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 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 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 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 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

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 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 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 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