Auto-Magic Filter

Hi Naca Yoda,

I live in Melbourne and ordered some of Alex's filters from Ryan (http://reefphoto.com/) for my dSLR - they arrived maybe a week later.

Filters have the advantage of helping the colour of the image in-camera rather than trying to re-introduce lost information (particularly red) in photoshop. The results will almost always be superior to any photoshop action. If you are diving very shallow, then you may not notice a massive difference. However, once you go deeper than a couple of meters, the filter will make a significant difference.

Thanks!

I guess I'm looking at something like this the huh?

Magic Filter CM2 for Compact Cameras - US$35.00

I suppose this is the old version that isn't auto WB?

Do I really need a three pack for a week of snorkelling? They are pretty pricey

Any ETA in stores?

Ta,

NY

Up to you NY,

If you loose one - how disappointed will you be. For me it was a no-brainer to get the three pack.

Alex mentioned an eta of August for stores I think, but you could email Ryan.

Also, in terms of price - they are HEAPS cheaper than a strobe!

Hi NY,

I went snorkelling last night - with a mighty 2MP Olympus - and I was happy shooting available light without a filter. If you take pictures in the shallows (shallow enough to stand up - but don't stand on the coral) then you should be fine without a filter.

Alex

Alex,

Price?

Thanks!

-Albert

We will sell the Auto-Magic in 50x50mm sheets for the user to cut and fit to their camera:

http://www.magic-filters.com/tips/comp_fit.html

A single sheet of Auto-Magic costs £19 (approx $35 or Euros 28).

A three pack is £30 (approx $55 or Euros 44).

For many compact cameras you can get at least 4 filters out of a sheet (depends how big your camera is). So if you buy one sheet that works out at less than £5 per filter or less than $9 per filter.

These prices include detailed, printed colour instructions and postage to anywhere in the world.

The Auto-Magic filter is currently being manufactured and we hope to start sending them out to those who have pre-ordered on the 21st August.

Here endeth the advert! ;-)

Alex

Hey Alex, these filters look fantastic. I'm in Chile and will be doing most of my shooting down here once get a camera, so I'm guessing I'd probably need the green water filter. What is the "usual" ISO range for using those? Also, what happens with the original magic or the auto in "green" water?

I ask becasue I'm currently looking for a decent compact type camera w/ good enough performance in the iso range that I will be shooting at.

Cheers from a fellow marine ecologist!

Hi Randini,

I use the original Magic filter at either ISO 100 or 200. The Greenwater Magic generally requires much higher ISOs because the conditions in temperate green waters are much darker. ISO 400-1600 are more normal.

Alex

Hi Alex.

This looks very cool. How does it compare to the URPRO filters that ikelite sells? I've got one and never tried it - just always used strobe..

If you have a P&S that allows manual WB, are you better off using something else, than the auto magic filter?

Sure would be nice to have it wet removable!

Thanks.

I'm very new to all this stuff, and currently only have an MX-5, so maybe this is just a dumb question. (I'm looking to get a better digital p&s though, and thinking about Fuji F30, or new Canon SD800 IS)

If I had one of those new P&S cameras, and it has an underwater setting that is supposed to handle the whitening and such, would a filter still be needed? And if you use a filter, are you not supposed to use a flash?

I'm assuming the filter is used when just in a normal point and shoot mode, not when using the camera's underwater setting?

I am in the midst of making a decision to buy the old magic filter and the new auto magic filter but do not know the difference. Seems like the auto one is better but can anyone advice? I will be shooting either with a G7 or a canon A640. Will be taking quite a big of macro stuff underwater in Sipadan!! (Can't wait to get wet again!!)

BTW: I bought an Auto Magic filter to use with our newly purchased Canon IXUS 65 (and underwater housing). Unfortunately it proved the least valuable of all the camera equiptment we bought in preparation for our honeymoon. I found that when snorkelling, even when I dove down as far as possible, the pictures still came out quite orange. Reverse colour correction is worse than using normal colour correction in Photoshop I think.

A note to all. If you're not going deep enough to need a serious external flash setup, you're probably not going deep enough to warrant the purchase.

Unfortunately the filter cost even more than a 2GB SD card, but was only used once... with very poor results. Scuba diving situations only, to be sure.

Cheers,

NY.

ps. With the filter removed we had a great time taking photos and videos of ourselves snorkelling along with the aquatic life around us! Thanks to everyone who helped me pick the Canon IXUS 65 and case. It's a great partner to my Sony-R1.

Hi NY,

 

I went snorkelling last night - with a mighty 2MP Olympus - and I was happy shooting available light without a filter. If you take pictures in the shallows (shallow enough to stand up - but don't stand on the coral) then you should be fine without a filter.

 

Alex

Hi NY,

if you see my reply above - I recommended to you that won't need a filter for snorkelling. I am sorry that the filter didn't work out for you. But I did recommend that you don't need it, and if you look on our website it says in many places that the Auto-Magic operating range is below 3m, approx 9ft.

Alex

This looks very cool. How does it compare to the URPRO filters that ikelite sells? I've got one and never tried it - just always used strobe..

If you have a P&S that allows manual WB, are you better off using something else, than the auto magic filter?

The UR Pro filter is very nice - I used them regularly before I invented my own filter. Please note that I design my own filters and while this reply is what I believe - you may want to account for any bias.

The UR Pro filter was designed before the days of digital cameras. As far as I know it was designed as a perfect filter to counteract light absorption through water at a specific depth. I have found that if you are not at this depth (between 7 and 9 m deep) then you need to set the WB manually to get a good results. The UR Pro filters are either glass or resin - and can be mounted outside your housing - and removed and replaced during a dive.

If you got a UR Pro filter with your Ikelite housing - I would recommend trying that before looking at buying other filters.

I designed the Magic filters with a different philosophy. They were designed specifically for digital cameras - by filtering unuderwater light so it is in the range that the camera's electronics can deal with. With the original Magic this requires manual WB - but works over a depth range from the surface to 15m or more. The Auto Magic is different and here the filter adjusts the underwater light into a range that works with the Auto-WB on your camera.

Magic Filters are optical quality photographic gel filters. They are waterproof - but are designed to be mounted on the lens of your camera for the whole dive.

Regarding the two Magic Filters - if your camera has Manual WB and you will be bothered to set it during the dive - I recommend using the original Magic filter. If you want to take it easy and not bother with Auto-WB then use the Auto Magic.

Alex

I do not mind doing manual white balance underwater... the thing that does not make sense to me is that the auto costs less and is more convient to use... for me I am talking about the quality of the pictures...

So are the results the same when I manual white balance with the old magic filter and I use auto on the new magic filter?

The reason the Auto costs less - is that we only have to cut it into one size. The other Magic filters are cut into a variety of shapes and sizes for DSLR lenses.

Alex

I use c5000z + PT-019 with standard magic filter; still far from good compared w/ Alex's ads; but as newbie I am quite happy; at least the results can be shown to friends and family.

Usually I use white slate for WB; but we have to be carefull with back light; the red color of Oly housing may fall to the slate and ruin the result.

simulation credit auto

I had no idea such a thing could be done

Alex,

I'm shooting RAW so there is no need for WB while shooting right? But which filter would then be best suited - auto or original?

Jan

Some people have demonstrated to me that you get marginally better image quality when white balancing at time of shooting, rather than doing it all in post. RAW files are processed by the camera. But the difference is very small.

Generally the Auto is what I use with compacts and the original with SLR. With a compact with RAW, where you have no interest in shooting video then you could use the Original if you wanted.

Alex