One of the benefits of using a dive light/video light for underwater photography is that you will eliminate most of the backscatter. When a photo is taken with a flash, everything in front of hte lens will be lit up for a split second, therefore you would really have to play with the position of your lights in order to get a shot w/o any backscatter.
Agree. And as Tim points out, there is a way to avoid illuminating the particles that are present in the water column that exists between the camera's lens and the intended target. The technique is sometimes referred to as "painting with the edges of light" that emanate from the external strobe. In this way, only the target is illuminated, not the water column between the lens and subject (the capturing of backscatter is not as prevalent in close distance macro photography, which is why strobes may be placed closer to the lens in that instance).
The problem with illuminating particles in the water column between the lens and subject is that they are captured out of focus, which, due to their subsequent fuzziness, actually increases the particles in size when captured by the sensor or film. So it is a good idea to avoid illuminating them.
What I'd like to point out though is that the use of a dive light to illuminate the composition as explained does have drawbacks.
On the other hand, if there's a constant light source the exposure can be opened up a little longer, and the tiny stuff that's floating around in front the camera will not be captured.
The dive light in this example becomes similar to "ambient light". Light that is naturally present (as opposed to artificial strobe light that is on only for an instant).
Relatively speaking, that amount of light still pales in comparison to what an external strobe can instantaneously offer. This is why Tim correctly suggests to open the aperture along with his other suggestion, to choose a relatively slower shutter speed ("opened up a little longer" ).
By doing both these actions in an attempt to control (expose) the foreground of the composition, the photographer has now sacrificed all creative control of the background exposure.
When introducing any artificial light to the composition, underwater photography becomes the act of taking two images at once, the foreground image and the background image. The foreground in this case can be defined as any part of the composition that is influenced by artificial light (an external strobe or dive light). The background can be defined as that which is only illuminated by ambient light, the light that exists naturally in the composition, the surrounding area.
The photographer controls the foreground exposure by selecting the proper intensity of artificial light (by duration, diffusion, strobe to subject distance, etc) along with an appropriate aperture (f/stop). The background exposure is controlled solely by that same aperture choice and the option of choosing any shutter speed that will not affect the sync speed of the strobe. A fast shutter will allow less light to enter the lens, resulting in a darker background capture. A slower shutter speed will allow more light to enter, resulting in, depending on water quality, a lighter, bluer background. The choice is up to the photographer. (as long as the shutter speed chosen does not adversely affect the sync speed of the strobe (clip the strobe's output, etc), there will be no effect on the foreground exposure.)
So by transferring the responsibility of the shutter to aid in control of the foreground image, the photographer now has lost creative control of the background exposure.
Most photographers imho would find this sacrifice unacceptable.
In no way am I commenting on the quality of Tim's product. My comments strictly are a dive light versus a strobe.