Are consumer digital cameras useless for diving?

I've noticed a couple of questions regarding dive cameras so thought I'd
continue the trend. A friend spent $700 on a 6mp cannon camera with a dive
case. I've noticed most of the pictures suffered from a severe lack of light
and the camera automatically went to a long exposure causing many of them to
be blured. Those that weren't blurred were quite dull. Only closeup shots
were acceptable really. After having a look at the pics I'm kinda of the
opinion that only a high quality camera with a full size lense (to let more
light in) and a good external flash would be required to get acceptable
photos. Is this true? I'm not a camera zealot if anyone is wondering as I
quite happily take shots out of the water with a compact and reckon it is
pretty good. I usually dive around the 18 metre mark.

Here's some examples:
http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/dive2.jpg
http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/elizaramsden124.jpg

Michael C wrote:
> I've noticed a couple of questions regarding dive cameras so thought I'd
> continue the trend. A friend spent $700 on a 6mp cannon camera with a dive
> case. I've noticed most of the pictures suffered from a severe lack of light
> and the camera automatically went to a long exposure causing many of them to
> be blured. Those that weren't blurred were quite dull. Only closeup shots
> were acceptable really. After having a look at the pics I'm kinda of the
> opinion that only a high quality camera with a full size lense (to let more
> light in) and a good external flash would be required to get acceptable
> photos. Is this true? I'm not a camera zealot if anyone is wondering as I
> quite happily take shots out of the water with a compact and reckon it is
> pretty good. I usually dive around the 18 metre mark.
>
> Here's some examples:
> http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/dive2.jpg
> http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/elizaramsden124.jpg

Common digital cameras (and film cameras) can work quite good under
water. However, some are better then others. That said, even the most
expensive camera will have difficulties if not setup properly. Some
general advice (others will probably expand on this a lot):

1) Get an external flash. The flash on cameras is too close to the lens
to be of use - instead of illuminating the subject, these flashes just
tend to light up the silt and floaties in front of the camera. An
external strobe can be placed to the side, which causes this backscatter
to occur away from the lens.

I suspect this may be a problem with your photos.

2) Get close to your subject. Water tends to scatter light, so the
farther away you are from your subject the less clear the picture will
appear. About the only way to get amazingly high-detailed shots is in
macro mode. Also, water tends to absorb red/yellow light, so getting
close will also help restore some colour (if you are using a flash).

3) Shallower subjects will generally image better, as less sun light
will be absorbed, giving you more light to work with.

4) Composition. Many divers will "hide" some of the problems underwater
photography has by making sure their subject(s) are against a colourful
background, etc. This'll help hide things like backscatter, and reduce
the "flat" appearance of blue-water shots (like your ray). The general
rule is "get close, get low, shoot up".

5) White balance. Most digital cameras give you some degree of control
over white balance. Try playing with it to see if you cannot get more
colourful images.

Lastly, although it's too late for you, when picking a digital camera
you want to look for one with good low-light capabilities. dpreview.com
does a good job of reviewing camera, and most of their tests involve a
low-light test.

Bryan

"Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:462617c1$0$16555$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> I've noticed a couple of questions regarding dive cameras so thought I'd
> continue the trend. A friend spent $700 on a 6mp cannon camera with a dive
> case. I've noticed most of the pictures suffered from a severe lack of
> light and the camera automatically went to a long exposure causing many of
> them to be blured. Those that weren't blurred were quite dull. Only
> closeup shots were acceptable really. After having a look at the pics I'm
> kinda of the opinion that only a high quality camera with a full size
> lense (to let more light in) and a good external flash would be required
> to get acceptable photos. Is this true? I'm not a camera zealot if anyone
> is wondering as I quite happily take shots out of the water with a compact
> and reckon it is pretty good. I usually dive around the 18 metre mark.
>
> Here's some examples:
> http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/dive2.jpg
> http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/elizaramsden124.jpg
>
The problem with most inexpensive cameras is that they adjust the shutter
speed to set the proper exposure, so when the light drops the shutter speed
goes down causing blurred pictures. While a flash is best underwater for
good color and clear pictures, you can try raising the ISO speed on the
camera (if adjustable). The photos should look fine, and this will give the
camera a chance to raise the shutter speed so your photos aren't blurred
anymore.

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:06:27 +1000, "Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

>I've noticed a couple of questions regarding dive cameras so thought I'd
>continue the trend. A friend spent $700 on a 6mp cannon camera with a dive
>case. I've noticed most of the pictures suffered from a severe lack of light
>and the camera automatically went to a long exposure causing many of them to
>be blured. Those that weren't blurred were quite dull. Only closeup shots
>were acceptable really. After having a look at the pics I'm kinda of the
>opinion that only a high quality camera with a full size lense (to let more
>light in) and a good external flash would be required to get acceptable
>photos. Is this true? I'm not a camera zealot if anyone is wondering as I
>quite happily take shots out of the water with a compact and reckon it is
>pretty good. I usually dive around the 18 metre mark.
>
>Here's some examples:
>http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/dive2.jpg
>http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/elizaramsden124.jpg
>

I don't dive, but I stayed in a Motel 8 last night...

