Red Filter.

[jarhed]

No doubt filters have their place but for general UW photography I just don't see the need. They reduce available light by a stop or 2, just when you need it most and unless your close to the ideal depth and light conditions for the particular filter you have installed your going to have to adjust the photo in Photoshop anyway so why bother with the filter. Then there is the problem of having the filter on when it's not needed, like shots on the boat before or after the dive or when that friendly dolphin decides to come up to you at the surface. Might as well just learn to use manual white balance and spend the $30-40 the filter cost on a good photo program which your going to need regardless of whether you have filter or not.

Not really the case, particularly if your camera only shoots jpeg. because jpeg is a compression, when a software program like photoshop opens it up, it will convert it to a an editable format, then once changes are made, it is usually saved back to a jpeg format for printing and is thus re-compressed resulting in some loss of data. depending on the amount of data that you start with, this can have a noticable affect on your picture quality.

If you can shoot RAW files, then I highly reccomend this option, as it allows you to make lossless changes in PS with greater flexability regarding exposure corrections etc, but I still stry to shoot pictures that don't need post processing.

Now, I have my own goals when shooting photographs, and strive to limit post processing by using the best tools to get the best picture directly from the camera.

Regarding the manual vs auto white balancing, when using the magic filters, you do white balance with depth to get the right color in the photograph. There is also an auto version that works with the auto white balancing of the camera to adjust for depth. overall I get spectacular results filters because I use them in conditions that are appropiate.

Further advantages are that in bright and relatively shallow conditions (<50ft) you can get alot more color deep into your pictures with little effect from the light that is lost due to the filter. a strobe will only light a few feet into the water column and regardless of post processing software, you will have difficulty recovering that (I use PS CS3 with some measure of success)

Additionally, for shallow well lit dives,you can leave the bulky strobes behind, which is nice.

Overall, in the right conditions, Filters do not limit you very much, and are very cheap compared to a strobe, cable, arms etc.

Don't get me wrong, I use strobes on more dives than I use filters, but I do like filters and they cost less than one half of a percent of my total underwater photography gear cost.

Check out the forums on wetpixel.com if your interested in learing more, there are many very good photographers there.

Take care,
John

 

[JackConnick]

I agree that filters are a great cheap addition to your toolkit. You'll have to do a manual white-balance off your hand or white sand but in shallow water with good lighting they can give some wonderful shots for a minimal investment. Particularly on digicams that only shoot jpegs, not-RAW, as you can't adjust the white-balance to remove cyan.

The magic filters are very good, but they are used internally, so your camera is committed to using it on the dive and you are limited to taking pictures on shallow sections.

I do sell Fantasea orange/red filters in a variety of sizes, some press fit over the port of the housing using an o-ring to stay on. One the 46mm, screws on. They will work with many housings on the market very well, and you can take them on/off uw.

Jack

 

[dlwalke]

The magic filters are very good, but they are used internally, so your camera is committed to using it on the dive and you are limited to taking pictures on shallow sections.
Jack

Jack,

How do the Fantasea red/orange compare to the Magic Filters? Also, if I like the magic filters, which I've already bought but haven't used, I was thinking I might buy a clear protection filter for my Olympus housing and attach the filter to the inside of that (Magic filters say that their filters are waterproof). Then it seems like I could screw the filter on and off w/o opening up the housing. Do you see any problems with that provided I gave the filter a good freshwater rinse? Also, I don't know if the screw on protection lens is OK to use U/W as I doubt its made for that purpose - like, maybe there would be some sort of corrosion issue, although again, I would rinse it off w fresh water ASAP.

Thanks,
Dave

 

[Jeff Toorish]

Anything you can do with a filter, (with the exception of polarizing which isn't really an issue under water) you can do in Photoshop. It doesn't have to be PS3, elements will do.

That means you don't have to lose available light and you can still white balance (or better yet, grey balance) properly later. I know it's a bit more work, but I believe the results are better.

Jeff

EXAMPLES:

 

[JamesD]

Anything you can do with a filter, (with the exception of polarizing which isn't really an issue under water) you can do in Photoshop. It doesn't have to be PS3, elements will do.

That means you don't have to lose available light and you can still white balance (or better yet, grey balance) properly later. I know it's a bit more work, but I believe the results are better.

Jeff

EXAMPLES:

I think it depends on if you are modifying RAW or not.

I've got some examples that no amount of editing will ever bring back the "proper" colour.

 

[DesertEagle]

Magic Filters work very well in water up to 15m/50ft. In my experience, they are the most effective way to remove undesirable light. True, if you shoot RAW, you can do some effective PS work. In my experience, most people aren't good enough at post processing. And it's very time consuming. In the hands on an average user, the filters make it very easy to create colorful photos WITH a nice blue background. I think it beats having blue water look gray.

I've attached a photo from my Fiji trip last year. I used an Olympus SP-310/wide angle lens. I shot RAW, but did virtually no post processing.

 

[Fastmarc]

In my opinion, I would wait until I could get a strobe.
I'm in the same boat where I have not added a strobe to my set-up as yet, but if the conditions are right, I am reasonable happy with the results I have been getting without one so far and that is without those filters. I am looking forward to the strobe though.

I think it depends on if you are modifying RAW or not.
I've got some examples that no amount of editing will ever bring back the "proper" colour.

Post an example and let a few of us take a shot at it. I have found that the newer softwares really goes a long way in helping.

 

[jlwest63]

Anything you can do with a filter, (with the exception of polarizing which isn't really an issue under water) you can do in Photoshop. It doesn't have to be PS3, elements will do.

That means you don't have to lose available light and you can still white balance (or better yet, grey balance) properly later. I know it's a bit more work, but I believe the results are better.

Jeff

EXAMPLES:

Nice work. I have a hard time in PS because I do not know what to change and how much.

Do you find that you adjust the same things in the same order or does it change with each picture?

I posted a couple of the PICS I took in the tips area.

Wish I was a PS GURU.

 

[dlwalke]

you can still white balance (or better yet, grey balance) properly later.

Why is gray balancing better? I've been trying to figure this out as of late as I am trying to take my photography to a new level (level 17). I was under the impression that gray balancing is for exposure and white balancing is for color. If you are white balancing, I would have hoped that anything without color would work fine. I would have hoped this because then I would have understood it. It would mean that the camera looks at something that should have no color and then adjusts its processing algorithms so as to remove any color that it does see. But maybe I don't understand exactly what the camera is doing when it white balances because otherwise I would have thought that a white card and a gray card or for that matter a black card would all produce the same results which they demonstrably do not (assuming that my cards are pure white, pure black, and exactly neutral gray which is probably an incorrect assumption as they are cheapo versions ripped from their perforations from the back of a digital photography book by Scott Kelby).

 

[dlwalke]

Anything you can do with a filter, (with the exception of polarizing which isn't really an issue under water) you can do in Photoshop.

and also with the exception of protecting the lens of your housing if you use an external screw-on filter (e.g., a sacrificial lens that will leave you out $20 instead of $500 if your camera bumps into something sharp, hard, and bumpy like maybe some coral or whatever).