Photography skills.

A friend just sent me details of his new web-site and after a cursory look, I reflected that the world is now awash with proficient underwater pictures.

However, when I was a competitive professional photographer, no-one was interested in what you used to gather the picture (in those days it was film but it varied from 35mm to 10x8 inches) but in how the final picture looked. What an ex-contemporary of mine noted recently was that " all underwater pictures tend to look the same."

Is this because we have become so obsessed with cameras and picture quality therefrom that we have forgotten the most important aspect of photography - that is the use of light and shade; ie. the lighting. Anyone can point a camera at anything nowadays and get a reasonable result. Is it telling that the man who is credited with the photography on feature films is the man who selects the lighting set up.

Photography is about light. Let's see more good use of it.

Well AMEN !!! to that...

I try not to get obsessive about the latest and greatest..just what will do the job i'm trying to achieve...Anyone who knows me will tell you i'm a skin flint at the best of times and don't own lights so i always try available light in my surroundings (thats why i never dive deeper than 6M)....

Photography wise i'm still learning and even today went out alongthe river to see what i could shoot. Nothing much.. a bit bland..but got some nice stuff....on a friends D70s...nothing fancy, and not mine...I hear ya..Cheapskate...But do i need a D9Xz gti....nope...well maybe a D300

Lighting cameraman & cameraman....different species...

Dive safe

DeanB

True the quality of the 'average' photograph has gone up immensely, frankly I do not think that's bad at all. Probably when you were a competitive photographer the genre was a whole lot newer, so that there was more novelty value in the pictures that were taken. The digital age has changed our experience for all the arts, photography, music, movies. I think it's great that great images can now be made and experienced by more people. The true masterpieces which were few in the past, and will be few in the future will still be authentic expressions of one person's vision.

Time to get over the good old days I think - one just has to look at the POTW top right of this page, to see that there are still those who know that 'Photography is about light'.

i think a lot of the reasons that mainstream UW photography is all looking the same these days is that a lot of it is produced under much the same circumstance, i.e. liveaboards, and in places where there's not a great deal of change in light or schedule from one weeks liveaboard to the next, and the photographers will jump in, swim along in an orderly queue and all get out again.

it's a bit of a conveyor belt. the photographers don't get much of a chance to alternate their approach because they are part of a commercial mechanism.

it is diificult to think of a way round this on the more popular sites and subjects. for instance, the superb b/w image from potw mentioned is something one might take whilst going out with a friend for a dive off the local pier, with plenty of time and space to consider compostion, subject etc, and the opportunity to go back at 4 am when the sun is that side of the pier etc etc.

personally i'm looking forward to going down to my local beach diving on my own this summer as much if not more than i am going on the handful of planned trips i have organised, not least because i wont have to get on a plane and worry about theft, handluggage, non arrival, death etc etc....and i'll be doing everything in my own time, not a heavy liveaboard shedule.

regards,

mark

John and fellow photogs......

John, we only met once very briefly a couple of DEMA's ago. but I really enjoy your posts as totally unique and promoting more of a thinking on the impact of any image....

I agree the equipment today is so good, that with a modicum of practice people can get spectacularly totally lit tack sharp images. That DO tend to look the same whether macro or wide angle images.

I often preach to travel and Ikelite gear customers the gear allows you to get RAW material, and editing it into the vision you preconceived should be the goal.

I myself am guilty of going underwater and shooting the same old, same old. Because it is hard to go in a "different" direction photographically, as in moody shadows, possibly available light (with or without a Magic Filter), B&W images or whatever.

I often think photographers go through several plateaus of capability. Each one being better technically but the hardest plateau to attain is is to develop ones own "style". Alex Mustard has one, David Doubilet has one, Chris Newbert has it, plus many others.

I continually find myself reviewing my images and immediately writing a NEW index card with ideas to try, both above and below the waves!

Many times my pictures are more journalistic, i.e., trying to tell a story.

One example: I am definitely more an "Into the Blue" type of diver. Constantly trying to minimize my "kit" as I believe it helps my photography. But I have HEAPS of photos of friends using rebreathers or in technical dive gear. These look way cool in photos and the images I try and create attempts to portray the danger and technical required risk and gear of this type of diving. I'm supposed to take photos of 3 friends all training on CCR (closed circuit rebreathers) in a pool this week. And I'll shoot it free diving!

