CT-Rich
Contributor
He brings up an excellent point. Now that the equipment is ubiquitous and cheap, there is alway someone who has the ability to do it for next to nothing. For union work like a movies or TV, their union camera men can learn or already do shoot under water.I would say forget it in this stage.
I am not a good videographer, but shoot pictures under water on a high level. I do both for fun. My photocamera is more or less on a pro level, but also for video I can shoot in 4k, but it is not a pro level. But for wide angle good enough to show on television.
I have shot 2 times for TV, and this was done with a gopro. Needed were some shots to show how icediving looks like and as instroduction for searching under water for missing people. I was not paid, it was voluntary.
For the icediving, I organised an event and it was seen by some reporters that wanted to come to make a short (5 minutes) documentary about it. The other time, I was somewere to look for missing people (also a voluntary thing) and this cold case got a lot in the news again. So they came and asked me if I could make some shots under water to show how it looks like what we were doing. The viz ended within 1 minute in zero, so end of shots, haha.
So for short presentations, they can find enough divers who want to take some video under water. And even a gopro is good enough for wide angle.
For photo you see the same, a lot of people are shooting and if they want to use a picture, most give them away for free. I have had publications in several countries, 2 of my pictures are now in a museum, pictures have been used in expositions, but I never got paid. I am now on a level that I have refused use of some pictures in a book and on a particular website, but that book and website are filled with other free pictures. Even if the quality is a little bit worser, free means better than pay for them.
The documentary part, a real documentary means a long period of work. And a lot of materials. Again the wide angle in clear waters is not that hard. But the macro is way much more work. No shadows, stable images (so use a camera on the ground, or use sometimes a fish in an aquarium), etc.
Only a few people in the world earn their money with this work. In 2014, there was a television channel that was looking for an underwater cineast. I believe it was based in the UK. People from all over the world reacted to this advertisement.
Some more earn some money with youtube. So this is were I would start with. And remember, to earn money here, you must be lucky.
Some of my friends shoot footage for some documentaries under water. They all do it as a side job. They get some money for the shots and do the editting also themselves, but it is not enough to make a good live from. Making a documentary takes sometimes up to 2 years. They need the seasons, etc. Most times they have an idea, look for sponsors, get the sponsors and make the documentation.
Also voices are not free. I use most times myself, but my voice is not the best one for serious documentaries. For one of my next videos I am afraid I have to pay for a voice also. But this also means, shooting video, make an edit, you still have to think about voices and most times you cannot do that yourself.
The only route to doing it for a living is to become a professional content creator. Dive Talk, Jonathan Bird (he had a TV show about diving), diving with a purpose, diving with Jake, Nora Svet and Jigging with Jordan. I have no idea how many of them make enough off of YouTube/TikTok call it a living.
They are all going to be passion projects. The good news is, technical proficiency is not the limiting factor. You can start making content and learn as you go and try to build an audience. It will help if you have a camera ready face/girlfriend, but you can figure it out.
Jigging with Jordan has turned it into a full time job with sponsors and a Weather Channel show. It can be done but it will be years of work.