Looking for high res underwater photos

[bvbellomo]

I am increasingly disappointed with my camera (a6300) as it is only 24MP and even then, does not give a sharp image.  I am comparing to photos coming off an A7RV with GM glass taken above water.  I understand my expectations may not be realistic.  I've thought about taking the A7RV underwater, but even if I could afford to, I don't want that much weight and bulk.  An A7CR is a nice compromise, but still both too big and too expensive to seriously consider.

 

This got me thinking and looking at other people's images.  Most people are posting 1920x1080 or smaller, even people with $10k setups.  That is great for Instagram or showing a friend your dive trip, but I like having large prints.  I really want to compare what I have to what good photographers are taking.

 

Can anyone post or link any high res underwater photos, preferably with the camera, lens and housing models?

 

If I could make any image work, I'd have a wide rectilinear full reef shot taken without strobes.  I've had very poor luck trying to take those.  Or a large pelagic.  I am not a huge fan of macro and "guide book" type images that isolate animals without an environment, but I will appreciate anything anyone posts.

 

[bvbellomo]

This was taken with strobes, but is a wide full reef shot.

[bvbellomo]

Here we have a few without strobes.  Most of the noise and image quality issues are from turbid water.

[bvbellomo]

Unfortunately, this website downsampled the images, so I can't show any of the technical problems.

 

Well that gives you some idea of what I am trying to do.   I am also trying to get nice reefscapes with strobes, as well as large pelagics.  

 

Maybe you could email me files (bvbellomo@gmail.com) or post links to websites that will host high res images?

[bvbellomo]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/14CNTiwNYjy0a29_8j84BHZ7qyl5LcW44/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sko5rdScZV9iisLQOBFgs1yndnvjW-79/view?usp=sharing

 

Even these, you need to download the image to see details.

Edited Saturday at 11:41 AM by bvbellomo

[TimG]

4 hours ago, bvbellomo said:

I am increasingly disappointed with my camera (a6300) as it is only 24MP and even then, does not give a sharp image.  I am comparing to photos coming off an A7RV with GM glass taken above water.  I understand my expectations may not be realistic.  I've thought about taking the A7RV underwater, but even if I could afford to, I don't want that much weight and bulk.  An A7CR is a nice compromise, but still both too big and too expensive to seriously consider.

 

This got me thinking and looking at other people's images.  Most people are posting 1920x1080 or smaller, even people with $10k setups.  That is great for Instagram or showing a friend your dive trip, but I like having large prints.  I really want to compare what I have to what good photographers are taking.

 

Can anyone post or link any high res underwater photos, preferably with the camera, lens and housing models?

 

If I could make any image work, I'd have a wide rectilinear full reef shot taken without strobes.  I've had very poor luck trying to take those.  Or a large pelagic.  I am not a huge fan of macro and "guide book" type images that isolate animals without an environment, but I will appreciate anything anyone posts.

 

 

Subject matter aside, what size prints are you trying to achieve? A 24MP camera should be able to produce a good A3 print without too much difficulty. I used to do this regularly with a Nikon D300.  
 

If you’re not using strobes at all, it’s almost inevitable that images could look flat and lifeless. I’d argue it’s impossible to light a reef scene but by lighting a small, featured element of the reef, you can create, vibrancy and image depth. 

[Maria Munn]

Hi @bvbellomo

 

I'm really hoping that I can help answer your questions.  These are taken with older cameras, but hopefully the principle and thought behind them will help.

 

Yes you can take incredible images of pelagics, large ocean animals and reef scenes using just natural light without the need for strobes with any kind of camera these days and all will be capable of printing an A3 size with good resolution.

 

It's all about using natural light to it's full advantage, planning your shoot to make sure that you take advantage of when natural light is at it's best and positioning yourself in a good position to enable you to capture the best image possible.  The image of the white shark was taken with my Canon 20D at the time in an Ikelite Housing (scooping me the BSAC Travel Photographer of the Year Award once upon a time :0) and was simply taken in natural light at Guadelupe Island in Mexico.  Editing wise, I simply boosted the colours slightly to enhance the blue and the rays of light.