I also think we seek approval from like minded fellow enthusiasts, and go with approval from peers versus pleasing ourselves. This is not uncommon in any artistic endeavor......

Not sure if I covered all I wanted to say, just more ramblings from one still kicking and exploring photographer

dhaas

..... the world is now awash with proficient underwater pictures.

What an ex-contemporary of mine noted recently was that " all underwater pictures tend to look the same."

..... we have forgotten the most important aspect of photography - that is the use of light and shade; ie. the lighting. Anyone can point a camera at anything nowadays and get a reasonable result.Photography is about light. Let's see more good use of it.

Wow, do you cover a lot of ground in a short time John? That journalistic stuff that you do must have an influence!

Define 'proficient' - I assume that you mean correctly exposed, in-focus images? There are a lot on the web but far fewer in print where quality cannot be fudged.

As has been pointed out if everyone goes to the same places, shooting the same subject matter, then, yes images will look the same. But isn't that the nature of much diving, I mean, its difficult to get material published which isn't the 'norm', so inevitably stuff looks the same!!!

And yes, I'd really agree with you, the use of light makes or breaks an image.

If cameras are so good and technology so foolproof, I'd expect to see loads of Ansel Adams style material everywhere (not underwater I know), but it hasn't happened. Understanding light is still an art which technology may assist in (instant review is a very effective learning aid) but cannot master. Photography has changed and is still changing for the better but shouldn't that just mean that standards go up?

As I was learning underwater photography I thought it was an accomplishment just to get a good shot of something I had never photographed before. As equipment advanced the process of taking a picture that didn't end up in the trash got a lot easier, but I saved a lot of bad images until they got replaced with better ones. This was part of my learning process. Getting a technically perfect image isn't that hard to do with most the cameras we use today.

Every time I do a workshop I remind the participants that they will probably capture the exact same image as the next guy and there is nothing wrong with that. If its their best shot they have every right to be proud and show it off. Its all part of the learning process. Next time they will look through their viewfinder or LCD and change the way they shoot that same subject to try to compose or light it differently for a different result.

One of the things I see lacking in much of the underwater photography today (including my own) is original composition. There are all kinds of tried and true composition guidelines that we can use when we're shooting, but that still doesn't make a great picture. It just keeps us from shooting a bad one. Its when someone takes the artistic license to break the rules to do something nobody else has thought of and still come up with something magnificent...that's original.

After all, this is an art. So where is the art in copying what someone else has already done? I believe those "like everybody else shots" are just stepping stones to bigger and better things ahead for anyone who is working to improve their own photography. Its when you stop trying to improve, that things really get stale.

Wow, do you cover a lot of ground in a short time John? That journalistic stuff that you do must have an influence!

I used to make my living as a photographer. I used to expend a lot of effort in doing the lighting. Nowadays I just take underwater snaps like everyone else. I suppose I was trying to encourage a dialogue about underwater photography beyond the "What dome port do I use with the 10-14mm?" or "Does the D300 offer advantages over the D200?" type.

I thought I articulated a bit of what John and Bonnie are saying. That looking at something "differently" and trying to create a style, mood, obscure look or whatever is what seems to be lacking in UW photos....

Partly I think it's because we're so thrilled to get those easier well lit, bright sharp pictures with the equipment we have at our disposal, that this sway us to a accept mediocrity. As Bonnie says, encouraging newbies to first achieve in focus, properly exposed photos is the first plateau.....

I know I've posted before about land photo techniques being essentially absent from most UW pics.

One example is "compressed view" type images either macro or mid-range lens with SHALLOW depth of field instead of tack sharp (ala' f16 -22!) as is still taught.......There a few out there by super talented UW shooters, especially in some Asian magazines I've seen. But it isn't used a lot......

Why do we do this? With the AF we have on cameras, learning what YOU as the photographer want to pop out as your main point should be a no-brainer for a dramatic image. So why don't we encourage better focus hunting techniques along with framing, breaking some rule of thirds, etc.?

this is just one example and as John started the thread with, recognizing light, where it's coming from, what it's illuminating and other factors isn't discussed as much as the latest menu choices on new cameras

Food for thought.......

dhaas

I think a lot of it has to do with just how many more people have access to good equipment and good diving. 15 years ago it was no where near the number it is today. As Paul mentioned, we go to same place we get the same shots.

