Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Interceptor121

  1. Wandering around on Facebook, I came across this ad for sale.
    I didn't realize Nauticam had made an iPhone case and a plastic one no less! [mention=21179]Edward Lai[/mention]
    This housing would deserve to be musealized and I was almost tempted to buy it for collection :-)
    I can see that some ideas were already there...
    Here she is, NA-IP4/5 in all her glory

    I have it

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. My hope is Adam manages to sell the brand and forum. Maybe Backscatter might be interested. Any any proceeds go to making whole any resort, operator, guest, or instructors. 

    The whole point of this forum and website was to be independent from any brand or shop.
    If this goes to someone like backscatter is dead in the water. Besides shops are not interested in discussion that affects products they sell.
    Some shops have their own forums and tend to run dry pretty soon because they lack credibility

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    • Like 2

  3. Folks
    It is clear that there are real concerns amongst members about the future of Wetpixel. There is demand to ensure the continuation of the forum which, over many years, has proved to be a tremendous place to share information, ideas and provide a market place for members.
    It remains the case that Adam is the owner of all elements of Wetpixel and has full control of it. It may be that nothing changes.
    A number of members have made technical suggestions on how the forum might continue if a problem were to arise. Similarly there have been discussions  about the financing of Wetpixel trips etc.
    The moderators are not in the business of deleting or muzzling comments but try hard to ensure threads maintain some form of coherence. At the moment there are a few threads with all of these issues of concern mixed in.
    With a bold attempt to unscramble this, I ask, please, that you use the these threads:
    Technical discussion of how the forum might be continued on this thread:
    [/url] Wetpixel Travel and Finance Issues
    General discussion about the future of Wetpixel

    Third link is not working for me

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. In summary it would appear that the software was bought from Invision as package but hosted elsewhere as @KeithG discovered

    At least the hosting fees are not that hefty yet someone else has to pay them

    I have written an email to Tom StGeorge let's see if he responds

    • Like 1

  5. 1 hour ago, Davide DB said:

    It also seems to me that it is not hosted by Invision but I could be wrong.
    In the distant past I have done a forum with this product hosted on a private server. A bad experience . Non-existent or very old documentation. Support and collaboration only by paying handsomely. Their support forums were frequented by consultants running around like sharks waiting for desperate customers.  Yet as a user experience I still consider it the best forum there is.

    I see that in a hidden corner of the site they still have the on premises version.


    Maybe Tom St George could give us some hindsight on the configuration.

    I think you are right. The software was bought one off and then hosted elsewhere

  6. Just now, KeithG said:

    I see the following potential answers:

    1) Adam returns and life goes on.

    2) someone makes a deal to obtain rights to the site and the site goes on.

    3) someone "grabs" a "copy" of the site for historical informational purposes. Note that the copy would simply be a visual copy. No ability to login and continue to use the "system" since it is not the system that can be copied.

    4) Someone decides to start over with a different URL. No historical info available.

    5) others...

    2 is what I would be interested in doing. In fact I wanted to do this before Adam took it over from Eric Cheng

  7. 2 minutes ago, KeithG said:

    You provide a question. I provided the answers already. No mystery anymore.

    not really. Wetpixel may contract to vendor A who uses vendor B for hosting.

    For sure this forum has the identical look and feel of invision community if you go and have a look you can see it for yourself

  8. Nobody can take charge of a private limited company unless it goes into administration or the shares are bought by someone else.

    At present it looks like wetpixel has liabilities towards its customers for trips that never occurred. if the sum of liabilities is larger than the value of the assets and the company does not have access to other cash it goes bust.

    There have been cases of turnaround when a company has been bought say for £1 but in that situation you also take over all the debt so you need to be able to generate some money quickly to resolve the situation.

    Separately however that company that is in trouble could sell their website etc to someone else without passing the debt it remains to be seen how that would work out.

    A first step is therefore to understand the financial situation of the business and if there is any money left in it and what is the status of cash vs debt.

    A full financial assessment together with the will of current owners to let go is required to change the situation if it has gone beyond repair

    From my side I would like to know if the content is archived because there is value in that and it may survive any financial scenario if archived.

  9. 1 hour ago, rickmorgan said:

    Thanks, Interceptor.  I'd better 'fess up--one of my 330s went for a dive without the battery-housing o-ring in place.  I'm waiting to hear from Backscatter on its status.  If the electronics aren't pristine, I'm in the market.  As to galleries, here are most recent efforts . . . https://rickmorgan.smugmug.com/Papua-New-Guinea-May-23/  https://rickmorgan.smugmug.com/Fiji-November-2022/

    In case of premature disapperance of one of your Z330 I would be considering options as you are doing as the strobe is discontinued

    Wait to hear from backscatter then make your call

  10. 58 minutes ago, KeithG said:

    Prices are available on the Invision website: cheapest plan is just over $1000 per year.