 

The other images were captured at Sipidan Island with my Canon S95 in a Recsea Housing at the time using my INON Fisheye Lens which enable me to get super close to my subject to keep the colours vivid and the images sharp.  The middle one was captured with just natural light, again choosing the time of day and the conditions correctly, early morning is great for shooting.   The image to the right is taken with two INON strobes, lighting the subject on either side to help bring the scene to life, adding vibrant colours and enhancing the textures of the anemone.  Another option is to shoot in RAW mode and then help to boost your image using Lightroom but you'll need the quality of the image to start with.

 

I print all my work at my studio using my Canon 2100 Plotter up to A1 size both on canvases and as posters.

 

Hope this helps and feel free to ask away if you have more questions.

 

Maria

 

[bvbellomo]

4 hours ago, TimG said:

Subject matter aside, what size prints are you trying to achieve? A 24MP camera should be able to produce a good A3 print without too much difficulty. I used to do this regularly with a Nikon D300.  
 

If you’re not using strobes at all, it’s almost inevitable that images could look flat and lifeless. I’d argue it’s impossible to light a reef scene but by lighting a small, featured element of the reef, you can create, vibrancy and image depth. 

 

I am trying to produce great prints at A2 or larger.  If settings are perfect, I don't crop and have good conditions, I get an adequate print.  With the A7RV, I have more room if my shot isn't perfect, but even perfect shots look better.

 

When I dive, the reef is anything but "flat and lifeless", it is completely immersive and amazing and colorful, even deep enough it is just dominated by blue light.  Very few photos come close to capturing that feeling.  Most "good" underwater photos are either artsy (weird angles, distortion, interesting shapes and patterns) or "guide book" images (1 animal is 2/3 of the frame with no environment).  There is nothing wrong with these, and some of my best photos fall into these categories.  Most full reefscape photos look artificial and strange due to the strobes.

[bvbellomo]

3 hours ago, Maria Munn said:

Hi @bvbellomo

 

I'm really hoping that I can help answer your questions.  These are taken with older cameras, but hopefully the principle and thought behind them will help.

 

Yes you can take incredible images of pelagics, large ocean animals and reef scenes using just natural light without the need for strobes with any kind of camera these days and all will be capable of printing an A3 size with good resolution.

 

It's all about using natural light to it's full advantage, planning your shoot to make sure that you take advantage of when natural light is at it's best and positioning yourself in a good position to enable you to capture the best image possible.  The image of the white shark was taken with my Canon 20D at the time in an Ikelite Housing (scooping me the BSAC Travel Photographer of the Year Award once upon a time :0) and was simply taken in natural light at Guadelupe Island in Mexico.  Editing wise, I simply boosted the colours slightly to enhance the blue and the rays of light.

 

The other images were captured at Sipidan Island with my Canon S95 in a Recsea Housing at the time using my INON Fisheye Lens which enable me to get super close to my subject to keep the colours vivid and the images sharp.  The middle one was captured with just natural light, again choosing the time of day and the conditions correctly, early morning is great for shooting.   The image to the right is taken with two INON strobes, lighting the subject on either side to help bring the scene to life, adding vibrant colours and enhancing the textures of the anemone.  Another option is to shoot in RAW mode and then help to boost your image using Lightroom but you'll need the quality of the image to start with.

 

I print all my work at my studio using my Canon 2100 Plotter up to A1 size both on canvases and as posters.

 

Hope this helps and feel free to ask away if you have more questions.

 

Maria

 

 

 

 

The website scaled these pictures to 1200x907, so I really have no idea how much detail you have.  What I really want to see is someone who is willing and able to post an image larger than 24MP.  From a non-technical aspect, these are excellent images.

 

[bvanant]

Well to print A2 (full paper size) on my printers at 360 DPI resolution you need 50 MP. At 240 DPI (not optimal for my taste) you need 22MP more or less. One problem is perception; when you are in the water, your brain fills in a lot of things for you i.e, you ignored the fact that the scene is too blue.  If you look at Maria's shark it is in fact too blue, proper white balance to get the white patch on the shark actually white, will show something very different. 

