Muck/macro/critter-diving for non-photographers

[Lorenzoid]

. . . What I see is gorgeous, but I do feel that I'm missing the vibrant details captured by macro photography with my naked eyes. . . .

Keep in mind that some of those vibrantly detailed macro photos involved strobe lights, corrections made in Photoshop, etc. A skilled photographer using a serious camera rig will be able to create something that you cannot observe using your eyes. There is a tradeoff between seeing something with your own eyes and viewing a photographer's work. After your trip, you can always look up photos of things you recall seeing (or even during your trip if others share their photos with you).

The same tradeoff exists in other contexts. I enjoyed viewing wildlife in Africa without the aid of anything but binoculars, while others on the trip spent much time fiddling with camera gear to capture those perfect telephoto shots. Back home, I can look at all the professionally created photos of lions (or pygmy seahorses) I want to, and they will always look better than what I saw with my eyes. Sometimes I think that observing things while unfettered to a camera and leaving others to take fantastic photos I can always look at later is the best of both worlds.

 

[Freewillow]

interesting. I tried magnifying glasses but the power is vastly diminished by the water reflexion index. By the way, they where mad of real galss, no plastic

 

[tursiops]

Yes, the problem is the refractive index of water, air, glass, and plastic. Air is about 1.0, water is about 1.33, plastic is about 1.5, and really good class is about 1.6. The more difference in refractive index between the material you are looking through and that of water, the better. So plastic or glass to air is a ratio of about 1.5 or 1.6, but the ratio of plastic to water is about 1.5/1.33=1.13....or, not much. Good glass to water is only a little better: 1.6/1.33=1.20, but it is better. All your single-material magnifying glasses will be less powerful when used in water, but a good glass one will still be better than a plastic one. The specialty lenses, like the SubSee from ReefNet, actually have an air layer sandwiched in-between two glass layers, so you do get the full power of the magnifier. But they are expensive. Hey, in this case, you do get what you pay for.

 

[Lorenzoid]

The cheapie magnifying glass I linked to above, as diminished as its effect is by the realities of refraction, has made enough of a difference to me that I would now consider buying a more powerful though expensive one such as the SubSee.

 

[PatW]

My wife uses a magnifying glass all the time and never ever takes photos. I have a shot of her hovering just over the sand using her glass to look at head shield slugs.

 

[Uncle Pug]

U/W magnifier

• Uncle Pug
• Mar 31, 2005
• 1
• magnifier

Cheap glass lens sandwiched between two layers of clear plastic. A circular ring of the same plastic acts as a spacer and provides for the air gap on both sides of the lens. Scratches on the plastic disappear underwater. because of the air gap the diopter of the lens isn't reduced and you get the equivalent above water magnification of the lens.

 

[Cali_diver]

A magnifying glass is great but coupled with a torch you will be very pleased. Like someone stated above many critters are very camouflaged but when you shine a light on them they will show up better. Carry a torch even during the day!! Just know some critters (like sea horses) will turn away, but for nudis and slugs it's great.

 

[Freewillow]

Nice but how keep it water tight under water @ 40m? I wonder.

 

[Uncle Pug]

U/W magnifier made with one glass lens and three pieces of clear 1/4" thick acrylic plexiglass bonded together with acrylic glue.
Two circular pieces of plexiglass cut larger than lens. One ring of plexiglass cut to act as a spacer between them to encapsulate lens.
Should be water tight if the glue job is done right. For insurance coat outside edge with silicone or better yet Lexel.

 

[Freewillow]

Thanks. Do you have a picture of the profile? The third piece is a cut tube, right? Where did you find it and at what thickness?