A lot of folks only get to do one or two trips a year and therefore are not out there trying to do something new, they want to get photos of the cool critters of Lembeh or Cocos or what have you. They see photos on the net and in magazines and say "i want to get a similar shot to that" so they can hang it on their wall or share with friends. They don't get ample opportunities to shoot it again and again and are therefore quite happy to capture a nice shot of a frogfish etc. They have a list of subjects they want to shoot and that is what they are doing. They are not so concerned with doing something new but getting as many different subjects as possible during their trips. There is nothing wrong with that at all.

So for the average shooter a lot of folks come back with similar photos.

Where i think John should be putting more emphasis is on people like himself, me, Eric etc etc, folks who get to dive a lot and do a lot of photography. It is us who should be out there pushing the limits on lighting and doing new things. Then, when those photos come out in mags and books people will say "i want to shoot a photo like that". That pushes the envelope and raises the bar for everyone..

So John, i think you should challenge yourself to go out there and stop taking snapshots and get back to "painting with light".

people like himself, me, Eric etc etc, folks who get to dive a lot and do a lot of photography.

Umm, you go diving?! Not for the last month or two! New Years resolution... Stop chasing girls so much and go diving more often...

Where i think John should be putting more emphasis is on people like himself, me, Eric etc etc, folks who get to dive a lot and do a lot of photography. It is us who should be out there pushing the limits on lighting and doing new things. Then, when those photos come out in mags and books people will say "i want to shoot a photo like that". That pushes the envelope and raises the bar for everyone..

 

So John, i think you should challenge yourself to go out there and stop taking snapshots and get back to "painting with light".

 

Mike makes a good point (Well, it's got to happen sometime!). However, those that choose pictures for publication usually prefer to tread the well-trodden path rather than to stumble off into the undergrowth. I have seen pictures rejected by editors only to go on to win some important high profile competition, then get the approval they should have had in the first place.

When I was a highly paid advertising photographer we often shot some wonderful pictures that were greeted with "They are great but they are not like the approved layout." Often I found myself having to come up with a solution that matched the preconceived ideas of some layout artist that had no experience of what things really looked like.

The lighting was the only area where we could be adventurous and it sometimes led to reshoots because the agency's client didn't like it.

Great thread John!

I was having a conversation on this topic not long ago with an artist friend. I have never been the technical equipment kind of guy. I learn about the equipment to know if there are benefits to it over the equipment that I currently use. Essentially trying to ensure I have the right stuff, not necessarily the most current.

That said, I can't say that I have ever intentionally tried to mimic a shot lately. When I first started sure. I did as a way to learn and improve my knowledge. Now, I try to previsualize some shots I want to try and obtain. Should I be able to find the right set-up I then try and convert those thoughts into an image. The previsualization of the shot is not necessarily about a specific subject it is about a set-up and light. Now, am I able to get this shot, no, not always because it may not present itself on the trip. Yes, I take images that may look like others but, some subjects lend themselves to that. Also, I think part of why we see so many similiar shots is because there are that many more photographers shooting.

I have been on trips where I have stated I could sit and dive a particular site all week and people think I am nuts. They think they need to fill a log book with as many different dive site names and fish as possible. While I understand diving a variety of sites I bet these same people could be driven in circles between dives and dropped on the same site and never know it, and still have great stories to tell of their dive. I love being able to work a site. Maybe the vis was not quite right the first time or, the light was in the wrong position. All reasons to go back.

I love the challange of trying to create. But, I am also motivated by others in the industry as they strive to push the envelope. I try to always learn.

I think I am rambling incoherently...

Todd

I think I am rambling incoherently...

 

Todd

Crown?!

