Alex_Mustard

I shot the Apollo III for both oceanics in the Red Sea and blackwater in Anilao (see below). I shot the Apollo S during the day in Anilao.

Matthew and I recorded this last week about the Maxi. Not much new here - we summarise a lot of what is in this thread. But we do show lots of photos taken with the Maxis and also video of us shooting with the strobes.

I found the same thing using the Apollo strobes vs the Backscatter HF1s shooting blackwater back in March. Working in the desirable range of 2-4 frames a second shooting blackwater (you really don't need to shoot faster than that), I found the HF1 always gave me more light than the Apollo. Marelux suggested there might be something wrong with both of their strobes I was using.

Matthew and I have both been shooting the Retra Maxis here in Grand Cayman. We will talk about them on our show after the trip. Here are a few photos taken with them that I have processed out (for other reasons) so I can share easily. h

We've done a follow up RAW episode - discussion about contests - which will be out in about a week (I am rather busy right now). Alex

Thank you! Very happy that you liked our Christmas episode. My experience of checking many RAW files for UW contests down the years is: About 80% of shots that win are shot very well - with only the minor tweaking, small or no crops, similar to what Matthew and I did with our good shots in the video. I think many photographers would be shocked how most of the winners have actually had very little done to them. About 15% have had bigger changes - bigger crops, large adjustments in colour, white balance, exposure, strong adjustments on masks etc - but all within the rules - but making quite noticeable changes. About 5% fail - either by people deliberately pushing the limit and hoping nobody will check. Or by people processing an image when they first took, not thinking about contests, and then entering the processed file without remembering what they had done. I'd also add that several times I have seen photos awarded in contests that I have seen in other contests, checked the RAW files and failed them. So I know that a couple of contests out there are not strict on enforcing their RAW file rules - despite saying they have them (better just to say they won't do them). Anyway, I am going to be checking 200 RAW files from UPY 2026 in the next few days - so hopefully there won't be any new lessons or surprises! Alex

There is an aussie guy called Admiral Achtel who has done lots of resolution tests as he'd a specialist in high resolution cinematography (UW and on land) https://achtel.com/underwater-cinematography/ He is someone who has spent lots of time measuring stuff and probably has the best information you are looking for (although he is also selling stuff - so be aware that the data he shares are likely to support what he sells). As he (occasionally!) mentions his systems were used for filming Avatar. Which is a perfect example of what lots of people here are saying - you may have the sharpest lens - but you need more than that to avoid creating something dull to look at.

Hopefully others will pass on their advice here. But we do cover this question as part of the next episode of The Underwater Photography Show - out before Christmas.

I'll sell mine, discounted to $11,099!

Qatar typically weigh and then add a tag to hand luggage at check in. They are not super strict on weight - but they always seem to weigh it. But after that initial check - there is no further check. So if you could ask a friend to hold a heavy item while you check in and then once your bag is tagged it won't be weighed again (although will be scanned again in Doha). Garuda don't usually strictly enforce hand baggage weight. One person's laptop bag is not the same as someone else's!

This is our coverage of Atom flash - not a full review - but some first impressions

The Zeiss one is definitely more complicated. The front (main) part is not simply plano-concave. But it two elements sandwiched together, with the outer element being slightly convex. Also the internal lens is not a simple positive lens - but matched to the outer lens. Worried about loosing this lens, we measured its strength and made a simple replacement matched to the same strength, which didn't work anywhere near as well (showing there is something more in the design). I know that I shared a lot of stuff about it on Wetpixel at the time. That Tom also contributed to. Search Ivanoff on Wetpixel forums - e.g. https://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?/topic/54681-full-frame-slr-wide-angle-corrector-port-tests/&tab=comments#comment-356001

That photo shows my camera before a blackwater dive, but the strobes are not in their shooting position - they are in their carry to the boat position! I generally shoot BW with the strobes pushed out wider than this, just in front of the port (as shown) and aimed in at around 45 degrees (again pretty much as shown). Ideally translucent subjects show up best with the light coming through them from behind, whereas more solid subjects show up better with more front lighting. This position is a good compromise for both (as a starting point). When shooting the MFO-3 as a main lens on BW, yes, I would have the strobes a little further forward still. Hope this helps,

Here is a photo of my port and internal lens (not attached to housing or lens): When searching my phone for the word Zeiss (to find the picture) this one came up of another one of the shots from it in print: And here are a couple more from my website that I didn’t share previously: In the UK, the older guys who used these in the 1960s and 1970s always called them Ivanoffs. I suspect that this was because they didn’t like Rebikoff personally, probably because of his commercialisation of the idea! That’s why I always call it an Ivanoff or simply a Corrector Port - as I was taught about it from these guys. My setup works very well. And I have faith in this idea for people or manufacturers to develop. It definitely has a corner sharpness advantage over a dome at more open apertures. But once you get to f/13 or more closed down - I think it performs very similarly to a dome. I was always slightly frustrated that I could not get my 16-35mm @ 16mm to perform as well as the 20mm did - it would go blurrier towards the corners. I haven’t adapted the Corrector to my Mirrorless camera (yet). This is partly because I use the Nikonos 15mm (a 20mm equivalent) with my Sony - which kind of does the same job (and is more travel friendly). And this is partly because I don’t have many Sony wide angles of my own to test - and don’t want to spend money buying lenses that I am not sure will work. Added to this, I would never shoot rectilinear as my main wide angle underwater - I just find the look of the images too low impact for my taste. I much prefer barrel distortion (fisheye distortion) compared to rectilinear for underwater shooting - so would always choose a WACP or WWL over a 16-35mm or similar for shots in this FoV range. Which means spending money on this solution is hard to justify.

Illustrated review of shooting the Sony 100mm in Lembeh is up on YouTube: