Dave_Hicks

Thanks for sharing!

More like the BS HF-1 strobes. Specs are very similar.

I've had the Backscatter HF-1 strobes since the early summer and have really enjoyed using them. They are fantastic for Wide Angle work, but I also use them for Macro photography. My typical Macro lighting setup uses a Backscatter MF-2 snoot-strobe as the primary and the HF-1 for fill lighting, usually on very low power. One of my dive photo buddies uses the Retra strobes and add their Macro Reduction ring when shooting macro. I was inspired to make a Reduction Ring that would work with the HF-1s. I've seen one other design for an HF-1 reduction ring, but this one allows the use of flat diffusers at the same time. I always shoot the HF-1 with the 4500k flat installed as the strobes light is quite cold otherwise. I've built and tested this setup now and used it on a Macro dive this week. I also did some wall shots for comparison purposes: These wall shots were done at the typical macro-settings I use, set to 1/4 power on the HF-1. The Reduction Ring is a two part system. A TPU rubber bumper ring that you can leave permanently on the strobe, where it will have the benefit on protecting the front leading edge from scratches and scrapes. My pair already has a number of dings in them after just a few months. The Reduction ring itself is hard ASA or PETG plastic and slips snuggly over the rubber ring. I used an aperture of 60mm for this design, which seems to work well. You can download and print your own set of HF-1 reduction rings from: https://makerworld.com/en/models/865305 A few photos from my test dive with the setup of the HF-1 Reduction rings and MF-2 snoot strobe:

I would be willing to bet that within a year or two we won't see any UW Strobes still in production that still use NiMH batteries.

+1 to that, and every dive light and focus light, phone, and laptop in existence. Using NiMH batteries is not a moral high-ground.

Those look great! Definitely get an account on Printables, MakerWorld, or Thingiverse to share. I have a bunch of Zoom & Focus gears shared out as well. I think sharing is one of the coolest parts of the 3d printing DIY philosophy.

I agree that BSX can do some cool stuff, especially with complex foregrounds. My point is you can do most of this work without such a tool. I cleaned up most of the scatter and didn't do a single spot removal. I only went after the water, not next to the head, which could be easily removed as well with the same technique. A little follow-up spot removal on subject could finish it up. My hesitation on BSX is that overreliance on tools like this might reduce the impetus for photographers to improve their composition and lighting skill set to reduce backscatter, add depth, and make a great image in the first place. I guess I am just not looking forward to a bunch of plasticized UW photos that look like they were shot in a studio and not the real world. Not ever extraneous spec in an image is an imperfection.

I'll stick with Most. It just requires a little practice using the tools. Here is my edit of your picture doing pretty much what I described above, except I removed the unsightly branch. The invert was not helpful in this case, so I omitted it. I only addressed the background, not the subject. I think your picture is great, and it just needed a little cleanup. null

You can remove most background backscatter in bulk right in Lightroom with built-in functionality. Linear gradient mask over background water containing BS Subtract subject Intersect color range on black Invert mask Drop clarity and texture toward zero Lower black level This takes about 10 seconds and does the job in many cases with black water. Similar variations work with blue or green water as well. Reducing clarity and texture of background water containing backscatter does 90% of the job. Tools like BSX are lot more effective in complex scenes with foreground backscatter intermingled with the subject.

Here is the same Lumpsucker before it alighted upon my strobe: Nikon Z8 w/Nikkor 105mm lens, +5 diopter, f16@1/200s iso250 Backscatter MF-2 strobe & snoot + BS HF-1 strobe

Is it still a snoot shot if the fish is sitting on top of the snoot?

