jkepic

Don't get me wrong. The key word is balance "artificial light should not disturb balance". Do not disturb the scene in an undesirable way, for example by casting two harsh shadows that are obvious to the untrained eye. Alternatively, throwing a shadow in a direction unnatural to the senses (e.g. from bottom to top). Or, on the contrary, depriving the scene of natural shadows. All this is typically undesirable. Of course, everyone may like something different. Anyway, I personally try to make wildlife photography so that the interference of artificial light is not blatantly obvious (especially to the untrained eye of a non-photographer). Of course I don't always succeed. Everyone likes to change things up from time to time, but when we talk about "quality of artificial light" we usually don't mean maximum contrast of the shadows thrown, but rather the exact opposite. Of course artificial shadows are important too, but it's all about balance. At least that's my opinion.

I like to carry the Olympus 12mm f/2 as a backup when I am limited on luggage. Quite like you I take it with me because it can share the same dome port as the fisheye. However, in my case the clear requirement is to use a glass dome port and specific extension rings. The Olympus 8mm f/1.8 is an absolutely perfect fisheye. The fisheye that brought me back to MFT. In mountain rivers where the Sony has trouble focusing the Oly works like a charm with this lens (AF never misses). So on my MFT setup with the 8mm fisheye I use a 17mm extension ring and for the 12mm f/2 I use a 20mm extension ring. I usually only use the 12mm f/2 as a backup lens, but specifically on a trip to the Galapagos in August I was glad I took it. Especially at Darwin Island, I used it a lot. With the 8mm f/1.8 in the 140mm glass dome port, you can even shoot at full aperture (optimally f=4). In the same dome port with 12mm f/2 with a 20mm extension ring (instead of 17mm one) I found f=4 minimal and f=5.6 optimal for my use. Anyway, 7-14mm f/2.8 in a large glass dome port is subjectively much better than 12mm f/2. In terms of image quality the best is 8mm f/1.8 followed by the 7-14mm f/2.8 and then the 14-42mm with WWL-1 and then the 12mm f/2. In terms of AF performance, the 8mm, 7-14mm, 12mm and last the 14-42 with WWL. However, as a backup companion for travel, the 12mm f/2 is a great solution (small, lightweight and can be operated in the same UW setup as the 8mm in case of need). Definitely go for the glass dome port. It might be interesting to try use the 12mm f/2 with the WWL-C (24mm FF equivalent) but I haven't had a chance to try it I only have the WWL-1 (28mm FF equivalent).

Yes, I was very happy to use them. It's not Keldan quality of course. Cheap Chinese video lights back then had very wide angles, but the problem was if the light cones met in the middle, there were sharp transitions (either shadows or over-lighting if the cones didn't meet or did meet). This all disappeared with dome diffuser. Similarly, when using, say, a GoPro with an Inon UFL-G140 and crawling through a narrow underwater tunnel, the light without the dome diffuser is so hard and unpleasant on the walls. Even most of my buddies looking at the result have started using the same design. I no longer have these lights and switched my interest mainly to photography and gave them to my friend. But I keep meeting buddies who have been inspired by this design and made their own inexpensive versions. Of course this solution is not even close to Keldan quality, but it's a simple cheap gadget that can help significantly in some cases of very cheap Chinese lights.

It's all about balance and it's not about the power of the flash. The aesthetics of photography is of course subjective, but there is general agreement on the basic principles. Artificial light should not disturb the balance more than necessary and ideally should not be noticeable at first glance. That's where the quality of light comes in. How noticeable are the transitions between the part that is lit and the part that is unlit. How pronounced the shadows are, which can be really distracting in "poor quality" light (for example, with spot lighting). We usually want a balance between natural and artificial lighting. There are certainly exceptions such as black water photography and macro photography in general. In a simplistic way, I would equate "strobe light quality" to how obvious artificial light is to the untrained observer. For a comparison, just watch some video on why softboxes are used in standard photography. Or try to search for the "difference between harsh and soft lighting" in photography or videography.

The "strobe light quality" is real and as someone wrote it is not primarily about the technical parameters of the flash except for the temperature, but it is about the physics of how the light is transmitted, bent and refracted into the water environment. If there is sufficient power, then of course the "quality" can be improved by a dome diffuser of the appropriate temperature and size. In my practical experience a pair of Ikelite DS 160 (circular tube) without diffuser has very similar light quality to a pair of Inon Z-330 II (two spot lamps) with warming filter and dome diffuser. Similarly, a pair of MF-2 with diffuser has a similar light quality to the Z-330 II pair without diffuser. The Ikelite DS160 with dome diffuser is the best of what I have had the opportunity to try. Of course the dome diffuser is not suitable for everything and if there is a lot of dirt/particles in the water, we limit what we illuminate as much as possible. I would assume that the best default light quality without a diffuser would generally be with circular tube strobes. Well then there is ergonomics of underwater use and once the DS160 drops somewhere down the line. A pair of DS160 with a dome diffuser is really cumbersome and for freediving this is especially true. The control from the side of the strobe is also inconvenient. The specific accupack is another cause of trouble. So now I actually go in the water with either a pair of Z-330 II (for wide angle) or a pair of MF-2 (for macro). When the time comes and the Z-330 leaves me, the Retra will be a great upgrade (like the DS160, but in a practical modern way).

A while ago (2020) I was figuring out how to cheaply upgrade the UW video light for the Go Pro. Maybe it will come in handy for someone nowadays. The goal was to equip both video lights with a dome diffuser. But what material to use? How about a diffuser from a led bulb light. Diffusers have the right optical properties and at the same time can be bought in different sizes. The attachment to the video light can be solved by 3d printing or a quick and dirty variant of attachment using heat shrink plastic (e.g. a suitable part of a pet bottle neck). The important thing to remember is to have a couple of small holes at the top and bottom for water exchange.

EMWL 160 is totally awesome. The uniqueness of the wide angle macro plus the useful form of the probe. After my discussion with Edward at Boot Dusseldorf 2020, I knew I had to go for it. The original plan was to use this probe in our murky fresh waters in central Europe. Unfortunately the original design is not quite suitable for waters with a lot of small particles or organisms in the water column. This is probably one of the few things that is negative about EMWL. Fortunately, the solution was both relatively easy and inexpensive. A Freediver sock filled with clean water solves everything beautifully. Personally, I didn't quite find the EMWL 130 to my liking, but the 100 was great. The 60 is more suited as a probe form only. Then came the 160 and oh my god this is the best thing I can put on my EMWL.

I only found out about BSXT last week from the video "An Underwater Photography Review Of The Year - 2024". Any help with backscatter suppression is great. Of course the primary goal is to avoid backscatter directly while shooting, but sometimes there is just no other way and conditions won't allow it. After watching the video, I immediately bought and installed it. Anything that can shorten the post process is appreciated. From my point of view in case of massive backscatter it doesn't help and just makes a bad photo less bad. However, in the case of a minor backscatter, it's totally awesome. So I definitely recommend it.

Hi everyone! I've been diving since I was young (born 1975). I prefer the freedom of freediving along with the opportunity to get absolutely close to the aquatic life whether it's from a river, lake, sea or ocean. I am primarily a freediver and have actually only used a scuba once in South Africa. I started documenting my underwater adventures more seriously about 10 years ago. I love simple diving with a fisheye lens in a small dome port, but I also love Nauticam's underwater optics including the EMWL, which is already a bit overkill for freediving.