Using Olympus 5050, Ikelite Housing and single D180

Apologies if such questions have been asked before... but being new here I find that though searching through tons of post to may get you the answers you need.. it is pretty time consuming.

Then again, I did managed to pick up some niffty ideas and tricks along the way.

First I like to thank those that have replied to my PMs you fast response is deeply appreciated!

Secondly I'd like to just confirm or see help in clarifying some tips and tricks that I've picked up to see that I've got it correct.

1) Filters - Do I still need to use filters for macro shots? Or is it just for Wide Angle blue water shots? Craig has some very SOLID photos by using the filters on the strobe.

2) Black background - At F8.0 (Max for my camera) adjusting the speed to 1/320 or higher, I am able to get black background in order to highlight my subject?

3) File formats - Right now I'm saving them under TIFF. Comparing both TIFF and RAW which is better for prints and quality? Why is TIFF bigger in file size?

4) Lastly, I'd like to seek comments on how to improve the results of the photos based on the ones I have so far.

Cheers.

Ivan.

1) Filters - Do I still need to use filters for macro shots? Or is it just for Wide Angle blue water shots? Craig has some very SOLID photos by using the filters on the strobe.

You don't need to use filters for any of your pictures. 90% or more of u/w photographers do not use filters. However, once you have developed your skills with adaptive strobe lighting and whatnot, filters can be a nice creative outlet to explore. (craig - agree?)

2) Black background - At F8.0 (Max for my camera) adjusting the speed to 1/320 or higher, I am able to get black background in order to highlight my subject?

I don't think that you even need f/8.0...any shutter speed much higher than 1/500 will usually provide a close to black background, unless you are running wide open (f/1.8, f/2, etc) with a high ISO...

3) File formats - Right now I'm saving them under TIFF. Comparing both TIFF and RAW which is better for prints and quality? Why is TIFF bigger in file size?

RAW is infinitely better than TIFF. TIFF is uncompressed, but RAW gives you much more ability for digital manipulation prior to the final image (I suggest Photoshop CS for this part).

Hope this helps, from someone who uses the C5050 (albeit with a DS125...see my website for examples - carbonos scuba )

~Matt Segal

Thanks Matt!

Usually I shoot F8 for macro to even out the whole subject. I'm using ISO100 but when I switched down to ISO64, my results were all green for macro. What can be the problem here? Strobe lighting not strong enough?

By the way, how do we saturate our subject without manipulating them?

Apart from RAW being able to manipulate the image better.. quality wise is it better? What does TIFF have over RAW apart from it being uncompressed?

The Difference is: With TIFF (or any other beside RAW) the camera has allready manipulated your picture (White Balance, Sharpening, Saturation, Contrast, etc.) and you have no way to influence / undo it.

When you shoot raw you can do and control all this in the Raw converter (where you convert it to tiff or PSD or anothe uncompressed format).

I prefere to have the full control over my pictures and not let a "stupid" camera mess them ;-) Thats why i shoot raw exclusivly (UW and topside).

If i'm to lazy to do it all by myself (it can be time consuming , I need approx 1h for raw conversion of one dive) i can still do the "dumb" raw conversion that the camera would do internaly with the raw converter in batch mode. I do this normaly with my normal topside shots but i still have the raws that I can do it by hand if I want.

If i dont save RAW in the camera I have lost this possibility.

Switching to RAW has improved my UW-Pics almost as much as buying a strobe. The main reason is white balancing. The circumstances are changing on almost every shoot (depth, distance to subject, strobe usage,...) and it is almost impossible to maintain correct white balancing on shooting time.

Bottom-Line: If you don't shoot Raw you throw away improvment possibilities you get whithout spending additional money. Im my opinion there is NO reason to shoot anything beside RAW as UW photographer (an maybe also in all other circumstances).

Simon

Simon

Thanks Simon,

Just spoke to a DSLR user/friend. He was also telling me about the difference between RAW and TIFF.

Correct me if I am wrong, TIFF is an uncompressed format of JPEG.

So if say I took a photo 1600*1280 I would be able to print the photo up to the maximum size of 1600*1280. Anything bigger becomes pixelated.

Whereas RAW, using vector rendering, I can enlarge the image and still print without having it being pixelated.

Something along that lines? That is my understand and the pros of having better quaility from there.

Of course WB, sharpening etc...all plays a part but the idea is that in Photoshop CS the photo can be minupluated even more than TIFF???

:?:

I am still starting out so have a lot to learn. Judging from the number of users using RAW and also DSLR also incorporating RAW in it's formats ... I'm more or less convinced that I should move over to RAW and start experimenting more with my images.

There is a possibility to enlarge RAW. but AFAIK there is Interpolation involved and not Vectors which has its limits and there is some controvery if this is the way to go or not and this is for sure not the Key feature.

The Key Features for UW are:

- Full workflow control

- Custom WB at "process" (after dive) time

Simon

Correct me if I am wrong, TIFF is an uncompressed format of JPEG.

No, TIFF is just an uncompressed format. JPEG is a different format completely, and there is no uncompressed version. All jpegs are compressed at some level, and data is therefore lost.

So if say I took a photo 1600*1280 I would be able to print the photo up to the maximum size of 1600*1280. Anything bigger becomes pixelated.

 

Whereas RAW, using vector rendering, I can enlarge the image and still print without having it being pixelated.

Although RAW does not actually give you any advantage when resizing over any other uncompressed format, the new RAW tool in Photoshop CS does. It is recommended (by Adobe) that if you are going to upres an image, you should do it in the RAW tool, as this will give you a sharper result.

BTW, another major advantage to RAW and CS, is the ability to do almost any processing needed, including the upres in the raw tool, at 16 bit color.

but the idea is that in Photoshop CS the photo can be minupluated even more than TIFF?

Absolutely! White balance, saturation, and shadow control, to name a few, are worlds more effective in the raw tool than at any time after import.

Thanks.. will play around with it... :-) By the way what is the resolution of the images usually for a 5050?

How about the filters and black background? Is my understanding correct?