Thank you all for your kind and encouraging comments! I'm only really getting started with strobes underwater so to receive such a positive reaction is very heartening. I am going for tiger sharks next, hopefully I will find some to share.
Thank you again everyone who took the time to look and comment.
DiPace wrote:
Beautiful sharks and great lighting, especially the shots pointed toward the surface -- getting that awesome gradient and texture.
Thank you so much, I prefer those too, it is nice to show the environment and adds to the photographic task so is more satisfying. It is more of a 'scene' than just a shark against a plain background. That plain background is >400m of water by the way, not a dive to drop your camera on!
Here's one for you that I forgot to include before, I liked it because it has the surface, the shark, and a pilot fish. Enjoy!
How do you focus? Are you looking through the viewfinder, using liveview, prefocus or just simply point and shoot?
Greg
Thanks Greg! Good question!
I try to focus and frame the shot using the viewfinder. I have a magnifying viewfinder which attaches to the housing. The regular housing finders are really just a piece of glass flush to the rear of the housing, which can be trying with a mask and regulator on your face. The view is also tiny. The magnifying viewfinder replaces that and protrudes quite a way from the rear of the housing giving you room. They allow you to see the viewfinder pretty much like on land, which is especially useful for the corners and also accurate focus point placement etc. Mine is a straight one as I do mainly wide angle, I know a lot of the macro guys like 45 degree ones. Either gets the job done, they aren't cheap but do make things easier. Some shots are point and pray, as usually the FOV is very wide, but I have found that this can lead to frustration when you get a perfectly good shot with the shark in the wrong part of the frame, or worse missing its tail or tip of its snout. My viewfinder looks like this:
I hope it doesn't break any forum rules showing that, other fantastic magnifying viewfinders are available.
Funnily enough I was having a discussion with a friend who also uses this viewfinder as to whether it is worth the cost (just over $1000). He doesn't really use his so much. I like having the luxury and precision it allows but I can see why plenty of people go without, the difference isn't huge.
Live view with my camera focuses too slowly and negates the need to lug all of that heavy gear underwater in my opinion, as I do use autofocus rather than prefocus. There is no way to manually focus with my housing and port extensions, and I'm not aware of too many that let you for wide angle. You get manual focus controls for macro but rarely w/a.
For video I use prefocus a lot of the time, and not just because of the limitations of dslr video until recently, it's just how it tends to be done uw with the lenses used and amount of DoF. I would not have the viewfinder fitted (it blocks the screen if viewing from above) and use LV obviously.
I changed my setup last May and what I have now is extremely ergonomic. You pay through the nose but it gets rid of all of the frustration I used to experience with my previous housing. I can't say I have missed any shots because of the equipment which wasn't the case before, now it is solely down to (frequent) operator error! It is just as easy (if it is ever easy) to use my camera in the housing as out of it (even with gloves on, which are advisable with sharks). It also has an AWESOME vacuum system that shows you that the housing is watertight, that is worth its weight in gold.
One last point, I use the best optics I can. A big challenge in underwater photography is the fact you are shooting through water, of course, and that it is hardly the finest optic. The goal is to minimise the distance as much as possible (to keep the colours too), but to assist I also have what I consider to be the best dome port on the market which to my eye yields incredibly sharp results considering the constraints of shooting underwater. It was definitely worth stretching the wallet to buy that.
gnbuzz wrote:
Awesome stuff, Harry. No. 5 is amazing. Also amazing is 1/160!
Glenn
Thanks Glenn!
1/160 is because these are all really just flash exposures, and there is no option for high speed sync so it's this or up to 1/250 really, not too much choice.
Funny story, when I first started doing underwater it was without strobes. I always set my shutter speed to 1/250th of a second because all the pics I liked in books and magazines seemed to be set there. It was only later when I started using flash properly above the water that I realised what that was all about!
Well done!