Comments?
- Thread starter fppf
- Start date
Recty
New member
It's not that they are bad, it's just not that they are real good either. They are just so-so... so it's kind of mean to leave comments because there are lots of little things that could be improved upon. Unless you're a professional underwater photographer, you're not going to be doing those things, you might as well just enjoy the dive and your photographs afterwards without a lot of people pointing out all the little flaws 
fppf
New member
See, there in lies the rub. Without contructive criticism you don't know what your doing wrong, and therefor will keep making the same mistakes.
So by pointing out the little things that are wrong, I can make an attempt to fix them and improve my efforts. This world is getting a little to soft. So make some comments, good or bad, or indifferent.
So by pointing out the little things that are wrong, I can make an attempt to fix them and improve my efforts. This world is getting a little to soft. So make some comments, good or bad, or indifferent.
Brett9917
New member
I agree with Recty. They aren't amazing shots that are going to get into NatGeo or anything like that, but they are great vacation photographs that you can share with your family and friends. Anyone can tell that you are swimming with sharks, the pictures are decently exposed, and relatively sharp. Unfortunately I haven't the slightest clue about anything when it comes to underwater photography. I still don't like taking my camera out in the rain!
Recty
New member
What kind of camera are they shot with? They arent super sharp, but probably a pretty good example of what that camera can do. It might not be possible to get any clearer of an image with what equipment you have.
To me, they look poorly lit. I'd like to see multiple strobes, at least one on each side, lighting up your subject so that everything on the camera side of the shark is lit up and colored correctly without all the blue.
Also, try not to center your subject... give some empty blue space ahead of the shark so it looks like it has somewhere to swim to, it will give your picture a better feeling.
To me, they look poorly lit. I'd like to see multiple strobes, at least one on each side, lighting up your subject so that everything on the camera side of the shark is lit up and colored correctly without all the blue.
Also, try not to center your subject... give some empty blue space ahead of the shark so it looks like it has somewhere to swim to, it will give your picture a better feeling.
fppf
New member
I can blame all those comments on my gear and wife
I shoot with a D100 with an 18-70 lens.
The sharpness is the lens, its beat and seen its day, that and its entry level to start with.
You are correct about the lighting, I have one strobe, at $1000 a pop I'm still working on a second, but a camera upgrade and lens will be first.
The placement of the subject was really difficult. This was during a feed, the sharks where coming in and out of frame really fast. If you ever shot a D100 the shutter lag is really bad. By time I saw a shot come into frame and hit the shutter it was gone.
I actually had one of the sharks swim into the camera and push me over.
Thanks for the comments, I'm working on them.
I shoot with a D100 with an 18-70 lens.
The sharpness is the lens, its beat and seen its day, that and its entry level to start with.
You are correct about the lighting, I have one strobe, at $1000 a pop I'm still working on a second, but a camera upgrade and lens will be first.
The placement of the subject was really difficult. This was during a feed, the sharks where coming in and out of frame really fast. If you ever shot a D100 the shutter lag is really bad. By time I saw a shot come into frame and hit the shutter it was gone.
I actually had one of the sharks swim into the camera and push me over.
Thanks for the comments, I'm working on them.
Recty
New member
Wow, $1000 for a strobe seems very high. I was looking into doing some underwater photography while I was in Hawaii and for a decent camera, a nice underwater housing and two strobes was about $1500. Good strobes too, I think they were "only" $500 per strobe. They were highly recommended too, it wasnt like it was junk.
I hear you about fast moving subjects and shutter lag. That's the main reason I went to using a DSLR. I never have to deal with shutter lag again
Zoom out a little, take a picture that isnt just a close up of a shark, and then you can crop in Photoshop to give it a little space in front of the shark so it looks like it's going somewhere. I realize with the pictures you took that isnt possible, but if you zoom out wider or move farther back from your subjects next time, you'll have that ability.
Of course, it's better to simply take the photograph like that, but if you have to resort to cropping that's still a viable alternative It will make your pictures more interesting. I've noticed that with birds and other wildlife... if you just center the subject and it fills the frame, it just looks boring.
I hear you about fast moving subjects and shutter lag. That's the main reason I went to using a DSLR. I never have to deal with shutter lag again
Zoom out a little, take a picture that isnt just a close up of a shark, and then you can crop in Photoshop to give it a little space in front of the shark so it looks like it's going somewhere. I realize with the pictures you took that isnt possible, but if you zoom out wider or move farther back from your subjects next time, you'll have that ability.