I went diving last night near Seattle looking for Pacific Spiny Lumpsuckers. I found one very quickly and spent some time shooting with my MF-2 + Snoot and an HF-1 for fill lighting. This little lumpsucker charged at me and decided to settle down right on my MF-2's snoot! (you can see the aperture card sticking up) I carefully maneuvered the snoot in from on my 105mm lens and moved the HF-1 to light up the scene, trying not to upset the little fish the whole time. I got of a few shots as it squirmed around on the snoot, and this was the best one! I was also trying out a macro reduction ring I 3D printed for the HF-1. It seems to do a pretty good job! Nikon Z8 w/Nikkor 105mm lens, +5 diopter, f18@1/200s iso250 Backscatter MF-2 strobe & snoot + BS HF-1 strobe

I used to use the 3mm plastic core cables, but some strobe models like the older S&S units had inconsistent triggering with that material. They are also more fragile than the 613 multi-core fiber. It's cheaper, but not as good in my experience. With the multi-core available at about $7 USD per meter in the USA, it's really not expensive for what you are getting. I make my own 3d printed connectors as well, using PETG & TPU. I've shared my most current design for 2mm fiber connectors at the link below. I would love to see your connectors as well if you have made them available to share. I am always looking to learn from other's great ideas! https://makerworld.com/en/models/846729

Shooting wide angle reef scenes i am shooting at least iso400, up to 800 if the ambient light is poor.

Just download StarNet++. You can run it from the command line or a simple Gui applet. It's about 80% as good as this app, but free. But honestly, you need to use these tools with a app that supports masking and layers. Fortunately they are plenty of non Photoshop solutions for that too.

Most contests look at raw photos and will specify the degree of edits allowed. This is just a labor saving tool, there is nothing in this that can't be done with existing post processing tools like Photoshop. So i don't see anything new changing in competitions.

I would guess that the photographer put a piece of glass over the subject and introduced a few bubbles underneath it. It probably required a platform on the glass to keep it in place. While some contests allow for created edits, I don't think a filter or AI construct would be allowed.

Still the case with the new strobe. Spotting light is centered.

That's no fun! There is always room for more Lens and Ports! 🙂 Seriously though, I think you will be really happy with the WWL-C and 105z. With the addition of your 8-15 you have the bases covered for 99% of the shooting you might dream about. BTW: You can buy the 24-50z lens in Like New quality from KEH for less than half retail price. ($193 vs $396) Get your 24-50z / Nauticam zoom gear here, which I designed and shared: Nauticam Zoom Gear for Nikon 24-50mm Z-mount lens by awkward_swine - MakerWorld null

No, not the same at all. This unit is using an entirely new power source (lithium ion), very different flash tubes, and a 6000 lumen video light. I am sure the circuitry is very different in many respects. Heat dissipation and power circuits are always the weak points in UW strobes and we've seen many units that had common failures in these areas. (S&S DS2, Backscatter MF1, Inon 240, etc) Only time in market will prove any new products to be reliable and even then anecdotal reports make it tough to get a true read on the story.

Seems a bit early to be to be making a statement on reliability.

The specs look really good. I am happy to see Retra stepping up to meet the growing list of viable competitors in the market, and take some steps to close the price gap. I look forward to watching the preview video.

Maybe give it a try using manual power level control. Lots of photographers prefer Manual over TTL as you can get much control and better results. TTL can be nice to have sometimes but it is limiting. When i used Ikelite strobes and housings I used TTL initially but soon found it was not good at wide angle. A little while later i realized i could to better on manual for macro as well.

No insults intended at all, that was not my goal. You have my apologies. I just don't understand the point of redefining the specified FOV. They are all relative I assume, so if you redefine one you need to do so with them all. What's the point of this recalculation?

Just for fun, I tried one of the free astrophotography star-remover apps, StarNet++. It works nearly as well as this paid solution, but you'd have to do a bit of plumbing to get it to automatically create the layers in PS. It only takes a couple of clicks to get the same result making a pair of layers. There are numerous youtube tutorials that show you how to use it StarNet++. I don't know how much customization they did with StarExterminator to remake it into BackscatterExterminator, but StarNet++ works pretty darn well on UW photos as is.