Klaus

The computing issue can be solved by either money or patience, if you don‘t need to be quick on social media. I have not had much luck with recovering images from the bin, but I like using this to „forgive“ slight optical imperfections from kit lenses etc.

In this post I want to share some experience with photo processing using ON1 NoNoise / Photo Raw 2024 (still the current version of the AI tools). There are now many programs out there with AI de-noising, sharpening and more capabilities and they likely all do a good job. ON1 allows quite flexible tuning of their algorithm and for my images the default settings are NOT what gives me best results. This may be comparable in other programs – so here it comes. My personal “sweet spot” is to use both, NoNoise and TackSharp. For NoNoise, I set luminance to 65%, detail to 23% and color to 50%. Tack sharp is very aggressive and I only add it in to give a small “touch-up” at 15%. There is another slider called “microsharpen” and I tend to leave that at the default of 100. Like this: If the contrast is too crisp, I reduce the microsharpen value (to 50 or even 30). If I am disturbed by AI artifacts I first reduce the TackSharp to 10% and then if necessary the detail to 15 or 20%. Usually that is enough. I use either an Olympus E-PL5 or an EM-5 (the first model). Both cameras have the same sensor, so the IQ is the same. And they certainly benefit from modern processing software. Examples, of course! I start out with above-water pictures because I vary the ISO more than under water. But water is close (lens was a Lumix 12-32 kit zoom, the tiny one). First, an outside picture at base ISO of 200 (full image is AI-processed): And a 100% crop without any de-noising applied (so essentially raw but with adjustments of contrast, vibrance etc.) Here is the crop with the AI-settings applied: I like the detail in the shadow below the deck that is much better here; some artifacts are visible, but not too bad. And now an image of the steam engine inside the boat, this was taken at ISO 6400 (full image is AI-processed): Here’s a 100% crop with no noise reduction applied. Not bad at all, I think – considering it is a 13 year-old camera model. I use ON1 PhotoRaw and this also offers a “classic” de-noising option so I can compare NR options while everything else is the same. Probably comparable to other programs and I applied this with caution at something like 25% luminance, 50% detail, 100% color and 50% detail in that. Slightly better, but if you go stronger luminance values it wrecks all the detail. Now here is the crop with the AI settings applied: Not magic – but better still. There is a bit of luminance noise left, but for my purposes this result is perfectly sufficient. What I like about this algorithm is the “elasticity” – both images were AI-processed with the exact same settings and they both (and many more) turn out nice. The program defaults are way too aggressive, though. As mentioned before these settings are my “sweet-spot” and I now routinely apply this to essentially all images (but read the very end of the post). Does this turn my classic cameras into a current Sony full-frame model with a Zeiss Batis lens? Certainly not. But this is better than the out-of-camera jpg (which I am not showing because contrast ect. is different). And it of course does not change the autofocus-performance of my old cameras - just forget about using TackSharp to recover an image that is clearly out-of-focus. That’s a myth. Now what about under water? This is a grouper in Madeira, shot with the E-PL5 and the 14-42 kit lens behind a flat port and an Inon UWL-H100 wetlens (no dome) at ISO 200; some sand was in the water and I used strobes, so lots of backscatter (full image is AI-processed): A 100% crop of the cheek with no noise reduction applied: Here is the “classic” NR version (though it really doesn't need any NR): And here comes the version with AI applied (my settings): Some detail on the grouper skin is probably AI fantasy, but if I really turn up the contrast on the original I can see the larger wrinkles. The grains of sand were real, too. Artifact or not – once I stop pixel-peeing, it looks really natural and I don’t have the actual grouper to compare with. But I do think that ON1 was trained in part on pics of leather sofas. This is the eye with no NR: With classic NR: And with the AI settings: Pick your preference… I am also cropping a region with backscatter for obvious reasons. For this, I am comparing the mild “classic” noise reduction: And the AI version: I read they trained the model to be well-suited for starry skies, and this can be seen. Backscatter is more focused and more intense – which is, after all, what I am asking for with my settings. In this picture, the backscatter has to be removed by other means anyways; I ended up using a blur and masking out the grouper. Whether it is easier to do this before or after applying the AI de-noising I honestly cannot tell, it probably depends on the strategy and tools employed. Is there any other downside to this? Yes, and that is processing time. I do not have a powerful computer (a 5-year-old laptop with an i5 processor and its built-in graphics only). Processing a 16 MPx raw image with these settings takes literally 15 minutes. To make things worse, ON1 PhotoRaw will go through a new calculation every time you re-open the image for processing (I hope the Photoshop-plugin is different). Thus, with the settings in place, it takes me 15 minutes to open an image. No kidding. That’s why I don’t apply these settings until the very end. Rather, I open images without any NR, adjust whatever I need (contrast, white balance, remove blemishes etc.) and with highlights and shadows I leave a tiny amount to room because the AI procedure increases contrast a bit – thus I avoid clipping. When I am all done with the images in e.g. one folder, I navigate to a different source image, copy out the NR sweet-spot settings, go back to the current folder, select all images, paste in only the NR settings, select to export all images as high-quality jpg to a subfolder and then go to bed. Depending on how fruitful the trip was, I might even go to bed twice before it’s done. This is why the “elasticity” of the algorithm is so important & useful. If you want to try it out – they offer a free 30-day trial with no restrictions, I believe. There are standalone packages and a photoshop plugin. I have no affiliation whatsoever with the company and I am sure other tools can give comparable results. Just make sure you venture beyond the default settings.

