 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / UK Scuba / April 2005Photography - Washed out photos
Folks, I have recently taken up photography and am having a problem. I have a sea&sea DC310 + strobe and am getting washed out pictures even when using the diffuser on the strobe. This principally happens when using the 16x or 8x macro lenses. Rarely on 3x or standard lens, and never on wide-angle. I* know that this is due to too much output from the strobe but the strobe is not adjustable. Has anyone any experience of this. If so, and you have managed to correct it, I would be grateful for suggestions as to how to avoid washing out the pictures in future. Regards, Mike > Folks, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Regards, > Mike Point the strobe in a different direction. > > Folks, > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Point the strobe in a different direction. Problem with that is when I point the strobe slightly away from the subject, I get part of the picture washed out, and part too dark. I was hoping form some way of either reducing the exposure (I havn't managed to find this in the camera docs yet), or some software that would correct it when I've loaded into the PC. >> > I have a sea&sea DC310 + strobe and am getting washed out pictures >> > even when using the diffuser on the strobe. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >managed to find this in the camera docs yet), or some software that >would correct it when I've loaded into the PC. Move the strobe further away from the subject. Double the distance to make a difference. Use a smaller F stop. Use a faster shutter speed. Use slower iso. If you've over exposed, the picture is stuffed. The only ones you can "rescue" are under exposed. OTOH, you could just get a decent set up....... Pete S. www.derwentelec.clara.co.uk >>> > I have a sea&sea DC310 + strobe and am getting washed out pictures >>> > even when using the diffuser on the strobe. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Use slower iso. Additionally you could use a neutral density filter in front of the camera lens which (according to the filter) will halve or quarter the amount of light getting through without altering the colour balance > OTOH, you could just get a decent set up....... Nasty!! Ken > Additionally you could use a neutral density filter in front of the camera > lens which (according to the filter) will halve or quarter the amount of > light getting through without altering the colour balance I don't know a lot about UW photography, but purist theory says that you filter the light where possible before the lens. I have also heard of the bottoms of plastic flower pots used in front of UW flashguns to soften the light. Keith >> Additionally you could use a neutral density filter in front of the >> camera lens which (according to the filter) will halve or quarter the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > bottoms of plastic flower pots used in front of UW flashguns to soften the > light. I'd like to know how to filter the light AFTER it has gone through the lens without wrecking the camera . . . . You could also place the neutral density filter in front of the flashgun. The effect is the same - either limit the amount of light getting to the subject, and/or limit the amount of light coming from your subject. Ken > I'd like to know how to filter the light AFTER it has gone through the > lens without wrecking the camera . . . . I actually meant filtering the light from the flash but wasn't very clear about it. Although filtering the back of the lens is done as well where the lens can be removed. It is often preferable. > You could also place the neutral density filter in front of the flashgun. > The effect is the same - either limit the amount of light getting to the > subject, and/or limit the amount of light coming from your subject. That is what I meant to say. It is preferable to control the light to the subject, rather than stacking glass or gel on the front of the lens. Filtering a lens gives more chance of flaring, wierd refraction and soft focus. Keith >> I'd like to know how to filter the light AFTER it has gone through the >> lens without wrecking the camera . . . . [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Filtering a lens gives more chance of flaring, wierd refraction and soft > focus. All very true. I just couldn't help my comments earlier. I mean, if not then, when? I am rather surprised by the finding of washed out prints though. Flashguns made for UW use tend to be relatively low power, GN 12 being average-ish / standard. Sure more powerful light is needed to penetrate the water, but it's pointless trying to take pics of subjects 20m away really and much/most photography is of subjects 2m and closer, with a large proportion coming into macro category. Manufacturers know this and power the guns appropriately. Ken >>> I'd like to know how to filter the light AFTER it has gone through the >>> lens without wrecking the camera . . . . Nikon 10.5mm lens has the filter holder on the BACK of the lens, because it is such a wide lens that anything put on the front would be "in shot". >I am rather surprised by the finding of washed out prints though. Flashguns >made for UW use tend to be relatively low power, GN 12 being average-ish / [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >into macro category. Manufacturers know this and power the guns >appropriately. Uh? What a load of crap. I use two Sea & Sea 120's. Guide number 32, each. On macro shots, where I am, say, 100mm from the subject, the flash guns are as close to the subject as possible. And I mean close. Running with aperture priority, the TTL on the camera works just fine to control the strobes. If the subject is equidistant from the strobes it is flattened, If I move one strobe further out (double the distance) then you will get a slight shadow on one side of the subject and you can see some depth to the shot. I would suggest that your camera system is not "capable" of controlling the strobe properly. Pete S. www.derwentelec.clara.co.uk > I would suggest that your camera system is not "capable" of > controlling the strobe properly. It's not my system. Ken > Uh? What a load of crap. I refer to the thread in the NG at present titled "The future uf UKRS?" Perhaps the dwindling posting rate here is in part caused by responses like this, which may put off many people from making any sort of cointribution for fear of getting shot down in flames. My particular skin is too thick to take offence, others may not be as insensitive. Ken >> Uh? What a load of crap. