Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Interceptor121

  1. 4 minutes ago, Kraken de Mabini said:

    IAll the above is bad news, as I had high regard for Adam.  But the amount lost does seem to justify for those affected to contact the police, in this case Scotland Yard ?  

    What are you going on about? Debt is a civil matter at best for a county court not for the police or criminal justice.

    This is not just in UK is true elsewhere.

    I am amazed how little people know about real life situations

    • Confused 1

  2. The reach of light of the strobes does not change it is fixed. However because the sensor size changes the light density increases as the sensor size decreases. Ultimately with equivalence 16/11 or 8/5.6 is the same

    What many people do not understand see my post on the field of view vs vignetting is that as the target moves further away from your light source this becomes a point

    It does not matter anymore the shape of the tube etc etc because due to inverse square law light falls at the edges anyway

    So while at close range you may enjoy a more uniform beam and less hot spots as light travels in water the benefit drops and ultimately sheer power is what matters to illuminate at least some part of the frame

    I do also topside photography and in order to increase diffusion and homegeneity of light you bring the source close to the subject this is why when you see studio you have massive soft boxes on top of people, when you put them further away there is very little difference between that and a less sophisticated device like an umbrella

    So light homegenity is more important at close range not far away, there is never going to be a case that you will cover the entire frame with light and in addition your mirrorless lens vignettes and has fall off anyway so check carefully what you are looking for

    More importantly what strobes have you got now?

    • Like 1

  3. Just now, Ministryofgiraffes said:

    transparency, notification to relevant parties ( mods, other potentially effected individuals etc) collation of information, data for future retroactive review, discussion, support for the aggrieved, opinion on future process when booking vacations, plans and opinion on how to ensure the forum sustains etc.

    all the salient 'forum goals' one would argue...

    Notification of what exactly? If you are owed money you already know.

    Perhaps what you do not know is what you can do to get your money back.

    In UK there is a process to follow, this has a number of set steps, there are no other options.

    The situation here is quite clear

    1. Wetpixel is not a tour operator associated to any protection scheme in UK therefore if the operator is insolvent or not responding you need to follow other routes

    2. If you paid by credit card you may have some protection there

    3. Otherwise you need to follow the standard process


    If a company gets a high number of complaints this gets the interest of the authorities who may want to look into this

    We are not in US where people get together and do a class act and if you are not a UK resident you need to instruct a solicitor to file those complaints for you. 

    With regards to future process for booking a vacation or similar this does not change anything whenever you go through someone who is not in a protected scheme and don't use a credit card you have a risk. But in many cases some destinations do not even take a credit card. Those are generic thems that this situation does not change.

    Is up to you the individual to understand the risk you are taking and then make appropriate decisions. If for any reason someone puts their faith into an operator that becomes later on insolvent the story is always the same.

    Anyway I do not think I am going to be succesful and I see Tim is already taking measures to contain the systematic hijack of the forum that is of no benefit to anyone. So am going to call it a day

    • Like 1
    • Confused 1

  4. 1 minute ago, Ministryofgiraffes said:

    yes, but those would be valid points if the sole aim of this ongoing discourse was  obtain restitution....which i don't think it is.

    It should be. What else do you think you want to accomplish? Get someone here and walk on burning ashes for you?

    I am sure there are reasons for what happened they could be many together or just one none of this will make a difference if the participants don't get their money back

    • Confused 1

  5. 57 minutes ago, Ministryofgiraffes said:

    I think you are underestimating 

    A) the potential leverage exerted by transparency. Prior to the last few days, Several individuals thought that they were the only ones effected and are now in a position to mobilize as a group. Due to the revelations (if accurate… and I have to say I believe the individuals concerned, I have never had any reason to doubt the information from Adam’s friends) the continuation of the board is jeapordy, ‘not talking about it openly’ does not make that go away.

    B) if these accusations are valid, Adam my now concede that he can no longer keep it under wraps and will have to address it.

    C) if these issues were discussed openly on this forum previously, several individuals conceivably would not have booked trips after the fact, thereby adding to the growing list of claimants…

    whilst I appreciate an angle of ‘if this is all kept quiet it may not affect the future of the board’ ….I argue that a wiser approach would be ‘the truth will set you free’ so that it can be dealt with and the board can move on.



    I think you are not getting the point.

    The reason why people are not getting their money back for trips that are lapsed or cancelled is unclear.