Underwater photography is always going to be a fight to get enough
light. A faster lens (smaller f/number) will help immensly, as will a
very good flash.
The less expensive dive cameras, and the housings for others, don't
have any special capabilities other than the ability to keep water
out, that would make them better able to somehow get around the lack
of light.
If you watch the Planet Earth series for the underwater episodes,
you'll see that they must pick their opportunities carefully to get
clear water, and they use some pretty pricey gear. Your samples show
pretty much what's normal for amateur divers with time and money
constraints.

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Hillary Clinton postponed her meeting with
the Rutgers women's basketball team Monday
due to weather. The team forgave a middle-aged
white guy for humiliating them in front of the
entire world. Hillary wanted to go there to
collect her royalty check.

for photos that are not macro, it is possible to get good pics without
the use of a strobe or internal flash (which i found to be really
poor) http://www.public.asu.edu/~elliotg/
is my web site. all the pics were taken with an old sony P7 (3MB)
camera, no flash but with a red filter. all the pics still had to
processed through photoshop (god's gift to underwater photography)
elliott

ajames54@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Apr 18, 9:06 am, "Michael C" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I've noticed a couple of questions regarding dive cameras so thought I'd
>>continue the trend. A friend spent $700 on a 6mp cannon camera with a dive
>>case. I've noticed most of the pictures suffered from a severe lack of light
>>and the camera automatically went to a long exposure causing many of them to
>>be blured. Those that weren't blurred were quite dull. Only closeup shots
>>were acceptable really. After having a look at the pics I'm kinda of the
>>opinion that only a high quality camera with a full size lense (to let more
>>light in) and a good external flash would be required to get acceptable
>>photos. Is this true? I'm not a camera zealot if anyone is wondering as I
>>quite happily take shots out of the water with a compact and reckon it is
>>pretty good. I usually dive around the 18 metre mark.
>>
>>Here's some examples:http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/dive2....ramsden124.jpg
>>
>>
>
>Well .. not really the case... you do have to make some changes to the
>base settings. pics bellow were all shot on a Canon A95 5MP PnS. OK so
>they aren't the best thing going but I can't afford 20+K I would need
>for the camera I really want.
>
>The biggest difference I found was to not use the cameras underwater
>setting and make sure the flash is always on.
>
>
>http://ca.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/cay..._HNnGBFoy.QH_z
>
>
>

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:20:10 -0500, Dan Bracuk <NOTbracuk@pathcom.com>
wrote:
> While I do ok, I still reject at least 75% of my shots for various
> reasons. Sometimes they are duplicates (if you want good pictures
> take lots) or sometimes they are sub-standard for one reason or
> another.

The difference between a professional and an amateur photographer is
the percentage of rejections... Well, that plus what each might
consider an "acceptable" shot... The vast majority of the shots of a
professional photographer are not what he might consider acceptable
for publication for whatever reason... A photo shoot of a model might
result in hundred of photos being taken, but perhaps less than a dozen
might actually make it into the magazine's printed pages...
Personally, my measure of a successful photo for my own photography is
whether I'm willing to have it printed in 20x30 size and
professionally mounted and framed... I've only had a few like that
over the years... They were all with Kodachome 25, if I remember
correctly... These days, I shoot digital and most photos end up being
on the web... I'm a bit less picky about what ends up on the web since
it doesn't cost me anything to have it printed and mounted... <grin>

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:46:14 -0500, Dan Bracuk <NOTbracuk@pathcom.com>
wrote:
> Is there a specific spot on the web, or are they just sort of out
> there somewhere.

They're not related to diving... Most are on web pages that are not
linked to any of the main web pages, thus they are only for passing
along to friends and family...

The water in your examples seems pretty cloudy.

Here's some shot in Maui in 06 using a Canon SD500 with Canon's case

Max water depth was about 30 feet (turtle in hole shot)

Out of probably 150 to 200 shots, 20 or 30 were keepers of any
quality.

Some were shot within 5 feet of the surface

http:\\bshellenbaum.smugmug.com click on the Maui folder.

One thing the P&S do that the more expensive SLRs don't, is video and
it makes a real difference putting together a DVD of the vacation.

The year before my daughter and I were diving at Molokini crater and I
was shooting video with the canon elph, while capturing a shark
swimming below us, we heard whale song and it was captured as well.
Pretty darn cool.

"nanook" <no_one@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ajsd2354i7mljmfoefoee05v0q4c56fkid@4ax.com...
> The water in your examples seems pretty cloudy.

I'm in Melbourne. The water is cold and cloudy here and I can't say the
dives are that brilliant. I was getting pretty bored of diving until I went
on a recent trip to WA. Now I'm itching to go again.

> Here's some shot in Maui in 06 using a Canon SD500 with Canon's case
>
> Max water depth was about 30 feet (turtle in hole shot)

They just look awesome, that's the quality of photo I would like to be able
to take.

> Out of probably 150 to 200 shots, 20 or 30 were keepers of any
> quality.

That's a pretty good ratio, I was throwing away around 98% although I guess
it depends on your criteria and the number of shots you take of each scene.

> One thing the P&S do that the more expensive SLRs don't, is video and
> it makes a real difference putting together a DVD of the vacation.

That is one thing I've noticed is that the cheaper camera do take pretty
good quality video.

Michael

Michael C wrote:
> After having a look at the pics I'm kinda of the
> opinion that only a high quality camera with a full size lense (to let more
> light in) and a good external flash would be required to get acceptable
> photos.

http://www.camerasunderwater.info/op...nscorrect.html

BugBear