Getting distracted is not a privilege of photographers and videographers. I stirred up a lot of sludge in the local quarries. In my opinion it may be more the mind-set of collecting images in/for public, i.e instagramming, that increases carelessness above and below the water. Banning does not work well on dry-land hot-spots either. If I had a better idea, though, I‘d make it known in a second. Alas…

From a clear non-expert perspective: it is often recommended to leave the gear „open“ during air travel, presumably because the reverse pressure during flight may dislodge O-rings (?). Is this similar to surfacing at the end of the dive and then diving gain, or is the „travel-without-Oring“ advice overly cautious? This has probably filled megabytes of forum threads already, so feel free to pm and enlight me.

First of all, congratulations to both of you for the growing family! I would prioritize peace of mind here as well. Talk to the doctors, but above all listen to your wife‘s feelings. If she can be happy, so will you - and vice-versa. In fact, that one continues well beyond pregnancy. No matter where you go this year, you will certainly cherish the memories of that trip once the little one is born. Things change a lot then, it‘s fantastic but very different. So prioritize the calmness rather than the shooting subjects - soon you‘ll be taking different pics and enjoy it very much ;-)

I got seawater into an old Sea&sea strobe once - never touched any of those Orings before. It was after a few dives, sort of half-way during the vacation. I think the Orings that sealed the strobe itself were simply showing their age. (For an HF1 that is simply impossible at this point, though- too recent.) But when I finally did take it apart, I couldn‘t find any obvious source of the leak. For the record: The batteries had stayed dry, since the compartment is sealed…

We do need that Waterpixels-branded fishing vest in the online store, don’t we? 😉

Totally agreed. There is a need for packable, light and sufficiently powered strobes for those who travel with maybe a pair of hiking boots or things like that in addition to the UW photography gear. Sure, 4x AA won‘t recycle very fast, but the longest recycling time is for the strobe that had to stay at home 😉 And for everyone else there‘s other brands that offer long-life Lithium-powered light sabers. It‘s good if we can still choose which compromises we want to make. And as far as I can tell the new Inon does not even „need“ to be stronger since the Z330 is not available any more? So there may be some ambitious marketing claims, but even if it is a down-to-earth Z330 remake it will have its niche in the reef.

From what I know of HSS in dry-land you will always want the maximum output - or more still. Turning it down may be technically feasible (Marelux?) but rarely useful. Back to the original question - backscatter: Since we agree that HSSis essentially the same as using an LED torch, does anyone have comparative experience between strobe and LED-light for the white thingies?

Let‘s not get worked up on this too much - those who are fully satisfied with their strobe might not even read this thread. On the other hand, is it possible for a UW photographer to be fully satisfied with ANY strobe? There are some fundamental laws, and one of them says that energy can only be transformed but not created. And another one says (more or less) that all energy transformations are associated with losses. So current to light and heat as loss. Inon makes a clear statement in the instructions that you should not fire flashes at full power repeatedly. Sea&Sea did not, but the D2 earned a reputation. I guess that there may be some differences between the brands, but 4x vs. 8x AA is DOUBLE. They simply cannot be that ignorant at Retra. It would require the very first generation of „auto“ strobe circuits, which just dumped the rest of the charge after switching off the tube. This was before 1970 or so. Can we get back to the Ionon Z-XXX that at least some of us find interesting? Any pictures that we LIT by one or two of those?

That certainly works when you are using a snoot, but HSS? Seems unlikely. There‘s just no difference between 1 and 10x 0.1 if summed up. And if 0.1 is below the detection threshold each time due to absorption, then that is the same for the subject. Commonly, we refer to this as underexposed. The only chance would be to have the particles move - then the subject may get 10x 0.1 but the particles will only leave a trail of, say, 2x 0.1 on each pixel. Waterpixel, to be precise 🙂 But is it true that backscatter manifests itself as streaks of lower intensity when one uses video lights to illuminate a still?

Maybe it helps to look at this from a different angle. What the HSS pulses achieve is in essence to turn a strobe into a constant light source like an LED torch. (This is a simplification but bottom line that‘s it for still photography.) Any BS reduction due to particle movement should thus be observable using video lights as well. For macro that is indeed a valid option - and the longer the shutter speed, the more pronounced the effect should be, provided the subject stays rock-still. So, has anyone observed less backscatter when using video lights for macro shots compared with strobes? I honestly don‘t know, I‘ve never read anything along those lines.

I've always wondered when looking at the pictures of the AOI strobes and Backscatter's MF - strobes whether these are actually more or less the same "under the hood"? At least the front view of the reflector and the LED's looks suspiciously similar, so I assume that coverage will be more or less identical. Factor in that Bacscatter works together with AOI for other pruducts... Of course, the electronics may differ (and that will make a difference for output) and certainly the design of the stobe overall. But I've read on other occasions that wide-angle shots CAN be done with a pair of MF's. It was never recommended as an ideal solution, but as a setup that can work if need be. It seems to me that the MF-2 is a bit better for macro due to the design and accessories (snoot), so perhaps 2x MF-2 is a bit more universal than 2x AOI? Just a tought.

Great shot, envy or not. 😉 So, @bvanant does that housing have the Pen size port mount? I know I’m hijacking the OP’s topic here (apologies) but for completeness sake: Does the AOI OM1 housing allow continued use of Pen-ports when upgrading to an OM1?

I once read that the AOI polycarbonate housing for the OM-1 uses the ports from the former Pen-series housings (better to check this yourself). In that case, the adapters mentioned above by @Griffer should indeed allow you to continue using your PT-EP08 ports. Rumor has it that the Olympus Polycarbonate housings were made by what is now(or already back then) AOI, hence the adapters for the EM-1 housings should fit. Maybe some of the seasoned members can comment on this - I would like to know more about that myself, too.