Yep, i too love diving a site at all times of the day. As a guide I get the chance to dive the same sites day in and day out at different times of day, its never the same. All about quality of light. early morn and late afternoon are the faves. Night dives? nah

My 2 cents worth. As a beginner 2 years ago I was just trying to take a shot for personal satisfaction. IE sharing the reef with my non-diving family and friends. Many sunken paychecks later, I'm still trying to work on my technique while trying to get the basics right. Art is in the eye of the beholder. Gee that's deep. Seriously though, I come on here and I now know enough to appreciate the degree of difficulty with a shot that anyone outside the community just wouldn't understand. I see stuff on here that inspires me, wow's me and ultimately makes me want to go sell a kidney to upgrade my gear. Maybe its just me but how can even a topside photographer understand what its like to dangle upside down in a current, 1 finger attached to a piece of dead reef while trying to steady a camera for a macro shot? Lighting? I'm still trying to make sure I don't light up all the nastys in front of my subject. Creative lighting? I'll leave that for you guys who dive more than once a fortnight.

Mike makes a good point (Well, it's got to happen sometime!). However, those that choose pictures for publication usually prefer to tread the well-trodden path rather than to stumble off into the undergrowth. I have seen pictures rejected by editors only to go on to win some important high profile competition, then get the approval they should have had in the first place.

John, great thread, great points. Reminds me of the great Doubilet photograph of nothing but sand, water, and light. I think you're onto the real key here - pros have got to do what some client wants. Hopefully, Wetpixel Quarterly will do tremendous business, and give rise to more fine art u/w mags, boosting the market. Unfortunately, given the high barrier to entry for u/w pics, it's unlikely that gifted amateurs will be blazing the trail, so it's up to you folks.

I don't post very often, but this is my kind of thread, so thought I'd bung in my thoughts on the matter. I think the ability to produce a flatly lit, sharp picture are the great things that digital imaging has done. However, that doesn't make the snapper a photographer. What it has done, as most pros recognise is dilute the water as it where. Most people tend to copy others and so with statistically less photographers experimenting and producing new ideas there is less to aspire to. People see an ordinary shot of say a clownfish that is sharp and they copy that. They never see the new angles or approaches with lighting that could be used to photograph that same subject.

Is there a place to lay blame for this? Possibly, I think one is the rather poor imagery produced in some diving magazines. Most new photographers use monthly publications as a source of inspiration and some can't even manage to publish a decent image.

Great thread. I'd like to add some of my thoughts even though I'm a newbie to underwater photography – and to this forum, anyway

I guess u/w photography in the meaning of "painting with light" is a process you may be able to start when you take a camera for diving and are serious about (and willing to pay for) it – or you may not. And at every point of this process you can decide to stick to what has been reached so far. Things have been made a lot easier by digital photography but it's still the photographer who decides how deep he dives into the art of "photo graphein"... Come to think of it, how many of the above-water photographers eventually reach the stadium to make a considerable effort to develop their own style?

Just my 2 cents...

Cheers,

Sandra

I was away when this thread came out. This issue is related to me post; is it art. I woud again recomend the series of essays by alan briot, at www.luminouslandscape.com

I fit somewhere in the serious amateur category. That means I have good equipment, know a bit about post processing, dive more than 1 week a year, and try to get a pleasing shot.

Now, as an amateur, what I DON'T get to do is use models for cool wide angle shots or even pick the time when I can dive a particulary beautiful sceen. Shooting macro, I don't get to go back to a particular subject time-after time and, in most cases, don't even get to linger at a specific subject for an extended period.

My first job as an amateur is finding an interesting subject, hopefully in an interesting position and hopefully with a decent background. When said blessed event happens, because I have good equipment, I get to set a proper f/stop, an interesting strobe(s) position and, hopefully click off a few options. The digicam shooter is more limited. Unless he/she forgoes shooting in RAW, the limit is probably one or two variations before ths subject retreats, bugs out, or no longer is in said pleasing position.

I am suggesting, theirfore, that the difference between an amateur and a professional is not his/her photographic skill or artistic talent but the number of opportunities, past, present and future. This makes something like WetPixel Quarterly valuable. I can look at the shots, figure out what the expert did, and be ready to try to duplicate that effect when I come across a blessed event where it is warranted. (On-line photographs are less valuable because they are typically in sRGB an .jpeg at relatively low resolution)

So you are absolutely correct that I am a mimmic. I see a treatment I like and I try to duplicate it.

Regards,

Tom