Learning (Underwater) Photography: The 5 books every student should own

[Mariozi]

One more interesting little thing:

At very close ranges, the Guide Number calculation does not work well, and you will probably have different setting for different lenses...
This happens due to the fact that GN is not a proper measurement of power, its a merely (and rather useful) "average" number to guide you in your exposures. The proper power information being Watt/sec... but not very useful unless you have a cientific calculator uw.
So those who work manually, (film???) will find some discrepancies. And some test dives are a good idea.

Best!

 

[Peter Guy]

Although not a book, the online mag, Underwater Photography appears to be a good resource.

BTW, just got the Master Guide book and found the following very interesting (especially in light of the SP350 vs. S80 discussions):

Most will tell you to shoot in RAW or TIFF format....[W]e disagree....After extensive testing, we have found no visible difference between the quality of RAW, TIFF and JPEG formats for underwater images. We feel the JPEG format, saved at the highest quality setting, is the best choice...." p. 37

They also have this to say about Manual White Balance:

We don't recommend taking an available-light white balance reading below 30 feet....If you want to use your custom white balance settings at greater depths, just take a reading at 30 feet, save it, and then use that same setting at the lower depths. p. 30

This book is a pretty good read and has (for me) some very good tips.

 

[HowardE]

Most will tell you to shoot in RAW or TIFF format....[W]e disagree....After extensive testing, we have found no visible difference between the quality of RAW, TIFF and JPEG formats for underwater images. We feel the JPEG format, saved at the highest quality setting, is the best choice...." p. 37

In RAW - you can adjust the white balance and exposure - after the fact. As well as many other parameters that are unavailable when you shoot in any other format.

 

[_Bella_]

Furthermore, if shooting raw you don't need to worry as much about taking white balance readings (the second quote from the Drafahl book) Rather, you can adjust it in your RAW converter.

 

[Peter Guy]

Howard and Bella -- While it is true one can make many corrections with a RAW file, have either of you, or for that matter, anyone else, done any tests of RAW vs. High Res JPEG to see if there was, in fact, any noticable difference in the image?

Since I don't have RAW capability on either of my two UW cameras, I can't do this. But I think it would be interesting to take a bunch of images of various things underwater using both formats and then see how much difference there actually is.

Pop Photography has a comparison of RAW vs. JPEG in the latest issue and the writer wrote he uses JPEG most of the time and uses RAW only when it has an advantage (high contrast and white balance issues) and then uses the RAW-JPEG combo. In most available light UW imaging, is WB really that big of a deal? (See second quote above.)

Just curious and just musing. (Also if reading books on UW Photography is important, is the information presented worth anything?)

 

[HowardE]

Howard and Bella -- While it is true one can make many corrections with a RAW file, have either of you, or for that matter, anyone else, done any tests of RAW vs. High Res JPEG to see if there was, in fact, any noticable difference in the image?

Since I don't have RAW capability on either of my two UW cameras, I can't do this. But I think it would be interesting to take a bunch of images of various things underwater using both formats and then see how much difference there actually is.

Pop Photography has a comparison of RAW vs. JPEG in the latest issue and the writer wrote he uses JPEG most of the time and uses RAW only when it has an advantage (high contrast and white balance issues) and then uses the RAW-JPEG combo. In most available light UW imaging, is WB really that big of a deal? (See second quote above.)

Just curious and just musing. (Also if reading books on UW Photography is important, is the information presented worth anything?)

IS White Balance important? Absolutely. You can easily color correct a photo in RAW editor. (topside or UW)

A comparison of the two? Well, from the pictures that I took in RAW + JPEG with my D200, There is a noticible difference to me with the colors. The JPEG colors are somewhat dulled, and "compressed" than the RAW. Also - whenever you edit a JPEG, there is a degredation in quality, whereas in RAW there is none.

You can't seriously say that JEPG is comparable to RAW. I understand that you (Peter) use an S80 which doesn't offer the RAW image file, but I've tried both on a Canon S70 and a Nikon D200. My wife shoots with an S70, and for WA shots, the ability to adjust the WB in the RAW editor is incredible.

Would someone be able to spot the difference between RAW and JPEG online? No - because you'd have to convert the RAW to JPEG, to be able to see it online, so that's defeating the purpose of the RAW file.

If you have photoshop, or another program that can view either a Canon RAW or a Nikon Raw (.nef) file... I'll e-mail you one, and you can see how great RAW is for yourself...

My question to the magazine would be "Why not always use RAW?" - if you have it available, and you have the storage space on a card for your camera, and if your computer can open the RAW files... then why would you ever shoot in JPEG (unless you were ONLY shooting to post your pictures online)?

** not trying to hijack this thread **

 

[_Bella_]

Howard and Bella -- While it is true one can make many corrections with a RAW file, have either of you, or for that matter, anyone else, done any tests of RAW vs. High Res JPEG to see if there was, in fact, any noticable difference in the image?

I don't want to derail this thread any further, but I can't resist adding another penny to the bucket. It depends on what you do with your images, how you shoot, why. I 'm not one claim that RAW is the one and only way to shoot. It's not for everyone, and some people don't need or want the options (or work, whatever your point of view) raw provides. The only other thing I'd add to this is some editors and photo contests request raw files over jpgs or other processed image files.


Back to books...

 

[_Bella_]

this should be deleted

 

[kidsdream]

I recently picked-up Martin Edges book and it is outstanding.:14:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0240519884/sr=8-1/qid=1152214379/ref=sr_1_1/104-8367462-6039104?ie=UTF8

 

[Marriard]

First, I seriously believe you need to be a better than average topside photographer to be a seriously good underwater photographer. Understanding of exposure is an absolute must - and the principals are the same topside as they are underwater.

As such - John Shaw's Nature Photography Field Guide is by far my favourite nature photography book. Well written and easy to undestand. I still re-read certain sections when I need to go 'back to basics'. Only $15 at Amazon

I have read a few underwater photography books for ideas on composition and for some basic principles about strobe angles and lighting, but nothing really stands out as being better than Jim Church's book although I am also fond of Norbert Wu's 'How to Photograph Underwater' (btw these two are available ftogether for $29 from Amazon)

M