    Wetpixel does not appear to currently be hosted by Invision.

    Checking https://whois.domaintools.com/wetpixel.com indicates that wetpixel.com is hosted on a dedicated server (i.e. it does not share the ip address with any other known webserver, so it is not currently hosted by Invision).

    The listed ip address details are provided here: https://whois.domaintools.com/ which indicates the server is hosted by arcustech https://www.arcustech.com/managed/vps/ which has VPS plans starting at $10 a month.

    The wetpixel.com domain name is registered at http://www.tucows.com and expires 2024-05-14T03:17:40Z. The registration information is private.

    Bottom of the page 

    Powered by Invision Community this in turn may use other hosting providers or maybe it is part of the stack simply that runs the forum software


  11. The forum runs on Invision Community but I'm not sure about the website. Now I'm on a boat and I cannot check it.
    Are you sure it's hosted on Invision? Invision hosting is a fairly recent service. Years ago it was self hosted and I don't remember a migration process.

    Adam contacted a developer to migrate it. I am sure about it

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  12. 11 hours ago, waterpixel said:

    I have downloaded almost all of the videos on the Wetpixel channel on youtube, max resolution (1080p when available). A few videos seem to fail but I have the majority of them (294 of 301).

    Happy to put them somewhere available on the internet - there is however 65gb of video files.

    Downloading content from youtube is a breach of policy of the site. 

    However in the event wetpixel goes bust the content will stay there unless someone deletes it so that is not an issue, besides am not a fan of the interview format of those videos but that is just personal.

    The website itself is subject to copyright but the forum isn't as people posted and shared their material with a view of some other people looking at it. Obviously if you took a piece of content out instead of linking it you are doing the same breach of the youtube example

    While youtube is not going to disappear anytime soon this forum and website is hosted on invision and there are fees to be paid.

    The moment those fees are not paid or the subscription lapses this forum is dead. I have more interest in the forum than in the articles of the website personally.

    In terms of someone taking over wetpixel limited if the company is in debt nobody will want to go anywhere near it. So it would be more a case of wetpixel transferring part of their assets elsewhere.

    Looks like archive.org is archiving the site which is great news

  13. 4 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

    How does the use of two strobes impact this analysis?  For wide angle people generally use two strobes pointing slightly outwards so the the beams meet in the middle at around the distance of the subject.  This is strobes 101 for dealing with backscatter.  There will be some overlap of beams at this point, but effectively the centre of your composition is covered by the inner edge of the beams.

    In this case I can see value in having even coverage across the beams as the edge of the light cone is brighter than it otherwise would be.  What impact does this have on strobe usage?  Perhaps a strobe with more even coverage can be pointed outwards more so than one that that has rapid fall off towards the edges?  A sharp cutoff at the very edge would also help with controlling light.  In any case the strobe may be able to be turned down compared the case where the light drop was more severe.

    I do agree that extreme angle coverage is not really required to cover even a fisheye.  At best its field is only 180° in the corners and as mentioned is about 140° on the horizontal axis at most.  In theory this could be covered easily with two 90° beams.  The other consideration with very wide beams is backscatter - light intruding into the triangular area between the camera/strobes and subject and illuminating particles that would not be lit with a narrower or better defined light cone. 

    I do not point the strobe slighlty outwards. I push the strobe outwards using my arms once the subject is further away than the arm lenght the beams blend as shown in the image of the pool wall. In fact in many cases I point the strobes inward.

    This is a test I did time ago at 1.5 meters with 8+12 inches segments strobes are point straight ahead


    This is a false colour analysis of the same frame. You can do the same using photoshop with a bit more effort


    Because light scatters in water you get this type of effect


    Pointing strobe outwards is only a recipe when the strobe arms are too short and may result in dark areas in the center of the frame which are ugly.

    I shoot predominantly wide angle and I am almost never in a situation where backscatter becomes a predominant issue although I shoot typically in places where the visibility is around 10-15 on a good day and there are plenty of particles.

    I see sometimes people obsessed with backscatter trying to find a magic formula to avoid it entirely but there isn't one. If there are particles in the water you will see them what is important is that they are not predominant and don't ruin your subject.

    If backscatter is a real issue you need to get closer thereby reducing the amount of water and suspended particles.

    Pointing light away from the subject simply means not having the light and the color on the subject and hitting it with the lower quality of the beam which is always the edge and potentially creating big clouds of backscatter anyway on the outer of the frame because you have to pump up the power if you want to use the edges for the subject.