    However the fact that they are not getting the money back is pretty clear.

    Naming and shaming on the forum is going to make zero different to the actual return of the money because most likely the moneis are not there (otherwise they would have already been returned) and therefore you need to trigger a process.

    As a result it may or not become apparent that a director of the company did not follow the appropriate conduct for example the business continued trading when in fact he should have been wound down.

    At that point this becomes then a proceeding against the person.

    In any case reducing the income of funds into wetpixel may result in a quicker more dramatic resolution of the issue.

    Imagine the following situation. The hosting of this forum is say £30 and there is absolutely zero in the bank next renewal comes the forum is dead. Did this help anyone?

    I am not saying that all of you don't have the right to complain but this forum cannot do anything to address your complaints.

    You got the communication with Adam directly you know his email and phone number and he is not replying, on which basis you think he would come here and acknoweldge anything or say this was just a big misunderstanding?

    I am trying to help you guys by saying follow the institutional path for debt collection in UK it is clear and transparent and don't get involved on why this issue arose. You paid for a service you did not get it as it was not performed you want your money back full stop. 

    Instead now we have a fresh example of a user spamming the entire forum with his request to have his money back. This is not the inbox of Adam Hanlon and none of us can do anything. What's the point of doing anything like that?


    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
    • Confused 1

  6. As someone who has experience in distressed businesses and insolvency I have to say that you guys are not helping your own cause by bombarding this forum with such messages.

    To believe that a person that has so far had impeccable attitude and has run multiple trips succesfully is just sitting on your money for the fun of it and everything is there in tact is a bit wishful thinking. There is a a significant possibility that part or all the money required is no longer there otherwise you would have already received it, the reason why this situation has occured is in fact not important.

    With that in mind your interest is that wetpixel continues to get cash in because otherwise there will be less resource to pay back the creditors.

    Some people here are suggesting to go and tell people to stop advertising for example this is only going to accelerate a potential wind down of the business.

    As I have already said get together and instruct a specialist in UK to see what next steps are possible bearing in mind you may only get partially the money you paid.

    Even if, and I do not wish for one minute this was the case, Adam was physically or mentally incapacitated this does not make a difference at all to the process you need to follow which is one of bad debt recovery. Getting angry and upset is human but does not lead to any conclusion.

    • Like 4
    • Confused 1

  7. This is all speculation - the site is privately owned and it would require a willing buyer and a willing seller.  No one but the owner knows what the situation is unfortunately and posting about it on the forums is not going to get anywhere.

    That’s the same thing I said

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. 1 hour ago, Davide DB said:

    I remain stunned to learn about the affair and wish all those involved success in finally finding a solution. You have all my sympathy, as much as this will help...
    For underwater images, WP is a more unique than rare community that has barely survived the onslaught of social networks for years. I have always compared it to the DPreview of diving.

    I hope this tsunami does not give this community a final shove.

    There are ways around it if someone is interested to buy some parts of the asset. However we need to understand if wetpixel is insolvent or not and if so how this process is handled.

    • Like 1

  9. For those of you in England, have you gone to Scotland Yard, to the Royal Mail,  or similar,  to report this matter? Have you spoken with a lawyer?
    For those of you in other countries, have you reported this matter to the British Consulate or Embassy, or to Interpol?
    I suggest the above as his actions (ie, stealing thru the mail or internet) appear to be criminal.

    When someone owes you money this is a civil case not a criminal case
    UK has clear rules about debt and insolvency and Scotland Yard or the police has nothing to do with it. Those cases are dealt by a council court.
    Neither you can resolve this remotely.
    Those involved should instruct a lawyer specialised in debt collection perhaps one of the participants to the trips is local and can get the ball rolling.
    Obviously all attempts should be made to resolve this amicably and there is no guarantee you will see your money in its entirety

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. Yes, the m43 cameras don't need to be stopped down so much so need less strobe power.  How much less depends on your starting point and what you are shooting.  On the example of the fisheye many people shoot them at f11-13 on full frame while on m43 I shoot at f8 mostly, but expect I could use f5.6in a lot of cases. 
    The other consideration is the mass of the strobes compared to the housing - many strobes are pretty close to neutral UW but not all and combining a big strobe with a small housing my be a bit unbalanced.  I'm sure the OneUW strobes would be great but I expect the retra strobes would very much give them a run for their money in a more compact package.

