Jump to content


Paul Kay

Member Since 27 Nov 2003
Offline Last Active Dec 09 2017 08:52 AM
-----

#327753 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G ED Wide Angle Lens for underwater

Posted by Paul Kay on 13 March 2013 - 03:03 AM

I use the Canon 24/1.4 - it gives a very bright viewfinder image but cannot be used at fast apertures due to being behind a dome port. As a 24mm lens with fast AF and a bright viewfinder it should be great though.




#326071 British marine life photo gallery on Discover Wildlife.com (BBC Wildlife)

Posted by Paul Kay on 12 February 2013 - 01:30 AM

Am curious about the Yarell's blenny shot- do you get many sightings of these little guys?

Hi Damo

Yes, mostly in Scotland, but I have seen them in north Wales too (I think the largest caught by an angler was in north Wales). I don't think I've actually seen one in Ireland though but I haven't dived much north of Mayo.


#325399 British marine life photo gallery on Discover Wildlife.com (BBC Wildlife)

Posted by Paul Kay on 31 January 2013 - 06:31 AM

I've just been notified that the gallery of images I supplied has now been put online at:

http://www.discoverw...allery-paul-kay


#319368 Diopter for Canon 16-35; Schneider or Aquaphot?

Posted by Paul Kay on 29 October 2012 - 12:38 AM

B&W = Schneider and if they make an 82mm it should be available here in the UK as there is a B&W importer (you could try SpeedGraphic. FWIW I've tried using achromat diopters and none achromats and have found little difference in actual performance. 11" is pretty good as a close focus distance especially behind a large dome (its measured from the focal plane don't forget) and the reduced angle of view, increased aberrations and lack of infinity focus make me wonder if its worth bothering.....


#318196 Flying Octopuses - comments on the proliferation of these images

Posted by Paul Kay on 11 October 2012 - 07:42 AM

At what point does an animal reacting to our presence shade into unacceptable disturbance?

I have to say that I have worried about this for a few years, particularly when seeing the efforts that terrestrial wildlife potographers go to, to avoid disturbing their subjects. Our subjects almost always know that we are there...

Its a good question because you are quite right, our subjects genrally do know we are around (at least those able to do so). So is our unavoidable presence the limit of acceptability? Should we offer incentives to subject matter ('baiting' as used by our terrestrial counterparts), use remote cameras (I suspect some creatures can tell that electrical or even metallic systems are presnt too) or simply touch nothing and disturb as little as is possible? Of course our presence pales into absolute insignificance compared to the 'adjustments' carried out by commercial fisheries so perhaps we shouldn't be too pedantic?


#315084 Sigma 15mm lens correction in Lightroom 4

Posted by Paul Kay on 23 August 2012 - 12:33 AM

Adam

I'm not familiar with Lightroom (I use Photoshop) but what exactly is this lens correction trying to achieve - a rectilinear image from a fisheye shot? Domes create distortion (because they are just a simple spherical lens placed in front of the sophisticated camera lens) as well as the lens, so an above water correction may well not work with the lens when its used behind a dome underwater because of the additional distortions added by the dome. These distortions will almost certainly vary depending on the subject distance and consequent focus setting, and additional distortions and aberations will occus as you focus closer. [Even with flat ports the amount of correction of chroma needs varied adjustment for different focussed distances so I'm sure the same (but worse) applies to domes too.]


#252223 Testing lenses underwater.

Posted by Paul Kay on 02 June 2010 - 01:24 AM

A large test chart is not needed! Smaller test charts are quite adequate - placed centrally and on the diagonal in the corners and at intervals along the diagonal if needed. The aim is to see the drop in image quality into the corners, not the overall variance in the whole image area. If the lens is correctly centered and aligned the images from the diagonals should show similar results. Laminating an A4 print is fairly cheap - few laminates will stand up to submersion eventually as few use truly waterproof adhesives, but test charts can always be reprinted.

The real question we need to know the answer to from the scurilous hack, is whether the images with mushy corners are actually used by the magazine - if they are then lens testing might just be an academic exercise :) .


#69503 Fins for photographers

Posted by Paul Kay on 14 November 2005 - 09:19 AM

Hi Dan

I really like my Force Fins. They are lightish, VERY, VERY easy to get on and off, you can walk in the (really) and they do work well as fins too.

BUT, you need to try some as not everyone gets on with them (one friend found that they caused knee joint irritation after one dive) and they seem to respond best to a 'frog' kick - downside is they don't carry easily (in a hand) and the sizes are weird; like I said, you need to try them.

Even though they are pricey, I'd buy another pair (even though I still have my (24 year old) jet fins too)!


#67699 What's wrong with harassment?

Posted by Paul Kay on 01 November 2005 - 06:54 AM

If you like sea food it is probably far better to eat sustainably produced seafood (ie diver harvested scallops, RSPCA approved, organic farmed salmon, mussels from sustainable 'ranched' (seeded) areas, etc.) than not to do so at all as creating viable, acceptable jobs ensures better marine management than simply reducing demand (and hence prices) which has often resulted in waste historically.


#67648 What's wrong with harassment?

Posted by Paul Kay on 01 November 2005 - 12:39 AM

I read somewhere that trawlable areas around Britain are trawled on average once every three years! If you've ever dived after a trawl has been over the seabed you will know what that means! Diver damage is a problem if the area dived is vulnerable to diver damage but not other pressures. I'm not a coral reef dive (well, the odd holiday) but I hear stories from those who dived many popular reefs many years ago bemoaning the destruction they see today (for which they may well have been partly responsible). You have to keep things in perspective though. As I said before diver damage is insignificant globally, but should be unacceptable personally.

For those who argue about fishing destroying or removing fish that we see, but who'd still like to eat fish, I'd suggest looking out for a copy of the Marine Conservation Society's "Good Fish Guide" which details the 'acceptable' and 'to be avoided' fish to eat! Sadly the vast majority of the world's fisheries are subject to overpressure at the moment so enjoy seeing fish while you can!


#67573 What's wrong with harassment?

Posted by Paul Kay on 31 October 2005 - 02:34 PM

Whilst diver damage is utterly insignificant given many modern fishing 'techniques', damaging the marine environment is about ethics. You either believe in maintaining and conserving, and not damaging, the environment you dive in, photograph and appreciate, or you don't.

I do!