Jump to content

- - - - -


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 baddpix



  • Member
  • Pip
  • 41 posts
  • Location:Perth, Western Australia

Posted 06 December 2005 - 02:33 AM

Posted Image

Crow's Nest, SS President Coolidge wreck, Vanuatu

Canon 20 D, Ikelite housing
Canon 10-22 mm lens, 8" dome port

1/80 sec at f/5
ISO 400

This image is straight out of the camera.

I wanted to portray the wreck's huge size and the loneliness of the depths where it now rests.

I am disappointed with the lack of detail in the foreground.
Is the image underexposed?
Canon 20D, Ikelite, DS-125, 18-55mm, 17-85mm, 10-22mm, 100 mm, Woody's, Magic, NightSea
"Got the gear - but no idea" My Webpage

#2 yzer4



  • Member
  • Pip
  • 42 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Zeist, Netherlands
  • Interests:Travel, Diving, Photography

Posted 06 December 2005 - 01:51 PM

depends which way you look at it..

I'd say (mind you, there are quite a few far more accomplished photographers here then me..) that your camera set it'exposure on the lighting that comes from the surface and which is quite bright.

So fill flash would have been appropriate in this case.
However, flash will only carry sofar, so you would have ended up witj a pic of some detail of the front of the wreck, not the total.

so again theoretically, if the model would have descended to just above the wreck and you'd have framed the pic a lot lower then currently done, you would have probably captured alot more detail on it.

anybody, correct me please :P

#3 bmyates


    Great White

  • Team Wetpixel
  • 977 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle, WA
  • Interests:UW Photography, motorcycles.

Posted 06 December 2005 - 02:52 PM

I personally think the photo is a little underexposed. However, I pulled it into CS2 and simply ran Auto Levels on it, and here's the result. You might think the white sunburst ruins the photo ("Don't go towards the light!"), but it seems clear that with a little work (especially if you shot it in RAW), you could slightly bump up the exposure, and could do so disporportionately to the bottom half of the photo (just select the part from the wreck down) to bring out the detail of the wreck more. I'm a novice at Photoshop, but I see great potential in this photo, and I think a little tweaking of the exposure/levels could dramatically enhance it.

BTW, assuming the ambient light was pretty good when you took it, this would have been a GREAT shot for the Magic Filter -- it would have brought out color on the wreck and still kept the diver above as dramatic as she is...

Attached Images

  • Webimg_8045_w_CS2_auto_levels.jpg

Bruce Yates
Lumix GX8 in Nauticam, Canon 5DMkII in Aquatica, 1DsMkII in Seacam, G15 in RecSea...Inon Z240's...too many lenses
"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damned fool about it." WC Fields

#4 Photobeat


    Eagle Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 373 posts
  • Location:Largo Florida - Not Key Largo (I wish)
  • Interests:Top Side photography also, Compete in Triathlons, former professional drummer

Posted 06 December 2005 - 03:23 PM

Not a bad composition but there might have been some better ways - like getting lower an much closer, this would solve a lot of problems and cut down the hazy look to the pic. I am fairly competent in photoshop so here is my adjustments. The auto feature seemed to as red spots all over so I adjusted this manually,very quickly I might add but it saves the pic. In the film days this would be a throw away after the update I would keep in. As far as on site you neeeded to get closer to the subject and then maybe bracket your exposures. Bracket means take 1 with the meter right on where it says then a half stop under that and a half over, this way you may find one that works the best.

Attached Images

  • Webimg_8045.jpeg

Aquatica Housing - D100 - 10.5dx - 17-55DX - Nikonos 105 strobes - TLC arms

#5 baddpix



  • Member
  • Pip
  • 41 posts
  • Location:Perth, Western Australia

Posted 06 December 2005 - 06:05 PM

Thanks for the advice, everyone.

I selected the exposure manually (metering off the diver).

Next time I'll bracket, and shoot in RAW. You've convinced me that these techniques could be worthwhile.

The photo was taken at 45 metres (150 feet). Would a Magic Filter really help at this depth?
Canon 20D, Ikelite, DS-125, 18-55mm, 17-85mm, 10-22mm, 100 mm, Woody's, Magic, NightSea
"Got the gear - but no idea" My Webpage

#6 Painted Frogfish

Painted Frogfish

    Moray Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 83 posts
  • Location:Singapore

Posted 09 December 2005 - 09:09 AM

Hi, yes this is underexposed. In general for wrecks, try and overexpose a bit to bring out the detail because of the size. Also, because of size, it is unfeasible to light with strobes. Because you are overexposing, it is not a good idea to try and include a sunburst in the picture so the shooting angle will be more downwards than upwards..
Marcus Lim
Nikon D200; Seacam; Ikelite DS-125