    The oneuw weights almost 1.5 kg
    The retra weights almost 1 kg
    A strobe made in polycarbonate weights at most 0.75 kg
    Although in water the difference is much less you are adding some bulk to your system to carry them so make sure you have a case for that
    And of course there is a material price difference as well
    What have you got now and what issue you are trying to fix?

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    • Like 1

  11. If you consider a dome port a smaller sensor will have more depth of field at the same f/number.

    Imagine full frame at f/16 you are looking at f/8 for MFT

    This means your strobes can be two stops less powerful for the part of the image that your strobes will cover

    All sounds great however in reality for newer high resolution cameras you don't need to shoot f/16. I have found that in many cases you can get good shots on full frame cameras at f/8 or f/11 so that gap is smaller than the theory

    In general terms though larger sensor -> higher f/number -> more powerful strobes required

    • Like 1

  12. Just now, Ministryofgiraffes said:

    Yes, I agree with this, but as trips are still advertised on the site and some individuals may not be aware that the Red Sea workshops have been cancelled by the boat for non payment of funds, I think it is a pertinent topic to hilighting. 

    Does Adam own the wetpixel copyright etc? To whom is the sponsorship and advertising revenue paid for the website/forums etc?

    obviously it would be an ideal situation if there was no connection to jeopardize this platform.  

    This is a legal matter I am afraid. The participants of those trips bought it from wetpixel limited whose business is to be a tour operator it seems. If the directors or owners of wetpixel do things that are against the interest of the company itself this is a wrong doing however ultimately is the company that is liable to the customers so that company eventually folds. As the company has the liabilities this is worth nothing if it cannot recover the cash.

    I have been involved in several cases of insolvency, and to be clear the facts here are unknown and I am not suggesting this is similar but I want the people involved to have an idea.

    In one of such cases a company that was healthy was brought into insolvency and administration because one of the shareholder took cash out of it illegally. Although this person was found guilty the moneys were not fully recovered and the company was wound down. Creditors did not get the money back and employees lost their job. 

    In essence in all those cases money can be given back if you can get hold of it, if you can't other than the satisfaction of having someone sentenced, nothing more is going to happen.

    Wetpixel is a UK company and UK has very clear insolvency guidelines that can be followed. All interested parties should appoint a specialist to understand what can be done. 

    By coincidence wetpixel accounts are due for filing on the 31 of August. Previously there was already a gap in shareholder funds of c90K (this happens when the company pays more dividends than it can) and I would like to see if I was an impacted party what is the situation of the assets and bank was as of November 2022.

    So if the shareholders of wetpixel took too much money out of the business  and wetpixel becomes insolvent wetpixel dies. Nobody will want to touch the company as it has associated liabilities to the customers so everything comes to an end.

    Hopefully the moneis have not vanished or been spent and somehow this whole thing survives.

    I am also feeling sorry for all of those that are associated and worked for wetpixel in various form and are somehow associated with this mess.


    • Thanks 1

  13. Who is asking the moderators to address anything? Nobody expects them too. it is not their issue.

    It was suggested in the post I quoted
    Moderators are volunteers and havr nothing to do with the situation nor can resolve it

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    • Like 1

  14. Hello
    As one of the victims of Adam's actions I must say that I find your comment very dismissive.  Where else do we express it? Writing to Adam makes no difference and in the mean time more people are becoming victims of this. Another member tried putting this on the forum months ago and the posts were deleted. This information is relevant for every member that might think of a trip via this forum and company.
    What you should be saying it is really sad that the figurehead and owner of Wetpixel, leader of tours etc has acted the way he has, not that it is sad to see it shared on the forum.
    I had made a very clear post as a notice to Adam on the Fraud, Non Payment forum yesterday but it is only since someone mentioned Alex's post on FB that this have been commented on.
    Wetpixel is a business.  Wetpixel Limited and Adam Hanlon was the source of information to make the booking,  Adam / Wetpixel was conducting the trip and Adam has taken the money, not just from me but dozens of other participants. Adam is the main moderator of this site, the star of the live videos etc etc.
    I paid Adam USD 5,000 in January 2020 that is still held for a trip that I cancelled out of in October 21 and multiple times thereafter.  Most of us have not said anything due to the health situation which has been used an excuse. He will not respond to anything. No sign of a refund, no attempt to communicate either himself or via an intermediary. In short nothing has been done, one broken promise after another.
    Alex has done the industry a massive service by coming out and stating what has been happening and finally the wider community can know what has been going on. Myself, and many others involved, back him up 100%.
    Making this known is a benefit to everyone on the forum - to avoid booking trips from this site, and be careful when making any bookings, and further if you have a future booking with Wetpixel you should act on it. It is not a wall of rants for those that have issues -- it is notification of a very serious situation and one which could have been avoided with some communication and honesty.
    We have a fraud, non, payment copyright issues forum - to report exactly things like this. That is where this belongs as that is what it is, plain and simple. Adam would not hesitate to call out another operator on this forum.
    Respectfully please do not make us victims a second time because you feel it should not be on this forum. Have some empathy for those affected  - we are not attacking the forum at all and do not want to see it affected.
    There is no connection to the moderators, no criticism, you all do a fantastic job and this is one of the best resources out there, I certainly refer to it daily and appreciate everyone on here.
    You can reach out to me for more details anyime