 

You talk about only 24 mp and even then it is not sharp. Every camera system is just that, a combination of camera/sensor, lens, housing and port. I don't know what lens you are shooting wide but if every shot is not sharp, it likely isn't the sensor or sensor size.

 

Your third pic illustrates the same issue, your color balance is not very good there it is just too blue.

 

Bill

[bvbellomo]

Color balance is a different issue from sharpness, and can be corrected easier, and somewhat fixable in post.  I only uploaded 2 pictures, so I am not sure what you mean by "Your third pic illustrates the same issue".  I'd be very happy if my sharpness were up to my expectations and my color balance was still "just too blue"

 

I use a Zeiss Touit 12mm for wide angle, and the kit lens for macro/medium width.  The Zeiss is sharper, but not as sharp as the best a7RV lenses.  It is not sharp enough to take full advantage of the a6300's sensor.  As far as I know, there is no reasonably cheap upgrade.  If my choice is $2000+ to upgrade my lens or $5000 to use a completely different camera with a better lens, I am saving my money.

[Chris Ross]

I would suggest you are approaching this a little bit backwards.  You are happy with what the A7RV produces on land and want to see how it compares to your A6300 UW.  First thing I would suggest is take the same shot above water with A6300 and your UW lens to compare to what you get out of the A7RV.  This will show what sort of improvement is possible.

 

Next I would look at what your camera can resolve:

61 MP - 9504 x 6336 pixels - 807 x 536mm @ 300 dpi

24.4 MP - 6000 x 4000  - 508 x 338 mm @ 300 dpi

 

The 24.4  MP image will 594 x 396 @ 256 dpi  it's not a big deal to up-res an image from this to 300 dpi for printing.  A2 is 594 x 420mm.

 

Next I would look at expectations, guidelines for printing at larger sizes are about viewing at normal viewing distances.  An A4 print viewed for example in an album probably needs higher resolution than a large print on a wall viewed from further back.  If you want to look at a very big print from very close distance that's a different story.

 

On the subject of what makes a good print - this is somewhat subjective but the examples you posted just won't make good prints they are muddy and lack contrast.  Your eye adjusts for this when you are underwater but the camera doesn't.  Contrast is needed for the impression of sharpness.  

 

I downloaded your shot of the goatfish with the coral and while the foreground exposure looks good, there is something weird going on.  There is a lot of colour noise there, like something odd going on with the processing.  Hope you don't mind , i downloaded this image and processed it a little  adding some contrast. Could you confirm what camera settings you used and what processing you did?  Did you say this was with a 12mm Touit lens?:

 

Taking a 100% crop from the image that was downsized 4800 px across:

 

 

Looks like something odd going on with the processing on this image.  I would suggest before leaping down a new camera path you have a look at how you are shooting and processing with your current camera?  That level of colour noise really shouldn't be present, it looks like you are quite shallow and at typical settings I would think the water should be quite noise free for a shot like this.  I would suggest you need to get this sorted before looking into prints or upgrades.

[Maria Munn]

Hi @bvanant Bill,

 

Thanks for your feedback on my shark image.  I'm only writing this to encourage newcomers that a picture doesn't sometimes need to be perfect to win photography competitions.  This image won me BSAC's Travel Photographer of the Year Award, and was judged by very prolific underwater photographers at the time and I'm forever grateful that they loved the image (I was there to learn about white sharks, not to come away with a hope of winning an award).  

 

I chose to focus on creating dappled light on the body of the shark.  If I had used the camera's white balance, this effect would not have been achieved.  

 

Hope this helps to encourage others that underwater photography is an art, and sometimes something that is not perfect turns out to be an image that people like the most.

 

Have a lovely day Bill.

 

[bvbellomo]

1 hour ago, Maria Munn said:

Hi @bvanant Bill,

 

Thanks for your feedback on my shark image.  I'm only writing this to encourage newcomers that a picture doesn't sometimes need to be perfect to win photography competitions.  This image won me BSAC's Travel Photographer of the Year Award, and was judged by very prolific underwater photographers at the time and I'm forever grateful that they loved the image (I was there to learn about white sharks, not to come away with a hope of winning an award).  

