I have been instructed at jessops to write on the film packet "shot
underwater" which is supposed to indicate to the operator to pay attention
when shooting and not just leave it on automatic.  In addition i would also
suggest paying extra for the diamond laser service.  Its only a pound extra
and you get an index print with your 35MM films.

I used a cheap underwater (no flash) camera to take reef pictures in Hawaii,
and then found the 1 hour photo prints to be a dismay blue soup.  So I
learned.  I found that Kodak does indeed offer a special printing service
for underwater shots, but only through dive shops.  I found one nearby and
got the mailers.  I also learned to use a better camera with a flash.  I
used plain old Kodak ISO 400 color print film.  I sent the pictures from my
second trip into Kodak and got some remarkably colorful and clear prints of
the same reef that was my downfall on the first trip.

I then scanned the negatives on a friend's PC and fussed with the color
balance and intensity.  Better yet.

The existance of the Kodak service was somewhat of a secret, but in asking
about UW photography and googling around about it, I found the answers. It's
been out there for some time - it's not brand new.

Three things I have learned about underwater photography, even at snorkling
depths - (1) use a flash - preferably off camera (some seperation to avoid
backscatter) and (2) use a decent auto camera, and (3) don't expect any good
from a 1 hour photo lab.

By the way, I used a "Sea and Sea" MK-5 II with external falsh, and the
results were not National Geographic quality by any means, but met my
expectations.  There are several similar cameras in this price range.  If
you expect to use the camera a few times, it might be worth it to invest in
a modest UW rig.  Perhaps a housing for an existing digital or film camera
would also be reasonable, but I have had no experience with housings.

In any case I DON"T LIKE THE SHOUTING BELOW!  I think the consumer has some
obligation to get the appropriate hardware and processing.  Other posts
suggesting that expecting perfection from a throw-away is not realistic are
right on the money.  And I'd try scanning the negs into photoshop for
further color corrections before announcing them as "ruined."

I hope this has been a "learning experience" for you like my first failure
at UW photography was a failure for me.  Stop whining, we all have probably
had the exact same thing happen, it's just that real men don't cry in
public....

Chris...my UW camera system probably cost more than your entire
vacation, and I still don't get perfect pictures every frame.  

For Caribbean water snorkling-depth photo's, if Photoshop can't even
come close to "saving" them, then their original quality was somewhere
below "steaming piles of mad cow patties", and you can't blame _any_
developer for that.

In the early/mid-1990's, Kodak made a special UW slide film for perhaps
3 or 4 years.  I think I still have a roll left in my freezer; maybe two.

It was ID#5019, "EKTACHROME Underwater" (E6 Slide).  It was ISO 50
overall, with its red layer boosted (effectively ISO 200 for reds).  

There was also a $40 accessory that was a 6" diameter filter that didn't
go over your lens, but went over your strobe (yes, strobe), to reduce
its red output.  

The film died a painful death, partly because an ISO 50 film is dang
slow for wide angle UW photography, even under "Sunny 16" conditions in
clear tropical waters.  

Its niche was imaging a shallow reef on a sunny day, but you couldn't be
too shallow, because everything would then go pink.  Essentially, you
needed to be deeper than 20fsw and shallower than 30fsw.  

Today, all this film made is several years beyond expiration, so if you
do find someone with some for sale (Cathy Church on Grand Cayman used to
sell it after it was discontinued), do remember to adjust your offered
price accordingly.

-hh

"William Graham" wrote in message >

Who left the door unlocked?

Crossposters, be gone.

#Chris Brady wrote:
#
#>Having been snorkelling in the Caribbean we took numerous films of
#>marine life using those ubiquitous underwater cameras sold by Kodak
#>Express, Jessops, and
#>Boots.
#>
#>However having got the films developed and printed (and scanned onto
#>CD) by Jessops UK, all of them have come out blueish-green with a
#>disinct lack of contrast and detail, even though we were only just
#>underwater.
#>
#>
#
#Using different color balance film is a solution, but not the BEST solution
#

It's a tool, not a "solution"

#Special processing is not the BEST solution.
#

It's also a tool, not a "solution"

#Color corrective filters on the camera is not the BEST solution.
#

These aren't even tools, let alone solutions
(tell me again why you want to subtract light in an environment that
absorbs light like crazy).

#The BEST way to get great color underwater is to use a strobe. A very
#high power strobe,
#at very close range.
#

No, this isn't the BEST solution. It's also a tool, albeit a very good
one, but one that also has it's own set of plusses and minuses
(backscatter 101, for example).

#The basic problem is that natural light underwater (even 1 meter under)
#is very LACKING
#in red spectrum natural light.
#
#All other solutions listed above try to "compensate" for diminished
#light. The best solution
#is to REPLACE the missing light with an artificial light source.
#

Were it only that simple.

#Here's a hint- a $200 camera attached to a $5,000 set of matched, slaved
#multiple strobes
#will take far better underwater pictures than a $5,000 camera with a
#$200 strobe.
#

In general, no. But a decent camera, combined with a decent strobe,
combined with a decent photographer, can get very decent results. A
great strobe, combined with a great camera system, combined with a
point and shoot photographer or a decent land photographer going
underwater for the first time, will result in garbage.

(since this is crossposted to three groups, I should point out that I'm
posting this from rec.scuba. I'm primarily an underwater photographer)

#If you want to start U/W photography on a budget, get the best possible
#strobe first, then
#buy a cheap (strobe compatible) camera. Later you can upgrade to a
#better camera
#as your skill improves.
#

So you advocate buying a strobe, then matching the camera to the light
source? Personaly, I think the choice of camera/housing and lenses is
far more important than the strobe.  And for some reason, the really
good strobes seem to be available for the better camera systems ;-).

Alan

But why would you want to go to all that trouble and expense to get
unnatural pictures? - If everything looks bluish-green underwater, then your
photos should also look bluish-green. Otherwise, you should just get a bunch
of stuffed fish, and hang them by threads from the ceiling and take pictures
of them. If you want realism, then you should accept the blue-green look.

$40 mask, $20 snorkle, $60 fins and a $12 camera.........makes sense to
me..........LOL

not in processing the film. in printing, yes.

in printing yes, but not in neg or in slide processing.
you can get exposure pushed / pulled, in a good lab, by prior request.