    You got it completely wrong.
    Wetpixel goes beyond Adam Hanlon whose tenure started in 2018.
    What I said is that it would be sad if all of this goes belly up because of this situation with the last owner.
    That doesn’t mean I am saying people to shut up.
    However l also think that this has gone past a few complaints on this forum and the affected parties should get legal advice and debt collection support
    Writing a few posts here is not going to resolve the situation I am afraid.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    • Confused 1

  15. 14 minutes ago, Ministryofgiraffes said:

    considering it will more than likely impact advertiser/sponsorship for this site due to Adam's current lead affiliation, i would suggest it is a very relevant topic so that the mods etc. can address the issue behind the scenes and hopefully formulate a plan to get ahead of it before it seriously impacts this forum and the legacy of everyone other than Adam who have worked so hard to make it successful.

    I would also be conscious of separating 'rant' and 'comment'. based on the situation and the evidence and commentary from Adam's good friends validating the concerns, i do not envision this ending well for him and i agree it would be unfortunate if it turned this board into a pariah to advertisers/sponsors.

    I am aware of several individuals who are mobilizing group legal action and reaching out to wetpixel sponsors and advertisers to brief them on the situation.

    The mods are just volunteers they have no stake in the wetpixel business that is a UK limited company owned 100% by Adam Hanlon. To expect those guys to adress any issue is a big ask

    Anyway let's hope the wetpixel brand survives this challenge

  16. It is really sad to see the wetpixel forum that has been running for almost 20 years to become the place to complain about the wetpixel trips which are related but different from this community.

    I hope this is not going to become the wall of rant for all those that have issues with the trip organisation which would be unfair to the moderators and other participants

    Alex comments are inside his facebook group 


    • Confused 1

  17. Just now, ashic said:

    Yup... that's why I'm asking here. I recall @Barmaglot has tested Seafrogs + WWL  28-60 extensively and had great results. While discussing this, I recall he stated something about trying the WWL-1B, and others had reported some issues. That was over a year ago. So was asking if there's something *better* than the "old" WWL-1, or if that's still the way to go.

    He has an APSC camera last time I checked so am not sure about 28-60mm and WWL-1 that is for full frame> try to find someone that has used the set up on full frame

  18. 7 minutes ago, ashic said:

    1. I've been diving with the A1 in the Seafrogs for over a year now. It does the job. 
    2. I have comprehensive insurance that covers diving. Without that, I wouldn't even consider it. 

    I'm interested in the nauticam WWL + seafrogs because if I upgrade the camera, I can get another $500 housing and keep the key part - the lens. A £3.5K housing specific to one camera isn't very appealing as I'm mostly a holiday diver. 

    Upgrade the A1 to what exactly? 

    Those wet lenses are precision machined for Nauticam housing sometimes by chance work with something else mostly the close up lenses wide angle more rarely

    Imagine you buy the WWL-1 and it vignettes to 32mm for example you just spent WWL-1, 28-60mm for suboptimal results.

    I would double check that the port sea frogs offer is really tight on the 28-60mm to avoid increased risk of vignetting which would make the lens not as useful as you expect

  19. The WWL-1 already vignettes with the Sony 28-60mm on the Nauticam housing once you switch distortion correction off.

    The set up is really at the limit already, the 28mm instead does not vignette but has a special port. The Nauticam flat port has a few mm excess lenght it was not designed for that lens

    I would imagine that other 3rd party housing may vignette same or more. 