 

I chose to focus on creating dappled light on the body of the shark.  If I had used the camera's white balance, this effect would not have been achieved.  

 

Hope this helps to encourage others that underwater photography is an art, and sometimes something that is not perfect turns out to be an image that people like the most.

 

Have a lovely day Bill.

 

 

That shark is a great photo, but as much the result of being in the right place at the right time as any skill or equipment.  I am not looking to win competitions or impress judges.  I'd appreciate a higher resolution version of the shark or your other pictures if you have it - you don't even need to post a whole image - just crop 1200 pixels out of the center and post.

[bvbellomo]

16 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

I would suggest you are approaching this a little bit backwards.  You are happy with what the A7RV produces on land and want to see how it compares to your A6300 UW.  First thing I would suggest is take the same shot above water with A6300 and your UW lens to compare to what you get out of the A7RV.  This will show what sort of improvement is possible.

 

Next I would look at what your camera can resolve:

61 MP - 9504 x 6336 pixels - 807 x 536mm @ 300 dpi

24.4 MP - 6000 x 4000  - 508 x 338 mm @ 300 dpi

 

The 24.4  MP image will 594 x 396 @ 256 dpi  it's not a big deal to up-res an image from this to 300 dpi for printing.  A2 is 594 x 420mm.

 

Next I would look at expectations, guidelines for printing at larger sizes are about viewing at normal viewing distances.  An A4 print viewed for example in an album probably needs higher resolution than a large print on a wall viewed from further back.  If you want to look at a very big print from very close distance that's a different story.

 

On the subject of what makes a good print - this is somewhat subjective but the examples you posted just won't make good prints they are muddy and lack contrast.  Your eye adjusts for this when you are underwater but the camera doesn't.  Contrast is needed for the impression of sharpness.  

 

I downloaded your shot of the goatfish with the coral and while the foreground exposure looks good, there is something weird going on.  There is a lot of colour noise there, like something odd going on with the processing.  Hope you don't mind , i downloaded this image and processed it a little  adding some contrast. Could you confirm what camera settings you used and what processing you did?  Did you say this was with a 12mm Touit lens?:

 

 

Taking a 100% crop from the image that was downsized 4800 px across:

 

 

 

Looks like something odd going on with the processing on this image.  I would suggest before leaping down a new camera path you have a look at how you are shooting and processing with your current camera?  That level of colour noise really shouldn't be present, it looks like you are quite shallow and at typical settings I would think the water should be quite noise free for a shot like this.  I would suggest you need to get this sorted before looking into prints or upgrades.

 

The logical place to start is by looking at what other people are getting out of their gear.  I wasn't asking for a critique of an old image of mine, especially the post-processing and I don't care about colors.  I want to know whether other people are getting better detail, in a technical sense, from APS-C cameras.  And I want to know how much more detail they are getting with higher end gear.  If no one else is getting any more detail, then it is a lost cause for me to try.  Of course, there are other aspects I can improve, including color, composition and post processing, but there are other threads on that.

 

Underwater, a reefscape with that Ziess requires F8 to have enough depth of field in focus.  Then I need around 1/100th to keep moving fish from blurring.  Without strobes, the lack of light pushes my ISO high.  With strobes, I can hit 1/160th and don't have limited light, but still have the limit of F8, so I can lower my ISO at the expense of darkening the background and limiting how far I can see.  Above water, this lens takes much better pictures as I have more light and usually shoot F4.  If I stop down to F8, throw on the housing and use my strobes in the dark, I am going to get similar picture quality above water as below.  I am not sure what the point of trying this lens on the A7RV would be, as an APS-C lens on a full frame camera is going to give a weird FOV with the corners missing and the a6300 is more than enough to resolve the image detail I get from the lens with underwater shooting conditions.

