Underwater cameras advice needed

Dan Bracuk wrote:

> Or maybe we can simply assume it was the same problem the rest of us
> had when we started u/w photography. It's hard.

Or not. I had some minor problems with framing on the first UW roll I shot, which I
am told is a common problem with the Nikonos, but the other 10 rolls came out well
enough to leave me pleased with my first effort. Of course, I had plenty that were
so-so and none of them are going to turn up in dive magazines, but very few of them
were really bad. For the most part I found that focus and exposure weren't a problem.
Composition is about the same as on land, though I think it's a lot easier to find a
dark, cluttered background UW. I attribute the success of my first efforts to the
thousands of frames I've shot out of the water, which I think gave me a pretty solid
foundation in the basic skills, which largely translate to UW. On our last trip, one
of my companions was using a brand new Olympus C-4040. It's a decent camera, but he
wasn't used to it and pretty much stuck to full auto point and shoot. He had only a
couple of dozen dives when the trip started and no previous UW photo experience, but
he got a few very good shots and plenty that are decent enough. Especially for his
experience level, I don't think he found it so hard that he didn't get some very
satisfactory results.

Since the OP says she's a good photographer out of the water I'd expect that she
should have gotten enough decent shots that she wouldn't sound so completely
dissatisfied, but until we hear more we don't know what her criteria are and why the
lousy pictures were lousy. If they all sucked for the same one or two reasons, maybe
there's a relatively easy solution. If there's a single problem that's common tor
most of the bad shots, maybe she does have a camera that really sucks. OTOH, maybe
she's not nearly as good as she thinks, and the UW shots just show that to excellent
advantage. Until we get more info all of our advice is going to be somewhat generalized.

--
Steve

The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.

If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.

Steve <SPAMTRAPglawackus@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>Dan Bracuk wrote:
>
>> Or maybe we can simply assume it was the same problem the rest of us
>> had when we started u/w photography. It's hard.
>
>Or not. I had some minor problems with framing on the first UW roll I shot, which I
>am told is a common problem with the Nikonos, but the other 10 rolls came out well
>enough to leave me pleased with my first effort. Of course, I had plenty that were
>so-so and none of them are going to turn up in dive magazines, but very few of them
>were really bad. For the most part I found that focus and exposure weren't a problem.

I had more or less the same results. Once I figured out how to
actually use the camera (the first roll had some shots of the hatch
from inside the boat), I could get the composition OK. A few parallax
problems but nothing major. I did have additional trouble at night
because I really could not see where I was aiming very well.

What I had to be more aware of was that distance shots didn't work
well -- even if *I* could see, the camera couldn't, and the color
washed out.

I got the camera immediately after I did my certification. I could
only do full auto point and shoot, with basically the cheapest camera
I could buy.

My major problem was that the flash on the front of the camera caused
some scatter reflection if the water wasn't completely clear. This
part I felt WAS due to the camera. Otherwise I was THRILLED with the
photos I got.

I had been doing photography out of the water since about 1948 (I was
10 and had a Brownie camera which is the ultimate point and shoot),
and I actually got a camera which fitted into a Plexiglas housing and
did a couple of uw shots in 1968 when I did my first dives (after
which I didn't dive again until 1997 at which time I went through an
actual certification process).

I didn't get a digital camera until 2000 though, so all of my uw
photos have been film.

>Composition is about the same as on land, though I think it's a lot easier to find a
>dark, cluttered background UW. I attribute the success of my first efforts to the
>thousands of frames I've shot out of the water, which I think gave me a pretty solid
>foundation in the basic skills, which largely translate to UW. On our last trip, one
>of my companions was using a brand new Olympus C-4040. It's a decent camera, but he
>wasn't used to it and pretty much stuck to full auto point and shoot. He had only a
>couple of dozen dives when the trip started and no previous UW photo experience, but
>he got a few very good shots and plenty that are decent enough. Especially for his
>experience level, I don't think he found it so hard that he didn't get some very
>satisfactory results.
>
>Since the OP says she's a good photographer out of the water I'd expect that she
>should have gotten enough decent shots that she wouldn't sound so completely
>dissatisfied, but until we hear more we don't know what her criteria are and why the
>lousy pictures were lousy. If they all sucked for the same one or two reasons, maybe
>there's a relatively easy solution. If there's a single problem that's common tor
>most of the bad shots, maybe she does have a camera that really sucks. OTOH, maybe
>she's not nearly as good as she thinks, and the UW shots just show that to excellent
>advantage. Until we get more info all of our advice is going to be somewhat generalized.

grandma Rosalie

Steve <SPAMTRAPglawackus@hvc.rr.com> pounded away at his keyboard
resulting in:
: For the most part I found that focus and exposure weren't a problem.

I found focus to be a huge problem when I started. Combination of the
25% closer thing and a narrow depth of field.

Dan Bracuk
Is it my imagination, or do Buffalo Wings taste like chicken?
The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Dan Bracuk" <NOTbracuk@pathcom.com> wrote in message
news:r7sap0h8qsu6h0s0475cntb82dkvvf32ga@4ax.com...
> RayC <ray@rayzplace.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in:
> :I don't want this to sound like I am an A..hole (although I
> :am), but much of the quality of the pictures has to do with
> :the quality of the photographer.

Conversely, the quality of the photographer will seldom overcome
shortcomings in the quality of the equipment. If a lens isn't sharp the
photographer will never overcome that. If the viewfinder is crap, the
photographer is limited. If the glass is slow, the photographer has lost the
ability to shoot certain situations. If the camera isn't ergonomically
correct for the user it can become a great problem, particularly underwater.

Ideally it is best to balance photographer capability with equipment
capability, but given the cost who wants to buy new gear every time they
become more proficient? I think it is better to have equipment capabilities
to aspire to, rather than fight against the ceiling your camera capabilities
limit you to.

The old adage about a camera being nothing but a light box has become pure
bunk over the past ten years. The equipment will not make you a good
photographer, but it sure as heck can make you a bad one (if image results
are the measure).