angle compared to DSLR.

In my opinion the examples of your photos so far show a big lack in composition. All the examples are basically having the subject smack bag in the middle of the frame with in some cases alot of boring background behind it. Fair enough if your just doing it for ID work its all you need.

Take your Cowie example above. A little subject shot right in the middle with alot of boring background with no composition. Sure you can have a large file size, but why bother. Lighting wise its a bit boring and the use of ambient light does nothing for it. For a subject like that I personally would fill the frame mostly with the subject and go for the black background and bring those colours out solely with strobe lighting.

Come on Puffer pull out your favourite shots and lets have a look at them. Up to now your talking the talk without walking the walk. I often find on forums people talk about experience with little or no reference to their own work. How many times have you heard "I know how to techincally do it but cant phyiscally do it".

Cheers Mark

 

[KyBuck]

sooooo are you people telling me to go to Walgreen's and get a disposable camera and put it in a zip lock bag? Can I use a flashlight instead of a strobe? How many F stops does a pharmacy camera have? LOL....just kidding. I've actually learned alot reading all this. Thanks.

Buck

 

[Warren_L]

Well I have to disagree with the see 10 bad images with the fisheye before one good one. It comes down to the photographer and their ability to use the fisheye lens. I see far more bad shots taken with a point and shoot for one good shot. There is a difference between owning a wide angle lens and actually using it underwater. I find the Fisheye the only lens to use on largae animals underwater. The 180 degree view of the Tokina 10-17mm allows me to put little water between the subject and myself allowing my strobes to provide ample coverage. I believe the distortion of the Fisheye isnt an issue underwater as often there are no straight lines in the frame and the distortion only really shows when the subject is really close. This also provides some interesting and creative shots.

You have informed us many times that the point and shoot has the ability to shoot a much higher flash sync than the DSLR. Great, it freezes the motion of fast moving fish but I dont see the point of this benefit when most of the macro work in my opinion is on stationary or slow moving subjects. You said yourself the point and shoot is lacking in wide angle compared to DSLR.

In my opinion the examples of your photos so far show a big lack in composition. All the examples are basically having the subject smack bag in the middle of the frame with in some cases alot of boring background behind it. Fair enough if your just doing it for ID work its all you need.

Take your Cowie example above. A little subject shot right in the middle with alot of boring background with no composition. Sure you can have a large file size, but why bother. Lighting wise its a bit boring and the use of ambient light does nothing for it. For a subject like that I personally would fill the frame mostly with the subject and go for the black background and bring those colours out solely with strobe lighting.

Come on Puffer pull out your favourite shots and lets have a look at them. Up to now your talking the talk without walking the walk. I often find on forums people talk about experience with little or no reference to their own work. How many times have you heard "I know how to techincally do it but cant phyiscally do it".

Cheers Mark

Absolutely... using a fisheye takes practise, and the more you understand about how to frame a shot with it, the less throwaways you will get over time. I would be hesitant to say that everyone gets the same percentage of keepers as that depends on the photographer.

On the subject of background, sometimes you are subject to the whims of nature. Unless you are into repositioning critters, you take what you are given, especially if you are on a trip and do not have the luxury of doing the same sites over and over again to get the "ultimate" picture. For me, I live in Canada and while I have lots of ship wrecks to shoot, I only get to shoot tropical critters when I am on a trip.

As for composition - I fully agree. More important than the adnaseum technical pixel discussion that's derailed this thread. This is where person shooting the photos comes in, more importantly than the specific technical details of the gear you're using. Knowing how to use what you have to the best of its capability will give you the best results. And knowing how to frame and light a shot goes a long long way.

Here is one of mine I like to do - the fade to black shots. Here is a shot that uses broad lighting (you will know that term if you do a lot of studio work) and fades to black.

 

[bvanant]

Great shot. I love the fade to black and you have a great portfolio on your site. My only issue there is that I am not quite sure that Catalina is "tropical" diving. We were there last week and the water was 54F. I know compared to Canada that is warm but to me tropical means I can dive in a t-shirt.
Bill

 

[under water]

For what it's worth, I love black background images when you can get them.

and that's an "opinion from experience"
What is this thread about again??

 

[Warren_L]

Great shot. I love the fade to black and you have a great portfolio on your site. My only issue there is that I am not quite sure that Catalina is "tropical" diving. We were there last week and the water was 54F. I know compared to Canada that is warm but to me tropical means I can dive in a t-shirt.
Bill

Fair enough - I have a hard time considering Catalina cold water, I threw it in with the other tropicals for lack of category. When I dove there last it was around New Years and it was 57F and very comfortable diving without gloves or hood.

 

[bvanant]

Fair enough - I have a hard time considering Catalina cold water, I threw it in with the other tropicals for lack of category. When I dove there last it was around New Years and it was 57F and very comfortable diving without gloves or hood.

You are a tough guy and must laugh at us in drysuits.
Bill