 

**edited to fractions of a second instead of fps, but I am sure people reading knew what I meant.

Edited Sunday at 05:35 PM by bvbellomo

[bvbellomo]

Here is another example.  This is not really a reefscape, and I took it at F20/ISO200 despite not needing the depth of field and it is slightly overexposed.  It would be better if I used ISO100 and even better if I lowered the power of my strobes and opened up to F16 or F11 or F8.  It is still one of my sharper images. Had I used optimal settings, I'd be equally limited by my sensor and my lens.  I am reasonably happy with this level of sharpness, but the A7RV would be in another league.

 

I've attached it cropped to 1200x900 instead of doing any resizing.  This is a good example of what I was hoping someone would post.

Edited Sunday at 04:40 PM by bvbellomo

[cerich]

1 hour ago, bvbellomo said:

 

The logical place to start is by looking at what other people are getting out of their gear.  I wasn't asking for a critique of an old image of mine, especially the post-processing and I don't care about colors.  I want to know whether other people are getting better detail, in a technical sense, from APS-C cameras.  And I want to know how much more detail they are getting with higher end gear.  If no one else is getting any more detail, then it is a lost cause for me to try.  Of course, there are other aspects I can improve, including color, composition and post processing, but there are other threads on that.

 

Underwater, a reefscape with that Ziess requires F8 to have enough depth of field in focus.  Then I need around 100fps to keep moving fish from blurring.  Without strobes, the lack of light pushes my ISO high.  With strobes, I can hit 160fps and don't have limited light, but still have the limit of F8, so I can lower my ISO at the expense of darkening the background and limiting how far I can see.  Above water, this lens takes much better pictures as I have more light and usually shoot F4.  If I stop down to F8, throw on the housing and use my strobes in the dark, I am going to get similar picture quality above water as below.  I am not sure what the point of trying this lens on the A7RV would be, as an APS-C lens on a full frame camera is going to give a weird FOV with the corners missing and the a6300 is more than enough to resolve the image detail I get from the lens with underwater shooting conditions.

 

 

You don't have some of the basics down seems to me a bigger issue than the lens/camera. I'm sorry, but it's obvious and maybe just saying will help you a bit.

you have shutter speed and FPS (frames per second from video) confused. The ISO comment, I think you have a misconception, aperture and shutter speed is more relevant to darkening the background or not. None of the issues you are describing are apsc or sensor size issues at all, I am not sure where you have gotten that idea from. Your interest in getting better detail in a technical sense doesn't solve the underlying issues, and the other Chris was trying to help and you seemed pretty annoyed. I will take a more blunt approach and you can get annoyed or not, it's OK. But if you want better images (including detail), you need to think much more than just what gear.

These are same image, adjusted in post just with curves.. the same amount of detail is in both, but how the file is managed makes what we see very different.  null

I think a good class on underwater photography would benefit you much more than looking for an equipment solution to a skills and knowledge problem. 

[cerich]

42 minutes ago, bvbellomo said:

Here is another example.  This is not really a reefscape, and I took it at F20/ISO200 despite not needing the depth of field and it is slightly overexposed.  It would be better if I used ISO100 and even better if I lowered the power of my strobes and opened up to F16 or F11 or F8.  It is still one of my sharper images. Had I used optimal settings, I'd be equally limited by my sensor and my lens.  I am reasonably happy with this level of sharpness, but the A7RV would be in another league.

 

I've attached it cropped to 1200x900 instead of doing any resizing.  This is a good example of what I was hoping someone would post.

if by another league you mean worse, yes it would be a much worse image shot the exact same with a A7RV for good reasons

[bvanant]

4 hours ago, Maria Munn said:

Hi @bvanant Bill,

 

Thanks for your feedback on my shark image.  I'm only writing this to encourage newcomers that a picture doesn't sometimes need to be perfect to win photography competitions.  This image won me BSAC's Travel Photographer of the Year Award, and was judged by very prolific underwater photographers at the time and I'm forever grateful that they loved the image (I was there to learn about white sharks, not to come away with a hope of winning an award).  

 

I chose to focus on creating dappled light on the body of the shark.  If I had used the camera's white balance, this effect would not have been achieved.  

 

Hope this helps to encourage others that underwater photography is an art, and sometimes something that is not perfect turns out to be an image that people like the most.

 

Have a lovely day Bill.

