Storker

As you probably know, the red light is absorbed fairly quickly underwater. Take a look at the RGB histogram of a picture shot in ambient light at some depth, and you'll see that the red channel is quite underexposed. At shallow depths, there's usually enough information in the red channel to restore it without unacceptable loss in image quality, but sometimes the red channel is so underexposed that restoring it is a bit of a challenge, and you'll get a lot of noise in the process.

If the red channel is severely underexposed, you can either increase exposure with the definite risk of burning out the blue and/or green channel, or you can put on a red filter, which effectively gives you the same effect (increasing exposure of the red channel), but without that risk of burning out the blues and/or greens. It comes at a cost, though: You have to use a larger aperture, a longer shutter speed or a higher ISO.

Of course, if you're deep enough that the red wavelengths are severely absorbed by the water, you'll need artificial lighting (e.g. a strobe) to get the true colors of the subject at depth. No filter can restore wavelengths that just aren't there.

Disclaimer: This is from a purely theoretical view and I haven't tried filters in practice. Yet. But I'm seriously considering that for available light shooting. For a more informed view from people with actual experience, you might like to read this and this article.

Maybe if you let us know what gear you are using and with which settings it will be easier to give some more specific feedback 

Ah, sorry. It's on the Flickr page (click the image or the link underneath it to go there), so I didn't think of including it here as well. Gear in the image description and settings in the EXIF (Actions -> View EXIF data):

• Olympus OM-D E-M5 in Nauticam NA-EM5
• Olympus M Zuiko 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 in 4" dome port
• Ikelite AF35 flash with diffuser
• Program auto, 1/80 sec, f/5.0, 200ISO

In my introduction thread, DiverPam said:

Looking forward seeing how things progress with you - DIverPam 

So, I've taken the plunge and started to spend handfuls of €€€ on gear. Right now, I'm still short a decent strobe or two, and at least one port, but I've started.

Now, I'd appreciate some feedback on this shot. I used a few of the standard tricks, like a decent negative space background and a strong diagonal in the composition, but there's something missing. I think it had potential, but it's not quite there, so to speak:

Cuvie by Størker, on Flickr

Topics merged: Admin.

...there will be lots of bargaining in the future. But keep in mind, that can be used to your advantage.  

Hm. Mind sharing a few insider tips? I mean,being the other gender and all that?

Well, my first question is are you shooting and adjusting in RAW?

Yup. I learned pretty quickly to intensely dislike JPEG and the limited amount of adjustments that format gives me.

If so, you can make multiple copies of the RAW file (in separate folders) and adjust each for foreground, background, pot, etc, then edit them in Photoshop and use them in a composite photograph masking in/out what you do/don't want. You can manipulate your existing photos and learn a lot of learning about underwater shots before investing.

Now, then, this really isn't my cup of tea. Coming from a long experience with film before finally going digital in '09, heavy 'shopping isn't what fits my temperament and ideas for my own photography. I have little problems cloning out small insignificant details, using HDR techniques to capture a larger tonal range than my sensor can capture in one shot or making the occasional composite. But generally I don't like to do much more than I could in the wet darkroom. Others peoples' MMV, surely, but this is me.

Yes, there is a future for you!

Your images are like diamonds in the rough!

To realize your potential, you should immediately upgrade your equipment!

Consider a Nikon D3 or maybe a Canon 2X Magnum.  Better still, one of each.  A wide angle and one for marco.

Just think of the buzz in seeing all that money fly away!

Vade retro... (and don't mention C*non, I'm a NIkon guy topside  )

Thanks for the encouragement, guys!

I sense you wouldn't be happy diving without a camera.  We have a name for that, ....... swimming. 

It should be noted that you are asking a bunch of people who have all spent thousands of dollars on their passion (sorry John, not a hobby) if you should too.  

I really like your photo of the bubbles.

Thanks. It was really a grab shot, I saw the subject just accidentally while looking upward. Sometimes those grab shots turn out nice, and this is one of those I was kinda happy wiith

Photography is a marvelous passion and too keep our vision alive we need to constantly challenge ourselves. I believe that the challenge of photography underwater only serves to strenthen ones overall photographic ability.

I absolutely agree. I know I have to work quite a bit on my WA composition skills, as I've been more of a short tele perspective type of guy topside. But it's a fun challenge, and I hope that since I can't stay in the tele perspective rut underwater, I might acquire some skills which can be useful also topside.

If you like UW Photography? Then go for it.

Can you imagine diving without a Camera? Then think about it.

 

... and then go for it anyway

I guess I've already made the decision. But man, I though GAS was expensive topside. And my wife thinks my topside photography already is expensive enough, so I foresee some bargaining in the near future...