- Messages
- 10,954
- Reaction score
- 4,130
- # of dives
- None - Not Certified
I looked at- and thought about this thread for a day.
The premise and phrasing of the OP is a strange and somewhat strained construct considering the prior mountains of information on this subject, stuff I'm sure Captain Sinbad has read.
Wide angle shots of big critters? Unless you can change lenses from macro while underwater, I'd pass on the Bay Islands for that. There are reasons that macro (anywhere) is so popular...
1) It shows others the incredibly intricate and colorful stuff they have previously and predictably sped by
2) It is simpler to illuminate and image a macro than a wide angle critter (generally they are comparatively sedentary)
3) The incidence of macro : monster is (the biologic food chain tells us) about 1,000,000,000:1 (The direct converse of their observability factor)
4) To establish the size in perspective of a monster, a diver needs to be placed in frame. A tough thing. With macro, you can always put a finger in frame for one image, that will demonstrate relative size pretty quickly.
I have asked many shooters what and why they photograph, what their goal is... There seems to be an unstated desire to get that NatGeo level image, something that would be unique and spectacular. I suggest striving for good shots that will amaze and amuse friends back home. True enough, non-divers are most impressed by images of large critters, but how many images of a Whale Shark or a White Tip can you look at. If you show an album of Nudibranchs to any sort of real SCUBA diver, they will likely be engrossed in every image. New divers and non-divers are indeed captivated by creatures larger than a breadbox- stuff they can identify as a.... fish.
If you are looking for reef architecture and drama (dramatic drop-offs?), that would go to certain very select dive sites on Roatan. But- unless the Sun position is just right and the skies are clear and all the gods be with you... those are some unpredictable images. There are a very few spectacular bits of u/w topography on Roatan, but with such photography being easiest with lots of ambient light, it pretty well limits the easiest (most reliably lit) sites to the South side of Roatan. (The most well known being Mary's Place and Calvins Crack, but there are a few lesser known sites) For this kind of "landscape imagery", you need a lot of direct ambient light.
You seem to be arguing with your perfectly valid perceptions of what each island has to offer.
Go to Roatan, notably the South side, for the best in Macro. I have shot many many images there and in select dive sites on Utila. Big stuff and wide angles? I just don't see many of those opportunities in that locale... nothing remotely reliable.
The premise and phrasing of the OP is a strange and somewhat strained construct considering the prior mountains of information on this subject, stuff I'm sure Captain Sinbad has read.
Wide angle shots of big critters? Unless you can change lenses from macro while underwater, I'd pass on the Bay Islands for that. There are reasons that macro (anywhere) is so popular...
1) It shows others the incredibly intricate and colorful stuff they have previously and predictably sped by
2) It is simpler to illuminate and image a macro than a wide angle critter (generally they are comparatively sedentary)
3) The incidence of macro : monster is (the biologic food chain tells us) about 1,000,000,000:1 (The direct converse of their observability factor)
4) To establish the size in perspective of a monster, a diver needs to be placed in frame. A tough thing. With macro, you can always put a finger in frame for one image, that will demonstrate relative size pretty quickly.
I have asked many shooters what and why they photograph, what their goal is... There seems to be an unstated desire to get that NatGeo level image, something that would be unique and spectacular. I suggest striving for good shots that will amaze and amuse friends back home. True enough, non-divers are most impressed by images of large critters, but how many images of a Whale Shark or a White Tip can you look at. If you show an album of Nudibranchs to any sort of real SCUBA diver, they will likely be engrossed in every image. New divers and non-divers are indeed captivated by creatures larger than a breadbox- stuff they can identify as a.... fish.
If you are looking for reef architecture and drama (dramatic drop-offs?), that would go to certain very select dive sites on Roatan. But- unless the Sun position is just right and the skies are clear and all the gods be with you... those are some unpredictable images. There are a very few spectacular bits of u/w topography on Roatan, but with such photography being easiest with lots of ambient light, it pretty well limits the easiest (most reliably lit) sites to the South side of Roatan. (The most well known being Mary's Place and Calvins Crack, but there are a few lesser known sites) For this kind of "landscape imagery", you need a lot of direct ambient light.
You seem to be arguing with your perfectly valid perceptions of what each island has to offer.
Go to Roatan, notably the South side, for the best in Macro. I have shot many many images there and in select dive sites on Utila. Big stuff and wide angles? I just don't see many of those opportunities in that locale... nothing remotely reliable.
Last edited:
