ChrisH

Well I think I can just let that post stand for itself… no more words needed 🤷🏻‍♂️

Sorry, but did you even read what I wrote? Of course you can take those shots. Who would doubt that? I never did. Again you are „busting“ a „myth“ that is only a „myth“ if you don‘t unterstand what is meant with that „myth“. So, where are the red fish? Where are the coral reefs in all their color shot from more than 1,5m away? Please show me. But please stop showing pictures of colorless fish with no red in it to tell anybody that the 1,5m rule for getting shots with good color (red!!) is a „myth“. These shot just don‘t have anything to do with the 1,5m guideline. Nothing.

I have done enough fish schools, don‘t worry. I have also no problems with backscatter 😉 And no, wide angle big scenes are not (!) shot at 3 meter distance. It is simly not true and I don‘t know who told you such things? And I am afraid you will „demyth“ the 1,5m „myth“ again based on a wrong assumption what it is all about, as you have done with the „edge of the strobe light myth“, that is only a myth if you not understand what is meant by it. 🤷🏻‍♂️ Anyway, as I have stated before I just don‘t know how to explain it other that I have done. So we have to agree to disagree.

Yes, exactly 🙏 But then people will rush out and buy the biggest or „most powerful“ strobes based on what they have been told in a forum like this and then complain why they can‘t light up things that are just too far away. You just can’t. No strobe or light will. It will brighten, but not bring back all the colors. No problem with sharks or something without color anyway. Never seen a red shark. And then people bring up a picture that is all about exactly that problem and uses a different approach to get a shot (use a non/less colored subject, use a macrolens as telephoto lens so you can bring the strobes to the front and reduce the distance of the light travel and color absorb) and the explanation how it is done in the book exactly says that it can only be done up to max 2m (!!) distance and tell you that the 1,5m guideline is not true… I am kind of buffled and speachless I have to say 🤷🏻‍♂️😅

A few meter is much too far in underwater photography. But anyway: no, it is not a myth! 🤷🏻‍♂️ It is just not understood what the „myth“ actually means. That does‘t mean it is a „myth“ and is wrong! I am afraid I don’t know how to explain it other than I have already done. The picture clearly proves that you - sorry- just don‘t understand what is ment with the „myth“ and your wrong assumption of the myth leeds you to the impression that the „myth“ is wrong. Using the edge of the strobe light does not mean what you think it means. If your assumption of the myth would be right then of course the „myth“ would be wrong! But nothing what you are trying to prove is meant by the „myth“. 🤷🏻‍♂️

I am afraid to say I think you are just overcomplicating the things here. For standard wide angle lighting you just don‘t point (!) the strobes at the subject (angle them inwards). You just leave them pointed forward and increase or reduce the distance of the strobe from the housing until you have an eaven light on the subject and backscatter is reduced a lot. That is all. And that is what is ment by „using the edges of the strobe light“. Just a simple term to state: do not point the strobe directly at the subject! It does not say or mean that you are not hitting the subject with two strobes overlapping or what you maybe feel ist the center of the beam. Its just: dont point the strobe directly at the subject. Nothing more.

nullSee the attached image. It is all there is to this topic. And yes, in this picture there would be a dark spot in the middle of the subject (a common mistake in wide-angle shots). But the beam of the strobes is wider as shown in the picture here. It is just for demonstration purpose of the concept of "using the edges of the light". And again: using the edges of the strobe light is exactly what you have done! It does not mean to angle the strobes outwards or hitting the subject with just one strobe without overlapping the light of the two strobes! You will almost always hit the subject with the light from the two strobes. It has nothing to do with "using the edges of the strobe light".

You are hitting the subject with the edges of both lights. The center of the strobe does not point at the subject. There is nothing more in the "myth" of using the edges of the strobe: you light the subject with exactly the edges of both strobes (as you have done!). Using the edged of the strobe does not (!) mean that you angle the strobes out. If you would not want the use the edges of the strobe, you have to attach them directly to your housing without the strobe arms. But if you put them on strobe arms and get them away from the housing, you are using the "edges of the strobe light" for lighting up the subject. If you have a dark spot in the middle of the picture you just put the strobes to far away from the housing. Pull them back in al litte bit and you have the subject light up well without too much backscatter. That is really all there is about it. No complicated "myth" or something.

Why should it not be true that red is gone in 1,5 meter distance from camera/strobe to subject? Again, 3m light distance through water and red is (almost) gone. No chance to bring it back. You can tweak in post processing and get "ok" results, but it cannot be restored. And again: in this picture I see no red. The fish have no red. Shots of fish work from more than 1,5m away, of course. Because there is no red on the fish that can be lost!

Yes of course the are always particles in the water and there is no way to avoid them completely. But you can reduce the amount of backscatter (= particles that are lit up by the strobe and reflecting the light back to the camera) with strobe placement and using the edge of the strobe light. As you have done here. You used the edge of the strobe light to light up the subject. That is what is meant by "using the edge of the strobe light": you did point the strobes forward und put them on arms aside of the housing. So only the edges of the strobe light hit the subject. That is in all its essence what is meant with "using the edges of the strobe"...

Just to make sure: for the second picture you had the strobes on either side of the housing, pointing forward, not inward, right? How far away were the strobes from the housing?

Well I don't think I am misleading anybody. I know all the videos you mentioned. And I know the chapter in his book about this shot (and similar ones), which contradicts basically almost everything you wrote here. Maybe you would like to quote from the book about this type of shots? About the distance of the shots? About the setup used? About the strobes pushed forward to reduce the distance that the light has to travel? About the use of warming gels on the strobe? About what distance is possible with these shots? About the problem color and distance? About the post processing? Even his statements in the video above backs up all I have stated about distance and color (bringing strobes forward to reduce the distance and white balance in post) and nothing contradicts my statement. To be honest, I am not sure what point you are trying to make. I stated that from a distance of more than 1,5m the color (red) is gone. It is a basic rule of physics. The light travels from your strobe to the subject and back to the sensor. With 1,5m distance the light travels 3m through water. At that point red is almost gone. You are now bringing up a picture that has almost no color (and no red) in it, kind of proving my statement right but claiming it to be a proof that it is wrong... Of course there can be yellow color in such a shot. Nobody doubts that. There is even color in my wreck pictures without artificial lighting. That is basic color science underwater and self-evident... and not what this topic is about or what I have stated. But if you know the secret sauce to shoot a subject more than 1,5m away (wide angle, so no pulling forward your strobes) and get rich and accurate color on something that actually has color (red), then please tell us 😉 And if you have a picture that shows that my claim above about distance, light traveling and color (not to mention contrast and clarity) is wrong, I will happily be silenced! But as long as I don't get an actual evidence that everybody does it wrong because they just don't know better, I might continue to "mislead" people.

I edited my previous post, but it doesn't show the edited version... Anyway, for Nikon there are to my knowledge only zoom lenses that cover the 14mm focal length: 14-30 F4 (Z-Mount) and 14-24 F2.8 (Z- and F Mount version). As far as I know there is no Z-Mount version of a 14mm prime lens. The Nikon FTZ-Adapter has no AF-motor drive, so AF on some older lenses might not work!

Great topic and good advice from TimG! It all comes down to the audience and purpose: the same shot might do well on social media but not work for publishers or contest. Also vice versa. Same is true for divers and non divers. Often non divers will like a classic shot of a turtle or clownfish more than divers. Divers might like shots of sharks more than non divers. So the portfolio should be tailored to the audience. But of course for private use, you can just use the shots you like best! Because your pictures only needs to be of value for yourself! That said, I constantly struggle myself with that and I think I might get it wrong a lot of times 😉 For me, I would look at the overall appearance of the shot. As an example: if you have a lot of macro shots with black background, I would rather dismiss some of the good but similar shots and bring other shots (with blue or colorful background), even if they are not that strong than some of the dismissed shots. Pictures that "look" the same tend to tire people. Having more diverse shots is in my experience a better option, even if some of the stronger shots have to be dismissed. But as TimG said: There's no pleasing all the folks, all the time!

First, the post you quoted was not about color temperature. The comparison made by Retra and the quote from Alex Mustard is not about color temperature. You just can see different color temperatures of the strobes in the picture made by Retra. But also the fact that you find the Snapper shot suited for showing that you don't need a warm strobe or that you can light up and bring color to a subject more than 1,5 m away leeds me to the assumption that we are talking about very different things here: - that shot has almost no color in it; just compare it to a shot of the same species made at less of a distance; that is not to say it truly is a spectacular and outstanding shot! but it can not bring down the law of physics and wasn't meant to - I don't know from what distance the shot was taken, but using a tele lens the strobes were certainly brought forward a good bit to achieve the most amount of color possible (which is not much on a fish) There is no need for light traveling far underwater. We don't need strobes to "light". We need them to bring back colors! It can help for taking pictures of sharks or pelagic that don't come that close. But then you can just simply open up the aperture and should have enough "reach" with all the mentioned strobes. There is no or not much color in those subjects anyway. You don't need to use strobes to get blue color/backgrounds. The effect of warm color temperature of strobes shows almost only in very close shots of wide, colorful scenes. it cannot be achieved with global white balance (at least I can't). I think it can be mostly recreated with post processing, altering the white balance of the image and then adjusting the color temperature of the blue tones. I have tried the different strobes with the different color temperature, so I did the verifying for myself 😉 And I am quite happy with the pictures I get from my strobes and I didn't get them as easily with the strobes before 😉 Also I would always trust the experience and judgement of somebody with "pristine reputation" and "excellent images" more than somebody else, because this person has achieved the "excellent images" and most likely must have done something right. And the person arguing against a claim made by such a person is in my opinion up to prove them wrong by bringing better pictures to the table and explain how it can be achieved. If there were a simple way of getting the shots with less bulky and expensive gear, I am sure all the professional photographers would be very happy to leave a lot of luggage at home.

Hm, maybe you could give a short reasoning for that claim? I would only use a 14mm (or 16mm) rectilinear lens underwater if I have a shot planned that absolutely could not be achieved with a fisheye lens, because it really needed straight lines (inside caves, sometimes wrecks and pool shots of people). I personally don't know anybody who uses that focal length regularly. That might just be me, but I have just checked the results of UPY and there are also only very few pictures shot with rectilinear lenses (not counted macro shots, etc) and they are almost all of the type I mentioned above.

There is also a good comparison to some strobes made by Retra: https://www.retra-uwt.com/pages/flashgun-light-comparison In my opinion you can clearly see the difference in even light distribution and color temperature. The results comply to my personal experiences with the strobes I used. Also the quote of Alex Mustard should be noted: "The absolute power is also not so important because with most good flashguns we don’t use them on full power much. However, the quality of light, determined by pattern of the beam, always affects our photos on all powers. All good underwater flashguns give a wide coverage, but still differ in how much of their light they get out to the wider parts of the beam. A wide, even beam gives a better quality of light, without unsightly hotspots and produces a more even illumination on the subject in wide angle photography. These flashguns are also easier to use, being more forgiving of slight errors in how you position them.” - Alex Mustard If you don‘t believe me, maybe you believe Alex Mustard 😉

I absolutly agree! I don't know the technical specs of the strobes. I have no idea what the power rating, recycle time or anything else is on the Sea&Sea, Retra or the Seacams. I didn't look them up and I don't really care. I have used them and chose the strobes that suit my needs best. And I would never recommend buying a strobe based only on the technical data provided by the manufacturer! For my shooting recycle time and power ratings don't really mater. But I have to use the strobes and see what quality of light they can bring to the table. And testing before buying would be my recommendation. Regarding reliability: as I wrote before, I would never buy the first strobe of a new manufacturer, because of possible issues. Maybe wait a year or two and see if there are any issues. I had never a problem with the Sea&Sea, they worked fine but I know their bad reputation. Also no problems with the Retras or the Seacams so far. But I had issues with the LED-Trigger, which seems to be also often a weak spot. With my D810 I could use the internal flash to trigger the strobes, which saved some dives. Now with the Z8 I only use sync cords (the Seacams I use also can't be triggered with optical cables, the newer version can). The point I am trying to make is: for Wide Angle Shots the strobe are an essential part of the pictures you get. I would not compromise on them, if I shoot mostly wide angle. Almost all of them have enough power. But there a differences in the quality of light and there are reasons why some strobes are more expensive. If that justifies to spend more is up to a personal decision. But I get the impression that people focus on technical specs and overlook the most important thing for photography: light!