    The A1 costs new now £6k the Nauticam housing is £3.5k. The seafrog housing I think is $500

    I would not for any reason risk my A1 in a polycarbonate housing. I can understand someone using a compact or APSC under $1,500 but for the A1 wow this is a big risk

    • Confused 1

  20. 33 minutes ago, fruehaufsteher2 said:

    Thanks, very helpful!

    What about the issue of light temperature? Is it possible to correct this from raw or do i lose color information?

    The light temperature issue is a different one. I believe @Alex_Mustard pioneered this topic and asked Inon at the time to do several filters.

    In general terms flashlights normally match daylight color temperature this is true topside and to a good extent remains true underwater.

    Now when you take a photo the light only covers part of the frame mostly the central area and at the edges due to inverse square law the effect drops. This is important from the point of view of the color of the water.

    The warmer your strobe more color temperature difference there is with the water that is not covered by the strobe.

    So with a warmer strobe you can get a deeper blue once the white balance is set correctly. 

    Ultimately this difference is around 1000K and using selective masks you can change the color temperature of the water anyway separately from the subject.

    In my opinion a strobe close to daylight 5200K is ideal and works as the camera auto white balance expects.

    I know many people are adamant that 4600 or 4900 is better but the difference is minimal anyway.

    A too cold strobe though say 6000K  or colder is however problematic especially in the shallow water where the water is not deep blue.

    I am very happy with my sea and sea YS-D2J they are there at 5250K and I get the colors I want. This is not something I loose my sleep at night and I have tried all the 4600 4900 5200 options on the Inons too.

    You also have to consider that as light absorbs warmer colour more than colder ones if you have a light source that is super warm this becomes colder as light travels anyway which is why you rarely see super warm strobes for wide angle.

    So in short strobe color temperature affects the color of the water not your main subject so if you are not happy about the blues perphaps this is something you want to address. 300K do not change the world but 1000K are hard to manage.


    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  21. 9 hours ago, LarryHallas said:

    You are getting A LOT better corners than I am getting with the Z 14-30, S&S IRC and a 230mm dome on a Z6 II, although the corners are still much better with the S&S IRC. I wonder if it's due to the considerably better AF on the Z9? Any of these shot at 14mm? 14mm is where I still get the corner distortion (stretched corners) even with the S&S IRC. I find that zooming in to ~17-18mm the corners are almost perfect and I really don't lose that much FOV. 

    Stretched corners may depend on the lens correction in post or incorrect positioning of the dome.

    I would try to deactivate lens corrections first

    • Like 1

  22. I see many people getting obsessed with strobe field of view and coverage and I thought this post may be useful to relax some of them.

    Frame coverage with two strobes with each 90 degrees is generally sufficient for wide angle. 

    A fisheye like lens behind a dome will not cover 180 degrees due to the proximity of the focus point. Lens field of view is specified at infinity but when your target is close the field of view can drop significantly.

    Even at specification level a diagonal fisheye is at best 92 degrees on the vertical axis in the centre of the frame and 142 on the horizontal.

    A good check is to see shooting a pool wall how good is the cover of the vertical line in the middle of the frame


    If this test is passed you know that the sides will be covered too. 

    When it comes to the edges of the frame most mirrorless lenses have significant vignetting that is potentially corrected in post processing. 

    This is a diagram from lenstip


    In the corners the lens is 3 stops less than in the center. That means only 12.5% light intensity makes it there

    Even after correction you do not get back the full 3 stops because otherwise the image will present severe artefacts and banding.

    I generally disable vignetting correction underwater anyway as seldom there is something of interest in the edges.

    It follows that no matter your strobe coverage even at short range your frame will not be lit homoegenously it does not matter how perfect is your strobe.

    Obviously if your strobe is terrible this will degrade even further however the point is that the strobe is not necessarily to blame for dark corners if you have a mirrorless camera.

    Vignetting diagrams for fisheye lenses are generally not available on full frame however the vignetting at the edges is of course 100% as it hits the lens border.

    Some older DSLR lenses like the Nikon 28-70 f3.5-4.5 only have 0.5 Ev vignetting so with those and a water contact optic you generally would see brighter corners however the adapters have light fall off themselves and this is not measured as of today.

