Jump to content

cerich

Members

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    United States
View Profile Find content

Posts posted by cerich

    On 4/28/2025 at 11:12 PM, Chris Ross said:

    Just to be clear snoots would be really difficult, the beam limiters similar to the Retra reduction rings still produce something like a 90° beam (as opposed to a 130° beam) with a sharp dropoff, making it easier to contain the light, not too different to regular strobes.

    Or get an AOI UCS-Q1 and shoot 85° beam if not invested in Retra

    5 minutes ago, bvbellomo said:

    I asked for examples of other people’s work with higher resolution cameras. 

    Thread title "Looking for high res underwater photos"

     

    In first post in thread by you- "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?"

    I believe people did what you asked for.

    Be well

    null

     

    image.png

    31 minutes ago, bvbellomo said:

    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.

    I called myself decent, never said I was great even admitted I didn't take it seriously enough  to try and be great, but I do have enough experience and  knowledge to spot you are missing some important concepts that are foundational to even being "not horrible" let along decent from a technical perspective, ignoring all the "artsy" stuff like composition and vision.

    You really can't tell the technical ability of a camera just by looking at folks pictures with said camera outside a controlled lab type test, you can't. Even superb photographers may identify some limitations of the tool they are using (camera) but will also never fully hit limitations of gear in other aspects. Lot's of that depends on what type of photography they do. Birder's tend to find more, for reasons. Underwater, some do a decent job doing tests as best they can, but rarely indeed do they approach truly controlled like in a lab..because water.

    Underwater, water is a massive part of the optics solution/part of what a sensor is gonna to see, resolve, as is what lens, port,  or wet lens , much more than most will believe. That all said, you aren't limited by gear, you just aren't. Not even close

    • Like 1

    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.

    • Like 2

    ·

    Edited by 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 ( 

    chris richardson

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

    PXL_20250323_173534802.jpg

    53506408636_f2f70ea43a_o.jpg

    53662225935_37d3351bd3_o.jpg

    reef1.jpg

    snsi.jpg

    • Like 2

    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.

    DSC03925.jpg

    DSC03925_02.jpg

    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

    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. 

    53497483918_d1e7ba240e_o.jpg

    53497483918_d1e7ba240e_o copy.jpg

    • Like 1

    honestly, your idea may get you an image or two, but I am more keying in on the fact that cave/ccr/taking images/alone/shallow on CCR is starting to add a bunch of layers and a snowball effect regards dive safety is waiting for you.

    Just my take as a cave instructor trainer and someone that is pretty comfortable in caves on CCR taking images. 

    • Like 1

    29 minutes ago, Chris Ross said:

    The mini flash works quite well as a manual trigger set at 1/64 power on my OM-1 and with the larger batteries in the OM-1 and EM-1 series battery drain is a non issue when used at 1/64 power and recycle is very quick.  SO if you only want to trigger strobes in manual it makes a perfectly acceptable trigger.   It will also work in RC mode to trigger compatible flashes.  I've never used anything else UW.

    I have found in RC the camera mounted only flash can be slow and lag strobes I also have been using set to fill in per older manuals  for older cameras than my O-M1 not 1/64 that I do use in non RC TTL or manual. I will note that O-M1 manual indicates in RC mode it can take up to 4 seconds to be ready to fire, which is glacial slow.

     

     

    42 minutes ago, SFEgr said:

     

    Well, I might be mistaken as I have not handled the housing, but I was watching this Utube video

     

    and the case looks a wee bit bigger than I expected, and it housed the vertical flash, like in the Isotta. It just seems more vertical allowance than other designs.

    the e-m5 lll and OM5 AOI housings have the bump on the aoi housings and option of trigger or oly flash the OM1 (l and ll) AOI housing comes with a trigger built in and no bump/hump so you are using that trigger only option

    ·

    Edited by cerich

    3 hours ago, SFEgr said:

    It appears that the new(ish) AOI housings continue the curious tradition of providing a big 'bump' on top for the old Oly flash unit. Doubly strange as these flash units are no longer included with the OM series camera purchase bundle (as I believe they used to be included). Has anyone here used the old Olympus FL-LM3 flash in these housings as well as any of the choices currently promoted by sellers of these housings - all of which are many times more expensive? And might offer any comparative comments in ease of use?

     

    For me, I would prefer a more svelte housing but since the cavity is there for a big ol' flash unit, why wouldn't i just use the cheaper trigger? Oh yes, I know from Troporobo's post that these older strobes are no longer made but they can be found kicking about.

     

    tx, Simon

    Because the Olympus flash unit takes longer to charge between shots and many modern underwater strobes can charge much quicker, the flash triggers like the AOI new one can keep up with the strobe, great for fast moving action.

     

    Also, the flash triggers like AOI take less to no camera battery unlike the little Olympus flash units, so you have better battery life for more shots.

     

    Then there is possibly HSS depending on a variety of factors that camera, led flash triggers and strobe that you may have available.

    • Like 1

    Posted ·

    Edited by cerich

    All work in good to very good condition, never been flooded.

