Question Where to Dive in the Philippines That's NOT Focused on Muck Diving

[living4experiences]

I'm diving at El Galleon in Puerto Galera in March 2025 and would like to continue from there and dive somewhere else in the Philippines that is not a muck-centric location. I don't mind doing a muck dive on occasion, but I don't want to go somewhere that that's the focus of the diving. Any recommendations for locations and resorts? A/C is a requirement.

Thanks!

 

[Miyaru]

Personally I think whoever invented the term "muck diving" as it is used now was stupid. To me, that means the visibility is crap and the only things to be seen are "muck", that is, rubbish. Even stupider, are dive operations that call their diving "muck".

It downgrades what is a brilliant dive experience to a term that does not truly represent what the diving represents. I prefer the term "macro diving".

Whoever invented the term "macro diving", never really understood the meaning of the word.

Macro = big
Micro = small

I prefer macro diving as well. I've seen the micro stuff more than once on my previous dives.

 

[cetacean]

Whoever invented the term "macro diving", never really understood the meaning of the word.

Macro = big
Micro = small

I prefer macro diving as well. I've seen the micro stuff more than once on my previous dives.

@Miyaru - actually you have it wrong. The term comes from "macro photography" which has been around for over 100 years. It was proposed in 1899 as a way to describe the photography technique of capturing images of subjects (like insects) where the image portrays the subject at either life size or greater (so a reproduction ratio of at least 1:1).

So it actually does mean "big" in the sense that the image captures the subject at life size or larger.

Conversely, shooting large subjects in real life (mantas, sharks, schools of fish, etc.) always will have a reproduction ration of less than 1:1 when photographed with typical u/w photography equipment.

 

[Miyaru]

@Miyaru - actually you have it wrong. The term comes from "macro photography" which has been around for over 100 years. It was proposed in 1899 as a way to describe the photography technique of capturing images of subjects (like insects) where the image portrays the subject at either life size or greater (so a reproduction ratio of at least 1:1).

So it actually does mean "big" in the sense that the image captures the subject at life size or larger.

Conversely, shooting large subjects in real life (mantas, sharks, schools of fish, etc.) always will have a reproduction ration of less than 1:1 when photographed with typical u/w photography equipment.

The lens used may be a macro lens in which case you're talking about macro photography.
But I like your example of "capturing images of subjects (like insects)".
Take it a couple of steps smaller, and the device used for that is a microscope.

Macro still means big, thick, or exceptionally prominent.

 

[cetacean]

The lens used may be a macro lens in which case you're talking about macro photography.
But I like your example of "capturing images of subjects (like insects)".
Take it a couple of steps smaller, and the device used for that is a microscope.

Macro still means big, thick, or exceptionally prominent.

@Miyaru

The term has existed for over 100 years.

Macro lenses get their name from their capacity to magnify small subjects: macro means "large" in Greek, and these lenses will make your microscopic subjects look big. The magnification of macro lenses is greater than that of conventional lenses.

Your original post was incorrect. When referring to "micro"-photography the magnification is on the order of 30:1, so beyond macro.

The term you used, "macro diving" derives from the underwater photography use of macro lenses to enlarge(1:1 or larger) the types of small subjects found in the type of diving.

It's a technical term, you are trying to use a generic definition in its place.