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Ken Ken don't worry too much about Pete he just calls a spade a spade. underneath the hard shell is a lovely soft centre. sometimes he even makes some sence :-) David >>> Uh? What a load of crap. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > underneath the hard shell > is a lovely soft centre. sometimes he even makes some sence :-) I haven't taken offence at all. Living in Yorkshire I am well used to - and often use - very plain speaking myself. Other souls, expecially those finding their first feet in diving and on this NG may OTOH be put off making contributions to any discussion, and we will all be the poorer for it. Sure, some of the contributions may be little more than manure - but tell them politely. Ken >> Uh? What a load of crap. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >for fear of getting shot down in flames. My particular skin is too thick to >take offence, others may not be as insensitive. I was referring to your statement that underwater stobes have a guide number of 12. That statement is crap. You are wrong. Understand? Pete S. www.derwentelec.clara.co.uk >>> Uh? What a load of crap. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I was referring to your statement that underwater stobes have a guide > number of 12. That statement is crap. You are wrong. Understand? I thought it was. There are many ways of expressing disagreement, some more offensive than others. OTOH I suggest you look at the pages of www.camerasunderwater.co.uk where you will find that many of the flashguns are rated at or about 12, as is the Sunpak G-flash Marine (not listed there, see www.sunpak.jp )- all intended for UW use. My statement was not that ALL were so rated, but that it is a not unusual figure. You think I speak bo**^%x? Fine. Don't talk to em about BS - heaven knows I've made plenty of it in my time! However while I am not offended by the manner of your response, you might like to accept that responding in the manner you did might well cause offence to some. Ken > Problem with that is when I point the strobe slightly away from the > subject, I get part of the picture washed out, and part too dark. > I was hoping form some way of either reducing the exposure (I havn't > managed to find this in the camera docs yet), or some software that > would correct it when I've loaded into the PC. I don't know much about the camera, but the usual way to adjust light on cameras with automatic exposure control is to fool the camera by telling it the film is faster than it actually is. This, of course, does not work with digital cameras. If there's no way to adjust light or fool the camera, then you're probably going to have to use a light reducing filter on the flash or on the lens. There are lots of software products that will allow you to enhance photographs, but a washed out picture is never going to be even close to as good as one that is properly exposed. The problem is, details you are interested in are not there. You can't enhance what is not there. I normally have more luck enhancing underexposed photos than those that are over exposed. Lee > I don't know much about the camera, but the usual way to adjust light on > cameras with automatic exposure control is to fool the camera by telling > it the film is faster than it actually is. This, of course, does not work > with digital cameras. If there's no way to adjust light or fool the > camera, then you're probably going to have to use a light reducing filter > on the flash or on the lens. This ca work with the more expensive digital cameras as many offer the ability to change the 'ASA' of the unit. Even my C5050 offers 64/100/200 ASA. > Folks, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Regards, > Mike Thought I would repost just to let ppl know what I'm trying. Have fashoned a further diffuser out of opaque plastic to reduct the strobe output further. This was from a sheet of clear plastic that was 'opaqued' by srubbing it with wire wool. Have also made up a fibre link between the strobe and the camera to enable me to move the strobe further back (this was previously a problem as when I moved the strobe further back, its sensors couldn't 'see' the camera firing and so didn't fire itself. Will try out soon and may revisit this post to let folk know how I got on. For the record... I know that the set up is not the best in the world, but it is an affordable foray into digital. Got fed up of shooting film (and running out of frames) and wanted to move to digital (I can now shoot upto 150 frames on a dive). I may invest in a more capable camera in the future, but initially I wanted something I could try without breaking the bank. (we're not all made of money!) >> Folks, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a more capable camera in the future, but initially I wanted something > I could try without breaking the bank. (we're not all made of money!) Or indeed, though we may be able to part with the cash required for the system of our dreams, in reality there are other