    If we are talking about a fish portrait where there is a purpose of subject isolatio then you make your light more directional eliminating diffusers or using devices to focus the beam and with the light source at an angle you reduce the probability of distraction but there is no doubt you will point the light at the subject.

    Lots of this backscatter scaremongery comes from ancient times where people would shoot something with a compact camera with on board flash which of course will create significant problems but this is why you have strobe arms (in addition to the fact that flat front lighting is ugly).

    • Like 2

  14. Just now, TimG said:

    The mods don’t have admin access which would allow anything of that nature. 

    In 2018 Adam told me he got a contractor to redesign forum and site. Do you know who he is? Maybe he does

  15. I am concerned that with the current status of wetpixel trips and people complaints this website and forum will come to an end when the hosting fees are expired.

    Does any of the mod or collaborator know how to back up the site in case someone wants to take it over in the future?

    • Like 2

  16. 21 hours ago, JohnVila said:


    I do think this is getting out of hand - Your last series of comments are a bit off the mark. You  mention a systematic hijack of the forum, spam and bombardment. Let us put that in perspective - 2 additional people came forward to vindicate that what has been said by others regarding a situation that is of great concern for any follower of this forum. Ok in fairness maybe one posted on two forums, which has been called out I believe. I do  t think it is right to imply there was some sinister motive to hijack the forums. 

    Clearly there are differences of opinion - that is healthy. But let's not put down the people with genuine grievances, it just adds to the injury. Enough said.

    To address some of the other matters raised objectively:

    If there was a financial avalanche that Adam was unable to deal with then all he had to do is communicate, very easy to do and if too sick then have somebody do it for him. Then it could be handled with empathy by all and without the need to resort to legal avenues. I have lost count of how many times I have tried. Of course if a proposal were put forward it could be met with kindness, we can only hope. In saying all this nobody has come forward with all this previously because there was a genuine concern for Adam - the cancellation of the Red Sea trips clearly caused this bubble to burst.

    Yes operators go belly up, charters do not honour their commitments etc etc. --- it happens all the time, especially after covid. Again though - put in perspective, this is happening in the Company that owns this forum, the company that sells itself as an industry leader, a company trusted by the members of this forum, and the diving and underwater photography industry. Contacting the company representative, completing a contact us form etc etc makes no difference - it does not get answered. Friends and associates are equally ignored.

    I am happy with any direction given by the moderators of this group . Like everyone says let's hope this can be resolved, but if not Civil action will surely follow.

    Regards and no hard feelings



    One user here has posted 7 messages on totally unrelated threads one was Nikon D810 another one was a scammer on the buy and sell which the moderators have taken care of

    Shouting here is not gonna get your money back. Let's face it you had direct contact with the person and has gone on the missing list why all of a sudden you would get a reaction?

    Also the fact that there is no reaction or deletion of posts for me this means he has gone dark entirely which brings me to the point that when hosting comes for renewal this forum dies

  17. This is a really good point and something, embarrassingly, I've never really thought about. I'm off on a  trip shortly which is almost all wide-angle too so will use it.
    Thanks, Chris and Craig!

    I ran many tests to make this point
    You need to focus nearer and the dome takes care of the rest however this only works when you don’t have a clear subject and you have time to compose the shot
    I shoot lots of f8 and f11 on full frame and the corner issues are minimal unless you have some piece of coral really near out of focus range

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  18. Reading some other posts from @rickmorgan] I see he has two inon
    Due to the two light tubes the Inon will show patterns in the output without a diffuser

    Once equipped with a diffuser those strobes should still provide adequate output for his OM-1

    I will have a look at his galleries to see how they look in practice

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  19. 11 minutes ago, pooley said:

    Hopefully, I can clarify a few points raised regarding the legalities here and which is the best route for the aggrieved parties to take.

    I am a UK police officer, and work as a custody sergeant which means I often have to make decisions on whether a person is sent to court for criminal offences or not. 

    I have no affiliation to Wetpixel other than being a forum member, I have never met or spoken to Adam other than messages on these boards, I have not booked any of the affected trips and I have not seen the updates from Alex. 

    People are getting confused over whether to take civil action, or to try the criminal route. the simple answer is with the limited information provided so far in these threads it could yet be either. Although there are lots of grey areas and interpretations, let me provide a couple of examples. 

    Example 1. Adam has businesses and uses the cash flow generated from the trips in his businesses. His intention was to fulfil his obligations and everyone gets to do the trips. However, due to business or heath reasons the cash gets tied up elsewhere and his businesses crash owing money - this needs to be challenged down the civil route. 

