Iggy

No, it is not

Yes James it is, if you stay in context. I have referred to the article "Getting the Blues", and while it talks about working angles, wb settings, strobe temp etc, it also has a section in which it specifically describes one or two ways to effect that water color change in Photoshop. Indeed it even shows before and after images. Again, there is no crime in that but why wouldn't it seem natural for someone who had read that article to ask Alex why not make changes to green water in post as well? It's not insulting, it's not accusatory, it's just a natural extension of what might pop into one's head having read that particular article.

A lot of folks don't understand this .....

I don't know one underwater photographer who doesn't understand it. And I also don't know one who doesn't understand that these perfect microsoft blue backgrounds perfectly balanced with warm foreground subjects are almost all manufactured to one extent or the other....in post. I accept that on occasion we can get it in-camera exactly the way it will print, but I don't accept this as anything other than the exception. I've been around it too long to overlook the litany of reasons why nailing a color in camera is more hope than science. You can get close, but we aren't talking close, we are talking "spot on "in camera".

I am jumping the gun here a bit, so forgive me, but please don't try to tell me that what one sees on the computer screen or printed to paper is what one saw on the LCD on the boat. That is a physical impossibility. I love the claim, it's almost folklore, but I know as it relates to color that it isn't true. Both your Canon and my Nikon render the colors inaccurate to what the converter will reveal, no matter what settings you input to the camera body for LCD review. It's a jpeg on LCD and RAW on the converter. You cannot tell the camera to process that jpeg to match the raw image. So you don't have a "spot on" visual from which to work underwater.

I know you think that Craig, Alex and I are buddies and that we're ganging up on you in this thread - and I apologize.

Nah, I don't think that at all, so there is no need for an apology    And again, this isn't about Alex's shooting, or Alex's images. This is about someone possibly asking a question predicated upon the groundwork Alex's articles have previously laid. It is nothing more than that. I don't understand why asking about processing the colors in post demanded such a reply from you when Alex has written about doing that very thing with blue water. If there was any ganging-up going on, I thought that was it  

Alex has demonstrated over time his dedication to getting images right at the point of capture.

  Ahhh, come on Craig, I made no accusation to the contrary. I simply noticed the disparity between today's comment about getting water color right "in camera" and comments and articles Alex has offered regarding "Getting the Blues"in post, as it possibly pertained to the comment James' replied to. Let's be honest here, if you read an article from someone about getting blue water color right in post, it seems perfectly reasonable to ask them why not do it in post when they are talking about getting another water color to a level they desire.

Regarding "gaining blue water in post", that's not what is happening at all.

If you intentionally shoot a warmer strobe than you would otherwise desire to see in the image, solely for the purpose of using the temp slider to cool the whole image to enable a deeper blue in the background water without adding blue cast to the strobe lit portions......that is shooting for post. And that would be the polar opposite of getting it "spot on" "in camera". I have no comment on whether it's right or wrong, nor do I have an opinion about how **anyone** chooses to render an image. That wasn't the point of my comment at all. It was only about the eye-catching disparity between "Getting the Blues" technique and "spot on" "in camera" technique, as it pertained to James' reply to CDoyle.

[rant]Normally, I'd ignore a comment like this.[/rant]

Perhaps that would have been better, since you responded to it's narrowly focused intent as if it was an accusation your images or more post than photography. I was only pointing out the apparent contradiction between today's comment about background water color and previous comments and articles on the same subject, and how that may have influenced the post James responded to.

It has been my impression for some time, after reading your comments on WP as well as various articles from other sources, that you are very aggressive in post. It's not an opinion I hoped for, it is simply a notion built on the remains of your stated techniques and suggestions I have had the opportunity to read.

This "rant" is refreshing in that regard.

I can't resist being a little testy here

Sure you could. But I think you prefer "testy" at this moment  

On the subject of Galapagos: While I strongly disagree with your assertion that a zoom which renders effective 15mm to 26mm is too wide for sharks and shark schools. I would add the caveat that it comes down to whether or not the photographer can you hold his/her breath long enough to get sharks close and reduce water column. Really, that will determine which focal length will work for any given shooter.

According to Alex it makes a difference for his shooting style - he wrote it right into his original post.

That's a bit unfair James. Yes, Alex said something about being spot on "in camera". But given everything I've read from Alex both here and in publication it was my understanding that he regularly gained desired water color in post. Most people here know the routine: shoot warm strobe, gain blue in post, warm subject comes to proper temp, background water gains deeper blue. If Alex is getting some of the blue backgrounds I see in his imaging, "in camera", then my already abundant appreciation for his craftsmanship has grown exponentially. Not only because they are beautiful, but also because I believe that is the most legitimate way to image (personal opinion, not a poke in the ribs to those who think differently).

I'm not questioning Alex's comment. But I do see why CDoyal might be a bit confused. I myself thought that Alex was an very aggressive manipulator when it came to water color. In fact I believed he premised his equipment choices, and shooting practices, on what they allowed him to do to water color, in post.