Paul Kay

More interesting info: http://www.theregist..._act_explained/

Sign the petition on the government's own site: Stop Legalised Theft of Copyrighted Works - e-petitions

I imagine that this will be challenged in the EU as it will affect many non-UK photographer's too and will undoubtedly enrich lawyers with the potential violations and infringements that it will potentially lead to. I would say that this is a case of the insane running the asylum but I'm not sure that the word running is at all applicable. Why are we governed by such morons?

You may struggle with it behind a minidome - I tried a small dome at first but now use  my 24/1.4 behind either a (Seacam) WidePort or Superdome.

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.

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.

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

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

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.....

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?

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.]

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 .