    Example 2. Adam wants a new Mercedes but doesn't have the money. He sells the trips with the intention to buy a car and never return the money, making up excuses as to where the money has gone. He has a new car, you have no dive trip - this is then a criminal fraud case and the police should take the lead. 

    Obviously there are numerous other possibilities but hopefully this helps distinguish. 

    Should the case be criminal then I believe Adam lives in the Lancashire constabulary area, so if this is where the correspondence is sent from then they would take the lead. Contacting Scotland Yard would achieve nothing as they are London based. 

    Regardless of criminal / civil then I would strongly advise going down the civil route for money recovery, as in my experience, the chances of full reimbursement following a criminal conviction are practically zero. 

    Go with your credit card issuer, insurer etc to get your refunds if at all possible. 

    I don't want to get further involved in this as I have no dog in this fight, and don't intend on advising further on specifics, but hopefully this might point people in the right direction



    I agree, definitely more a case for Judge Rinder than Luther 

  20. 47 minutes ago, Ministryofgiraffes said:

    But wetpixel allegedly has one sole director. Adam Hanlon. If he disappears or can no longer continue in his position as the sole director of wetpixel, is this forum not in jeopardy of being discontinued?

    if that is not the case, then 100% agree and the question has been answered that there is no danger to the forum. 

    thanks for the clarification. 



    It is in jeopardy and if it has no cash in the bank it may stop paying the hosting fees for the website and the forum and website is dead

    So to go and say stop advertising on wetpixel to all shops and brands is not really helping anyone including those that need to have money back

  21. 28 minutes ago, toque said:

    Hi all. I'm heading to Indonesia next May and am in the finalization of paying for the resort and they are asking  for me to pay with an app called "wise" which I'm not familiar with, wire transfer or credit card option. They said that there are fees for all choices, but they didn't say what. This wasn't the case when I was there in 2017. It was an easy credit card transaction and I don't remember any fees because most credit cards don't charge for foreign transactions. Because of all the fraud that you read about these days I don't like the wire transfer or the Wise app and am concerned about what the fees are going to look like for credit card. So for those of you who have been out there lately, what was your experience? were your fees really high? maybe its just the resort I'm talking to? everyone is looking to take a little more from us these days. TIA

    Wise will pay directly from your bank account to their bank account. It will apply a negotiated exchange rate that will beat the credit card significantly

    In addition as credit cards add fees they may ask you to pay an additional X% of fees yourself.

    Ultimately is a consideration of cash flow vs risk. First I would not pay the entire amount one year in advance anyway.

    On the other hand if you pay by credit card and the resort is no longer there you are dead in the water regardless of how you paid for it.

    I paid through wise my last trip to Malpelo 20% at booking and then other two 40% installments. There are only two boats going there and there was no other choice so I took the risk

  22. 16 minutes ago, Ministryofgiraffes said:

    How would it differ from an individual who say… collected funds from a group to organize a stag party and then they all showed up at the airport to find that the money had disappeared and the flights/hotel had never been booked? (Potentially the Red Sea workshop issue) or funds collected to pay for services and tips to an operator or resort which then never found their way to the operation.


    again, I’m no legal expert, but I believe that would be considered a crime in the UK because I recall people being jailed for it. 

    again, I clarify that I am not accusing adam of this directly although others are.


    i agree though, I believe enough has been said on this for now, so I am signing off. I hope that it all ends amicably.

    Wetpixel is not an individual is a company and to prove that its director have done something wrong it is another step in the process

    So nothing to do with that example and I hope we are closing the curtain here

    There are processes to follow and if you want to have an outcome that is the only path. If at some point there is something else of interest it will come up but in reality most civil cases have nothing to do with imprisonment or anything like that,

    Please not am not taking any position and do not know what happened and the reason for it am just conveying a path to follow in case you have a dispute with a company that you were not able to settle. I feel very sorry for what happened to the affected parties and hope the situation can come to the best possible outcome. 

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  23. 12 minutes ago, TimG said:

    I’d add just one point to Kraken de Mabini’s post.

    There is no point in those outside the U.K. contacting a British diplomatic mission, ie Embassy or Consulate etc. They would not get involved. And I speak with 35 years of experience as a British diplomat. 

    This is not just UK. In all parts of the world there is a difference between crimes to society like drugs, murder, abuse, violence and civil matters which are disputes between individuals and/or organisations. While it is true that some civil matters may result also in criminal charges there is absolutely nothing to suggest this is the case here.

    As much as I feel sorry for those that are unclear about what happened to their funds this is all in all not life or death to anyone so please stay calm and try to get some help from professionals as I have suggested.

    Those people will let you understand what your rights are and what you need to do and also give you a view of what to expect as clearly there is a reality check needed here.

  • Create New...