 

Maria: I love your shark photo just the way it is, I was only commenting on the way that the OP's photos were white balanced which is part of the what getting good photos is about. More to the point it is good to know when to "break the rules".  I like your anemone even better. Both are sharp enough. 

 

Bill

[bvbellomo]

Yes, I am a bit annoyed every time I ask a question on the Internet, a bunch seemingly well-meaning people jump in and offer advice without actually answering the question.  If you posted an image relevant to what I asked, I'd be more inclined to believe your advice.

Edited Sunday at 05:33 PM by bvbellomo

[bvanant]

[cerich]

39 minutes ago, bvbellomo said:

Yes, I am a bit annoyed every time I ask a question on the Internet, a bunch seemingly well-meaning people jump in and offer advice without actually answering the question.  If you posted an image relevant to what I asked, I'd be more inclined to believe your advice.

Ok, the cave shot was taken with a 16MP camera, sorry not a reef pic..because honestly most reef pics are a bit boring to me after having been a resort instructor a bunch of years. But you will note, there is a fair amount of detail and makes works pretty good printed on canvas cheaply vs really putting any effort in the print, with good detail to someone looking at the print.

The "tech" diver, also 16mp camera and cropped, again, until seriously pixel peeping, resolved better than you higher and bigger files. settings, not gear.

These reef shots were also shot on a 16MB camera, the starfish one is a small file, yet the detail for what it resolves is crisp and falls apart under pixel peeping more than your image, but will make a better print than yours. It's not even a great shot by any means or stretch. Your 6300 will do better than this no question if shot the same place and settings, no question. Going after a equipment solution like a A7RV  and you start to run into something else that creates a problem, the resolving power of the sensor will expose the slightest fault in your setting used to get the shot, the water itself will create resolving issues which is why the folks shooting that type of resolution are chasing VERY expensive lens (dry and/or wet) and port solutions and spending so much energy on as well as the cash aspect in getting absolutely exact nodal points etc. "Close enough" with the amazing ability of the very top cameras we can bring underwater is not good enough if you want to not just wring out  all you can out of the system but ALSO to not have that amazing capability of the system to expose every flaw and produce LESS usable end product. It sounds counterintuitive but well, it just is. I am a decent photographer that can when so inclined make decent images. I actually know enough to know that if I went and got an A7RV  and the best len/ports possible that without a question the output I would get (images) would actually be worse than I can get now. I would need to be more disciplined and exacting than I am willing to be because when I shoot, it really is to relax and when I start  to take it too seriously I don't enjoy it as much. I spend too much time underwater teaching stuff like cave that I like but not enjoy per say when teaching because need to be 100% switched on when doing. 90% of the time when I bring a camera underwater it's to try and just..enjoy and literally look around with another lens, while not being so in that lens I lose situational awareness(like ask any serious photographer how many sharks, rays or something cool has swam by them a few feet away while they didn't notice because trying to get the perfect shot of a freaking christmas tree worm).

Anyhow.. hope this helps a bit. I would be disappointed with my results if I was you based on what you shared as well, and I know you can get MUCH better with technique, skill and knowledge more so with looking for equipment solutions

I have other images on flickr ( 

 )
, i don't really curate well or take that seriously enough either. 🙂

Edited Sunday at 06:12 PM by cerich

[bvbellomo]

1 hour ago, cerich said:

The ISO comment, I think you have a misconception, aperture and shutter speed is more relevant to darkening the background or not. None of the issues you are describing are apsc or sensor size issues at all, I am not sure where you have gotten that idea from. Your interest in getting better detail in a technical sense doesn't solve the underlying issues, and the other Chris was trying to help and you seemed pretty annoyed. I will take a more blunt approach and you can get annoyed or not, it's OK. But if you want better images (including detail), you need to think much more than just what gear.

These are same image, adjusted in post just with curves.. the same amount of detail is in both, but how the file is managed makes what we see very different.  null

I think a good class on underwater photography would benefit you much more than looking for an equipment solution to a skills and knowledge problem. 