So, if I need the light from the Sea&Sea at 1/2 power, how much faster or slower would the Retra and the Seacam recycle?

It gets totally off topic, but how to avoid backscatter is the same for all types of camera and strobe setups. The principles are the same for all cameras and don‘t change if you use one or two strobes. You need to avoid lighting up the water between the camera and the subject. This is done by using the cones of the strobe light. No need to point the strobes outside but you need to vary the distance between strobe and camera in relation to the distance of camera to subject. Also of course you can get backsactter with natural light if the light hits the particles in a specific angle and position. But the strobe light can be controlled and if placed wrong you can end with so much backscatter that the shots get unusable.

It is hard to describe. I think it is a combination of all of the above mentioned. Sometimes you have things that are more than the sum of their individual parts. It is kind of such a thing. It is much easier to produce a shot that just looks right on the back screen of your camera after you pressed the shutter. You can control the light better, more easy to get the subject look just right without correcting strobe positioning ten times. That said, the Retra and the Seacam are a little bit more prone to produce backscatter, so they need to be pulled back more than my Sea&Sea. Maybe I can describe it with a diffuser. I would not use the Sea&Sea without the diffuser. it is very harsh, hard light. The Retra looks better without diffuser than the Sea&Sea with diffuser. I could use the Retra without diffuser. The Seacam is more like the Retra with diffuser, just a bit wider, more even light. I don‘t really use the diffuser for the Seacam. But as I already stated, the difference between Retra and Seacam is not as big as the difference between the Sea&Sea type of strobe to the Retra with the circular flash tube. As I changed all my equipment to Seacam it was the logical step to change the strobes too. But I would not have made the step if they were not - for me - the best strobes that I have used or tested.

It is not overrated in my opinion but misunderstood. Often people compare the beam angle of strobes to the field of view of the lens and think you need a 130 degree beam angle to cover a shot with the same field of view of the lens or something similar. But as you only use the outer edges of the strobe beam to avoid backscatter it is beneficial to have a wide, even beam. I found the quality of light from the Sea&Sea YS D1/2 with diffusors ok. But they don't hold up to the Retras or the Seacam. There is big difference and it was for me obvious the first time I used the other strobes. It also makes getting even and pleasant lighting so much easier and faster.

Well I think that is in essence the same that I wrote. It is not about comparing strobes at the same power level (1/2 or 1/4 power). It is about the amount of light you need for the shot. Some strobes will produce the needed amount of light with 1/2 setting, others at 1/4 or 1/8 setting. Whether the former or the later strobe is faster to recycle is up to the individual strobe construction and also maybe the state of the battery. It gets even more complicated as you need to back off some strobes more than others, reducing the amount of light that reaches the subject (which is all it is about).

But that is just a technical point of view. It doesn't say anything about the quality of light and that is what it is all about for pictures. The fall of light and the softness of the light from the strobe is in my experience much better with circular tubes and a wider beam angle. If you shoot the Sea&Sea with and without diffusors you will see what I mean. Also, I have no problem lighting up the edges of fisheye shots. It ist just a matter of positioning the strobes. You can even light up a fisheye shot with just one Sea&Sea strobe, no need for two strobes. But of course, it is also a question if you really want to light up the outer edges. If you are two meters away, you are too far away anyway. It won't work. Red color is already gone. You can post process the shots and get them to look ok. But they won't be as good as a much closer shot using a wider lens. And that is exactly what I am talking about: more power won't help. It will make the foreground brighter, but can't help with color, as red is already gone.

Yes, I see. The recycle time can be better with powerful strobes as you can turn them down. But that is up to the individual strobe and might differ depending on the model and the power setting. With sharks I open up my aperture, as there is usually only blue water at the edges, so I don't need corner sharpness. Bumping up the ISO will also help. The strobes gain more reach, as the sharks are not that colorful anyway it is possible to shoot them at some distance. But there is just a physical limit to the reach of light underwater and no strobe regardless of power will change that. If they don't come close enough, I just switch on my GoPro and enjoy the sharks, knowing that the pictures just wouldn't work (at least for me). It can be frustrating, but in the end there is nothing you can do about it. The area covered of the strobes is in my experience not related to the power. It is more related to the beam angle, but still limited also by the inverse square law (valid in all directions).