calls which have a greater priority on our cash. Good luck with your endeavours. Ken > >> Folks, > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Ken Many thanks for the response Ken. I'll try my 'low-tech' approach before I invest in the filters you suggested. Nice to know that I can get some reasoned opinions. Shame there are not more contributers like you who can give a response targetted at the original query without resorting to rubbishing people or their choices before finding out their reasons for purchasing what they did. Regards, Mike > Have fashoned a further diffuser out of opaque plastic to reduct the > strobe output further. This was from a sheet of clear plastic that was > 'opaqued' by srubbing it with wire wool. If you have access to good shops you can also use a teflon sheet (I do on my s&S DX90, and many UW Flashes have diffusers that you can fit. My Inon D-180 has one > Have also made up a fibre link between the strobe and the camera to > enable me to move the strobe further back (this was previously a > problem as when I moved the strobe further back, its sensors couldn't > 'see' the camera firing and so didn't fire itself. Both of mine have that function and it works well > Will try out soon and may revisit this post to let folk know how I got > on. > > For the record... I know that the set up is not the best in the > world, but it is an affordable foray into digital. A wise idea > Got fed up of > shooting film (and running out of frames) and wanted to move to > digital (I can now shoot upto 150 frames on a dive). Do you? My maximum is about 50 and that is with a buddy who is supplied by the dive opp as they don"t like people to Solo, and so is paid to follow me. This is sombody who I can ignore as far as "do you mind waiting 5 mins whyle I get this shot" goes. And if we spend 70 mins at 7M and go less than 100M, I do not have to think "is he getting a good dive" > I may invest in > a more capable camera in the future, but initially I wanted something > I could try without breaking the bank. (we're not all made of money!) it is a good way to start. It took me over 1,000 shots before I was getting more than 10% keepers. now I am getting some shots that are as good as you will find in many dive Mags, and I now have to pick the best to keep, most of which are better than the best of my first 1,000. >replace spamblock with my family name to e-mail me > > Have fashoned a further diffuser out of opaque plastic to reduct the > > strobe output further. This was from a sheet of clear plastic that was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > on my s&S DX90, and many UW Flashes have diffusers that you can fit. My > Inon D-180 has one I already have a diffuser, but it doesn't seem to cut the power down enough. Hence the additional opaque sheet. I can try it in stages and 'rough' the sheet up some more if its not enough. Once I have an idea as to how opaque to make it, I may be able to get hold of something a little better. > > Have also made up a fibre link between the strobe and the camera to > > enable me to move the strobe further back (this was previously a [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > 7M and go less than 100M, I do not have to think "is he getting a good > dive" I have an understanding buddy! I will take about 5 shots of each subject and can get up to 300 or so shots on the memory card. 150 shots is about the limit of the batteries in the camera (using 2x2500mah rechargables). I'll do the photography on one dive, then he does his thing on the other. I prefer the second dive as it is shallower and there so much more to see (and photograph) at 15mtrs that 30mtrs. Never been deeper that 45Mtrs and have no wish, yet, to do so, so dives tend to be in the 50-75 mi n range. Nice thing is that I usually have something left at the end of a dive, which is invariably when the whaleshark (or insert your own dream subject here) will decide to swim by. > > I may invest in > > a more capable camera in the future, but initially I wanted something [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > good as you will find in many dive Mags, and I now have to pick the best > to keep, most of which are better than the best of my first 1,000. 10% !!! I would be happy with 2-3% if I get to 10% I'll know that I'm getting something right. Its just a question of working out what it is that I'm doing right. Do you have to do much manipulation of the images? or are they good 'out of the can'? > 10% !!! I would be happy with 2-3% if I get to 10% I'll know that I'm > getting something right. Its just a question of working out what it > is that I'm doing right. > > Do you have to do much manipulation of the images? or are they good > 'out of the can'? Mostly they are good enough. I just can't be bothered to do that much to each one. Some could be improved say 2% to 3% of the 10% that I feel good enough. but then I do it for fun and Photoshoping lots is not fun for me. The filter I tend to use first on the ones I want to spend time with is iCorrect EditLab. That one seems to get it right 70% to 90% of the time. then I use unsharp mask as I set my camera to never sharpen (-5) if I use jpeg. though it will shoot RAW I dont often bother because of the time factor. On <http://meekings.net/diving/> I haven't put up the best of the recent trips, the PG 2004 has some that I am quite happy with. Also I have tended to go over to Video as I need to get some practice in if I am to do a reasonable job teaching it and it is a bit much to carry as I don't usually dive where I live. Last Photo/video trip was about 38kg checkin and another 12 or so carry on. Luckly it was to PG and so I only had to get it 300M to the first taxi but that was tough. >replace spamblock with my family name to e-mail me |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.