    Strobe power instead is an issue at long range. When you move further away from the target to the point where the light source becomes a point regardless of shape of the tube only power matters. If you are interested in big wide angle scenes you are better off with a strobe that has a lot of power than one that is very smooth and wide but can't cover distance and will dissipate all the light without penetrating in the frame. Of course illumination will not be homogenous across the frame that is indeed impossible due to inverse square law but at least some of the fish in the middle of the frame will have color.

    Here an example of a significantly large school of snapper shots at more than 2 meters with a pair of sea and sea YS-D2 at full power you can see the red dropping as you go deeper in the frame but still for a decent effect




    • Like 2

  23. I can't believe I'm arguing with a stranger on the internet about what exactly the premise was of my own post.  The point is that people who already own a dome for the 8mm but who want to shoot the 12-45 underwater may not need to buy a second dome.  My test shots lie about halfway between shooting a grid and shooting in the real world; lines seem straight and text is crisp and legible right out to the edges.  Other's results may vary, but I'm perfectly happy shooting this combo vs. buying (and traveling) with a dome designed for mediocre 1st generation M43 zooms like the 14-42 and 9-18.  To my knowledge, nobody is making a dome specifically for the 12-45, so anything out there is a compromise.

    The grid will show if you have distortion or not
    If you have distortion you will loose field of view negating the effect of the dome
    It is the best method to check the dome position is correct
    Another method is to keep the camera fixed before you fill the tank with water this requires more gear of course
    A dome works if it preserves the field of view otherwise you are wasting your time it is not just about the picture being sharp
    However if you want to ignore the suggestions and go down on your path feel free to do so. You may experience that your wide lens is not as wide as you thought.
    In general terms lenses never offer the nominal field of view underwater because that is measured at infinity while the focus distance of a dome is much closer therefore your starting point is less than the 84 degrees it should be at the outset with this lens and you want to make sure you are not deteriorating it further
    Well at least I would want that!
    Good luck

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    • Confused 1

  24. On 7/29/2023 at 8:11 PM, TimG said:

    Very different from what I expected. I’ve used a few Nikon DSLRs, and I was expecting the Z9 to be an iterative improvement, but it’s a paradigm shift. Especially the viewfinder. In underwater photography, like all wildlife photography, it can be tricky to get close to your subject. Sometimes you have to squeeze between rocks and fight with currents, and once you’re in position, you have to take a test shot to see if the framing and lighting is right.

    With a DSLR, reviewing your photos means taking your eye away from the viewfinder and tilting the camera down, which risks bumping against a rock, kicking up sand, or scaring the subject.

    But with the electronic live view, the Z9’s viewfinder is always bright enough to compose a shot, and I can check a test image without having to reposition and look at the back of the camera.

    Is a paradigm shift for him a DSLR user but that is actually a feature of any mirrorless camera quite interesting that this is the main advantage for him.

  25. 4 hours ago, Barmaglot said:

    For the reference, here is a test shot from a Sea & Sea YS-110a, which uses a similar triangular arrangement (source): Sea_Sea-YS110a.jpg


    Very nice piece of testing. He managed to find an underwater light meter.

    As you can see at 1 meter you can see the shape of the bulbs and multielement produce more hot spots

    However there are few considerations to be made:

    1. While for close up you may use one strobe for wide angle you will use two and when you have two light sources there is a lot of blending of the effects

    2. Even a nice circular shape strobe produces a hot spot see Sea and Sea YS-250

    3. A diffuser reduces hot spots and improves light fall off at the edges more than coverage angle

    I shoot my strobes in a pool at a similar wall and I have no issue filling pretty much the whole frame. Take into account lenses have a lot of vignetting of their own so there is light fall off at the edges regardless of how good your strobes are. Some lenses exhibit up to 2 stops light fall off so you get 25% even with the sun let alone strobes.


    The Ikelite in that report is a good example of a strobe that did not really benefit from a diffuser in the first place.

    I am always puzzled on how people are sensitive to issues like coverage angle and hot spots in real life the times you have a hot spot is because with a non flat target you had something closer to the strobe and you did not manage to adjust

    This strobe from Marelux regardless of any other parameter will require a diffuser like the Sea and Sea YS-110 in that example nothing you can do about it but also nothing to particularly worry about it as with 6200K most people will want to take that down to 5000K

    • Like 1
  • Create New...