 

 

 

The reason I wish I lowered ISO in that shot mainly is that it is overexposed.  In your photo (Canada), your camera captured all the details, and it is very easy in post processing to blow them out and create your 2nd image.  In my image, my camera did not capture all the details, and using post processing to put them back is much harder.  I could have done a better job of post processing, but wanted to upload a minimally processed image.  I am not trying to win a photo contest or print a picture, I am trying to show the technical ability of the camera.  Moving to F22 is going to capture less detail, even though the exposure would be better.  A faster shutter speed is not going to work using my strobes.  So without turning down my strobes, the best way to fix the exposure is lowering the ISO.  As I said, turning down the strobes and opening the lens would have been even better, but that is more effort and this was just a quickly snapped picture of a cool coral as I swam by, not something I put much time or thought into.

 

What I said about sensor-size issues were specifically in reference to Chris's suggestion of using the Zeiss lens on the A7RV for comparison.  I am well aware a larger sensor is going to cost me depth of field, and if that trade off is going to be worth it is something I really can't judge without seeing images.

 

Whether or not I take a class, I will get better the more pictures I take, but the limits of my setup will stay the same.  The learning curve is steep, and I don't get to take underwater pictures often.  If the camera can't take a picture I am happy with printed to A2, it doesn't matter if the best photographer in the world is holding it.  In that case, I either need to lower my expectations to Instagram photos or buy something else, and it helps to know that sooner, even if I am not going to immediately buy something.

 

 

 

 

 

[cerich]

12 minutes ago, bvbellomo said:

 

The reason I wish I lowered ISO in that shot mainly is that it is overexposed.  In your photo (Canada), your camera captured all the details, and it is very easy in post processing to blow them out and create your 2nd image.  In my image, my camera did not capture all the details, and using post processing to put them back is much harder.  I could have done a better job of post processing, but wanted to upload a minimally processed image.  I am not trying to win a photo contest or print a picture, I am trying to show the technical ability of the camera.  Moving to F22 is going to capture less detail, even though the exposure would be better.  A faster shutter speed is not going to work using my strobes.  So without turning down my strobes, the best way to fix the exposure is lowering the ISO.  As I said, turning down the strobes and opening the lens would have been even better, but that is more effort and this was just a quickly snapped picture of a cool coral as I swam by, not something I put much time or thought into.

 

What I said about sensor-size issues were specifically in reference to Chris's suggestion of using the Zeiss lens on the A7RV for comparison.  I am well aware a larger sensor is going to cost me depth of field, and if that trade off is going to be worth it is something I really can't judge without seeing images.

 

Whether or not I take a class, I will get better the more pictures I take, but the limits of my setup will stay the same.  The learning curve is steep, and I don't get to take underwater pictures often.  If the camera can't take a picture I am happy with printed to A2, it doesn't matter if the best photographer in the world is holding it.  In that case, I either need to lower my expectations to Instagram photos or buy something else, and it helps to know that sooner, even if I am not going to immediately buy something.

 

 

 

 

 

My friend, you don't know what you don't know right now, and you also don't know what you think you know that is actually wrong.

You can't test and show the technical capability of the camera when you can't use it in a manner that will explore it. It's just a tool and you are holding that hammer up by the head and trying to drive nails and you may get a few in, to get a lot in without wasting effort or messing up the nails, you need to learn how to use the hammer correctly.

If you take a class and learn the proper way things like iso, aperture, shutter speed, strobes or not etc work and interplay you will find that you will actually be positioned to figure out the limits of your system, right now you don't have the knowledge, and pushing back to everyone trying to  help is not how you will get it.

Being worried about the limitations of you system now would make my heart sing if I was trying to sell you a new system, but that would be doing you a disservice. You need instruction, not more gear.

[bvbellomo]

To start, I disagree.  I think anyone can appreciate the technical abilities of a camera by looking at other people's photos, even if they themselves don't have much technical expertise.

 

I am trying to be nice, I am not convinced from your photos that you are either a great a photographer or all that knowledgeable.  Regardless, the equipment you are using means you can't provide anything on this thread in the direction I wanted it to go.  You are saying I don't know what I don't know, but you are the one trying to pass yourself off as an expert, not me.  I haven't claimed any ability or expertise.