Red Filter.

[jlwest63]

I know the best option is a strobe. Would you all consider the second best to be a red filter? I have flash on the camera but I am wondering if a red filter would be better until I can get a strobe.

 

[ScubaSteve]

Use of your camera's built in flash underwater will typically highlight any particulate in the water. My suggestion is to go with the strobe(s). They are definitely an investment however it is amazing the difference they can make.

Just my opinion. No matter what, looking back at pictures taken will be a tremendous way to waste time. I spend most of the winter looking back at shots pre and post strobes. Enjoy whatever you end up with.

 

[KingNeptune]

If you go to this website, there is some interesting material on filters with pics of various results using/not using filters. http://www.magic-filters.com/

 

[diver 85]

I know the best option is a strobe. Would you all consider the second best to be a red filter? I have flash on the camera but I am wondering if a red filter would be better until I can get a strobe.

Some here have suggested the use of Magic Filters(see link)......I meant to get some for our Little Cayman trip a couple weeks ago & just forgot to order some..I'm wonderin' though if they will affect the outcome shallower than 25 ft or so(I don't think they are needed---see my pics linked below).....

If you get some, please let me know how they do........

http://www.reefphoto.com/index.php?zenid=f3fa6df944bd245c11fda70cd1fcdd92&main_page=advanced_search_result&search_in_description=1&zenid=f3fa6df944bd245c11fda70cd1fcdd92&keyword=magic+filters

 

[diver 85]

If you go to this website, there is some interesting material on filters with pics of various results using/not using filters. http://www.magic-filters.com/

lol.......look right below your post......I was thinking the same(see my post).Have you ever used them & if so what were the results, any pics with them??...TIA......

 

[herman]

Problem with filters is they are very depth dependent, a filter that works great at 10 ft is not quite good enough at 15ft and it only gets worse as you get deeper. Your much better off either using your internal flash or using available light and adjusting your white balance to suit the depth and conditions-or shoot in raw and photoshop it to the correct white balance. If you stick to close up and macro shots and try to keep a closeby backround in your shots (ie, avoid open water), you will be suprized at what can be done with an internal flash. IMO, save your money for the strobe.

 

[Nomad]

Trust me, use the normal flash. Take the picture using no "special effects."

If you want to modify the picture after-the-fact, use Photoshop or a similar tool.

In fact, if your camera supports the *.raw format, make sure that you use that one. It stores the original data gathered when the picture was taken.

 

[jarhed]

Problem with filters is they are very depth dependent, a filter that works great at 10 ft is not quite good enough at 15ft and it only gets worse as you get deeper. Your much better off either using your internal flash or using available light and adjusting your white balance to suit the depth and conditions-or shoot in raw and photoshop it to the correct white balance. If you stick to close up and macro shots and try to keep a closeby backround in your shots (ie, avoid open water), you will be suprized at what can be done with an internal flash. IMO, save your money for the strobe.

I think that filters are a great tool for the toolkit. I personally second the magic filter reccomendation. I have several, and they get a lot of work even though I have over $1000 invested in 2 pretty good strobes. In well lit conditions in less than 50ft, the filters work great for their intended purposes, particularly magic filters which are designed to work with your camera's white balancing to account for depth.

If you're not ready to buy a strobe yet, filters are a cheap way to get the color back in your pics under the right conditions. When you eventually buy a strobe (or 2) you will still find use for your filters.

Remember, filters do not add red, they subtract the blues, so you will be working with less light, so bright conditions are ideal.

take care,
john

 

[herman]

No doubt filters have their place but for general UW photography I just don't see the need. They reduce available light by a stop or 2, just when you need it most and unless your close to the ideal depth and light conditions for the particular filter you have installed your going to have to adjust the photo in Photoshop anyway so why bother with the filter. Then there is the problem of having the filter on when it's not needed, like shots on the boat before or after the dive or when that friendly dolphin decides to come up to you at the surface. Might as well just learn to use manual white balance and spend the $30-40 the filter cost on a good photo program which your going to need regardless of whether you have filter or not.

 

[dlwalke]

No doubt filters have their place but for general UW photography I just don't see the need. They reduce available light by a stop or 2, just when you need it most and unless your close to the ideal depth and light conditions for the particular filter you have installed your going to have to adjust the photo in Photoshop anyway so why bother with the filter. Then there is the problem of having the filter on when it's not needed, like shots on the boat before or after the dive or when that friendly dolphin decides to come up to you at the surface. Might as well just learn to use manual white balance and spend the $30-40 the filter cost on a good photo program which your going to need regardless of whether you have filter or not.

As I understand it, and I am by no means an expert or even an experienced novice (I've bought some magic filters but haven't as of yet had the opportunity to use them), you are better off getting the colors in the right ballpark when taking the shot, and then fine tuning with the software. And as another poster pointed out, you can WB at different depths to finetune, in camera, before having to try to "correct" (see note at bottom) things with the software.

Also, strobes don't give you nice color penetration deep into the shot. As for using with and without the filter, the magic filters are waterproof. Irrespective of your feelings about filters in general, I am wondering if it would theoretically make sense to get a screw on protection filter for my Oly C5060 housing and attach (e.g., w some silicone) the filter to that. The lens itselfs screws onto the outside of the housing, so I could easily take it on and off as needed (e.g., for the boatside shots). This would also protect the housing's main lens (the housing, like the C5060 itself is no longer made so I really don't want to damage it) for those times when I am using it w filter.

Although it will reduce the light by a stop or two, I am wondering how the new low-noise@high ISO digitials perform (like the Fujifilm finepix F31afd or something vaguely similar to that that I forget the exact name of). The ISOs go up to something insanely high with supposedly pretty low noise. I know that my noise reduction software (Noise Ninja) works very well with my C5060.

Anyway, I may change my mind about all this once I try it out a couple of times, but I'm keeping my mind open. I'm going to Baja (yippie!!) in November and will do some experiments w filter vs strobe etc.

A general thing I wonder about is why would I want to filter. I like all the nice blue in my shots. Makes me think I'm in the ocean or something, so I will be curious to see what I think if I get rid of all that.