Of course, it's better to simply take the photograph like that, but if you have to resort to cropping that's still a viable alternative
It will make your pictures more interesting. I've noticed that with birds and other wildlife... if you just center the subject and it fills the frame, it just looks boring.
fppf
New member
Errr a you never shot underwater before?
LOL, sorry you have no idea how much harder it is underwater.
Pretty much everything needs to be shot totally manually.
I use Ikelite housings and strobes. There strobes are the best on the market for color, spread, and ruggedness. There housing are good as well, very good for the price. Just the housing for my camera new is $1600, then after the strobe, arms, and sync cords its about $1000 a strobe.
The Nikon D100 IS a DSLR, however it is an earlier version and has lag.
You really never use zoom underwater, it is pointless because the strobes don't cut through the water far enough.
Those sharks where really that close. They where about 12-18 inches from the lens. I could not back up because for safety during a shark feed they back you up against a wall so the sharks can't swim between the divers. I try not to crop because the D100 is only a 6 MP camera so I loose resolution fast.
I can post some other photos from less controlled dives.
Thanks again for the feedback.
LOL, sorry you have no idea how much harder it is underwater.
Pretty much everything needs to be shot totally manually.
I use Ikelite housings and strobes. There strobes are the best on the market for color, spread, and ruggedness. There housing are good as well, very good for the price. Just the housing for my camera new is $1600, then after the strobe, arms, and sync cords its about $1000 a strobe.
The Nikon D100 IS a DSLR, however it is an earlier version and has lag.
You really never use zoom underwater, it is pointless because the strobes don't cut through the water far enough.
Those sharks where really that close. They where about 12-18 inches from the lens. I could not back up because for safety during a shark feed they back you up against a wall so the sharks can't swim between the divers. I try not to crop because the D100 is only a 6 MP camera so I loose resolution fast.
I can post some other photos from less controlled dives.
Thanks again for the feedback.
Recty
New member
I have shot underwater before, I've never owned my own camera for it though. When I got certified for scuba I rented a camera setup and took my own photographs on that same vacation.
I wish I could remember what camera it was, it was a Canon DSLR but as for the model I couldnt tell you. This was like 6 or 7 years ago, I believe it was an Ikelite housing as well. It was a pretty sweet setup, I rented it for a week for about $250 which was a lot better than spending $3000 on it, since where I live I'd never need it again.
Going to a higher focal length underwater isnt just for taking a picture of a far off creature that your strobes cant light up. I zoomed underwater, not to see further, but to get closer to an already somewhat close subject. The dual flash setup I had handled it just fine, I seem to recall that they actually have little motors that adjusted the beam depending on what focal length you were at. I specifically remember taking pictures of the reef wall at really wide angle and then also being zoomed in on tiny fish or at least normal sized fish that I wanted to fill the entire frame.
As far as everything being shot totally manually, at the time I didn't know anything about photography and I left it all on auto and it came out very well. I dont know if the flashes were just going full blast every time, I dont believe so though. I believe the only thing that was set was a shutter speed, I think the camera was just set to 1/250th or something like that and everything else compensated for it.
Anyway, I know what you're saying about the sharks being close up. I just got back from Hawaii a month ago and did some more underwater photography and had some fish coming real close to the camera and wished I could get farther away from them, but they can swim faster than I can
I wish I could remember what camera it was, it was a Canon DSLR but as for the model I couldnt tell you. This was like 6 or 7 years ago, I believe it was an Ikelite housing as well. It was a pretty sweet setup, I rented it for a week for about $250 which was a lot better than spending $3000 on it, since where I live I'd never need it again.
Going to a higher focal length underwater isnt just for taking a picture of a far off creature that your strobes cant light up. I zoomed underwater, not to see further, but to get closer to an already somewhat close subject. The dual flash setup I had handled it just fine, I seem to recall that they actually have little motors that adjusted the beam depending on what focal length you were at. I specifically remember taking pictures of the reef wall at really wide angle and then also being zoomed in on tiny fish or at least normal sized fish that I wanted to fill the entire frame.
As far as everything being shot totally manually, at the time I didn't know anything about photography and I left it all on auto and it came out very well. I dont know if the flashes were just going full blast every time, I dont believe so though. I believe the only thing that was set was a shutter speed, I think the camera was just set to 1/250th or something like that and everything else compensated for it.
Anyway, I know what you're saying about the sharks being close up. I just got back from Hawaii a month ago and did some more underwater photography and had some fish coming real close to the camera and wished I could get farther away from them, but they can swim faster than I can