    The Olympus UFL-3's are $300 each or both for $550- Free shipping ground continental US, outside will charge what I get charged. Throw in neoprene covers for strobes

    The Sea & Sea YS-02 is $175 - shipping charged what I get charged
    The Sea & Sea YS-27DX is $75- shipping charged what I get charged

    Buy the YS-02 and the YS-27 DX together for $225 and shipping charged what I get charged

    The Sea & Sea YS-110's are only being sold as a pair for $350- shipping charged what I get charged

    The Sea & Sea YS-D2J's are in excellent condition (I kinda kept using my well used but working well YS-D1's after I got these) are $325 each or both for $575-Free shipping ground continental US, outside will charge what I get charged.

    Speaking of the YS-D1's, if you want a pair of well used, have some JB weld where the ball mount attached to the body (was starting to crack so went proactive) but never flooded and work great with a set of orange neoprene covers you can get the pair for $400, you pay shipping. They are set up on my camera at the moment as about to head out

    image.jpeg

    P3210008.JPG

    P3210010.JPG

    P3210011.JPG

    ·

    Edited by cerich

    7 hours ago, Oskar - Retra UWT said:

    Hello everyone,

     

    I’m Oskar from Retra UWT. We appreciate open discussion and always value feedback from our customers. However, we’d like to clarify a few points regarding the comments made by “Muellema” so everyone understands the full situation:

     

    1. Prompt Communication 

    As soon as “Muellema” reached out to us, we responded, professionally and politely, with step-by-step instructions to help diagnose and potentially resolve his strobe’s issue. Our WhatsApp conversation shows our prompt replies, follow-up messages, and willingness to continue troubleshooting. We regret if our thorough questioning and guidance gave any impression of belittling his knowledge; our sole aim was to gather enough information to find the quickest and most effective solution.

     

    2. Troubleshooting Steps

    We asked “Muellema” to test the strobe in specific modes, record a short video, and confirm battery readings. Through these steps, he was actually able to get the strobe working again, allowing him to continue using both strobes on his trip.

     

    3. Possible Battery Error
    “Muellema” mentioned that, at one point, the strobe displayed an empty battery indicator even with fresh batteries. While rare, such an error can be overridden by holding the pilot/test button, a workaround we explained so he could continue using his strobe without interruption.

     

    4. Future Support & Firmware Insight

    “Muellema” indicated he’s not fully confident in the strobe’s reliability after these incidents. We understand how frustrating any equipment issue can be, especially on a long dive trip. We never refused to inspect or service his strobe; after his last message (“Will contact after return on my final thoughts”), we unfortunately just never heard back. We remain fully prepared to assist him further should he decide to reach out again.

     

    In the meantime, our development team conducted a deeper analysis and discovered a potential firmware improvement that will likely address the reported issue, without requiring to send the strobe in for service once it’s ready. We stand by our products and remain fully committed to assisting our customers whenever they need us.

     

    5. Battery Consumption & Shot Count
    A claim of only 50–60 shots per charge is far from our measured results, which exceed 500 full-power flashes using 8×AA Eneloop Pro batteries. We stand by these test figures. The significant discrepancy can often be traced to factors like prolonged standby times, heavy pilot light use, measuring battery capacity right after intensive use, or unintended multiple triggering when the camera/trigger is set to TTL but the strobe is in manual mode. If you find your strobe is delivering far fewer shots than expected, please get in touch with us directly. We’re here to diagnose the setup and help optimize your battery performance.

     

    6. Our Commitment
    We pride ourselves on the reliability of our flashes and the support we provide. If any of our users ever experience a similar issue or have concerns, we encourage reaching out directly via email or WhatsApp. We do everything possible to resolve problems quickly and effectively.

     

    We regret if any misunderstanding has arisen, and we truly want everyone to have a positive experience with our products. If anyone else here has questions or feedback, please feel free to contact us.

     

    Thank you all for reading and for your continued trust in Retra UWT.

     

    Warm regards,
    Oskar / Retra UWT

    So point 3 is a known issue with them.

    Frankly, That would be upsetting if in a remote place without internet to find out how to get them working, then to find out it's a known issue with the strobes and not a battery issue.

    Maybe that should be in user manual, a card in the box or something. You know you have an issue what you don't know is  "where and when" it will occur and  ruin more than a single dive but also potentially a  trip for your customers who in buying your high end strobe are likely to be on expensive trips to far flung places to get the best possible results from their expensive purchase.

    I get you may not wish to advertise that you have a known fault, but giving all a up front warning and mitigation seems a better path than playing whack a mole cust service and also PR damage control (like this very thread) where you sorta comes across that you pretty much chastise your own customers. (tone is darn hard in the written word, and harder if folks are using as second language)

    • Like 3

    ·

    Edited by cerich

    1 hour ago, Klaus said:

    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.

    The MF2 and the AOI QC look the same reflector/tube wise in pictures, hold both in hand and you see they are different size with the QC being bigger which makes sense when looking at specs such as the QC GN is 22, the MF2 is 16. I imagine the beam angles are wider on the QC but the MF-2 beam angles aren't listed and never tested either. Using diffusers to get a wider beam on a couple  MF-2's for UWA with the lower output I think is truly a "in a pinch" at very best, where as the QC can be surprisingly OK and better than most would assume. Not ideal however.

     

    • Like 2

Important Information

Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.