Some of my first photos with A6300

Thanks Daveco2.

PHXAZCRAIG wrote:

Hector1959 wrote:

I would appreciate comments, mainly critical or suggestions, so as to find weak points and allowing me to improve shooting.

OK, I'll throw in my two cents worth.

Your review is worth more than two cents. And by far ;). Thanks very much.

You have a lot of shots similar to mine, which are mostly taken in Roatan. I don't know your camera specs, so I don't really know what it is capable of. I'm shooting Nikon. With my cameras I can do an amazing amount of manipulation in post, in particular saving detail in highlights. I shoot at lowest ISO to achieve maximum dynamic range.

I am shooting with Sony A6300 with the kit lens. In some of the shots (I am not sure if in most or all) a wet +6 diopter is used. I put it on and off several times when shooting close-up / “macros.

In no particular order...

The Sea Rod - it's not very sharp, and the white tips are overexposed. I find this a hard subject to light well without overpowered the white areas, which seem to want to glow. I will often pull the highlights down up to 100 in Lightroom.

I agreed. Not very sharp. Cropped at about 40% of original practically cropping to convert an horizontal in vertical . Resized to 1280 x 1920 (for sharing). Highlights were at -29% in LR. I will try to lower it to -100% and compare. Shadows were also reduced -80% and maybe that makes Highs to stand further.

However LR does not show clippings and histogram does not even reach the right end. I start clipping at highlights at +40%

It seems like a number of shots are soft. Not sure if they were cropped to the extreme or there was a bit of focus miss.

I agreed with your point about softness. Unfortunately for me extreme cropping is not the cause. I find hard to get good sharpness.

7 out these 12 photos are not cropped at all. And cropping in other 5 was always leaving an image of more pixels than the size they were resized to. Cropped images were 2162 (Sea Rod) , 2027 (goby on coral ) , 2000 (shrimp), 1763 (goby In anemone) and 1741 (peacock flounder)

But focus and depth of field are a main concern. With the +6 diopter DOF is extremely narrow. I set my camera to AF Flexible spot and not to shoot unless in focus. But a slight movement may ruin the shot.

The mixed-colors Social Feather Dusters - I like the center subject. Nice and sharp, and easy to see a lot of detail. However, I would have preferred more depth of field to get more of the other worms in focus as well. I see F16 and 1/160th, so there's not much to do with the settings. But the subject seems cropped in too close, and perhaps the camera was simply too close. Or you were intending to just have the center row in focus, but it's cropped badly. Too much empty space on the left while one of the worms is cut off on the right.

This image is not cropped. More DOF was not possible ( I think I had the diopter on) but I agreed It isn’t well composed. I shot a set of photos here but this one was one of the better in sharpness and I liked the trio in different color to the rest “sitting” “sharp” in the center.

Flamingo Tongue - not much wrong there. Might be a bit 'hot' (bright). The white highlights are a bit strong. I would have preferred a camera viewpoint more toward the left and lower.

Histogram does not reach right end although I might see, as you, some hot spots

Touches in LR: -18 highlights, +13 clarity, +32 dehaze and +13 saturation. Not cropped

White Social Feather Dusters - odd cropping. Too much dead space on the right. Also the light fades too much from right to left. Here is a LIghtroom processing suggestion for you that I think you'll like. In the Develop module, go into the toolbar that holds the Crop Overlay. Should be right below the histogram. Now choose the rectangular Graduated Filter. Next, Click in on the right side near the right edge and in the center and drag the cursor all the way across to the left side.

Notice how this filter is raising the exposure a stop on one side and feathering it down to o on the other? This filter is great for those flash-exposed foregrounds that are too bright. It you drag in the other direction, no worries, just change the exposure amount from +1 to -1, or whatever looks good.

No cropping. I should have done it to improve composition. Light fading from right to left has a reason (not justification) When I bought this camera (and Seafrogs housing) my old tray was not wide enough to put the 2 arms so I did my first dives with only one flash.

I will give a try to the Graduated filter in LR.

The Sharknosed Goby on coral - a bit soft, and I think the color should be more vivid.

I agreed. A bit soft, maybe too soft. Image just cropped. Back in LR I checked and found that I had not made any other adjustment to this image. I will change image in gallery with anothe with these corrections:

+16 contrast, +13 clarity (maybe unnecessary), +10 dehaze ,+7 saturation and 40% jump of yellow in HSL

The Ghost Shrimp - a really nice sharp image of a tough subject to both find and get enough pixels onto. I'm not keen on the overall shade of color, but that may just be how it looked. Seems kind of brown to me. Perhaps a bit more contrast would make the transparent parts stand out a little more. Nice crop for composition.

Image Cropped. Not sharpened. Touches in LR: -35 Highlights, +15 Clarity, +12 dehaze and +7 saturation. WB as shot (AWB in camera)

The three Arrow Crabs - another surprisingly-tough subject in terms of getting all in focus. The shot with the anemone shows a lot of crab in focus, but misses those wild striped claws. Also cropped uncomfortably on the left. Seems oversharpened also. The medium crab shot has nice timing with the crab putting something in its mouth, the striped claws are shown well, and enough is in focus. The cropping is a bit uncomfortable though (too close on left), and it may be the sharpening, or maybe the highlights or whites need to be pulled down because the tips of the anemone are distracting. Might play just a bit with the saturation and contrast to play up the crab legs a bit more. The third shot (closest) has the crab in a so-so pose. Again not centered and striped claws not evident. I actually find the little hydroid behind the leg on the right more interesting.

Images NOT cropped. No Sharpening. I will play with your suggestions of contrast and Saturation. I do not know what I saw I original RAW of image 2006-2 (crab eating) but corrections in LR were:

-10 Contrast (??), +26 Highlights, +38 shadows, +18 clarity and +12 dehaze.

The Goby Peeking out of Anemone - I see what you're going for there, but I think it's a bit oversharpened, the blurry & bright tips of the anemone are distracting, and it looks like there is another fish in the extreme lower right that I find distracting too. I do like the expression/pose of the fish here a lot.

This goby is not very sharp but I also liked the expression/pose of the fish as you said. NO Sharpening.

Imaged cropped using practically all height and making a vertical out of a horizontal shot.

LR: +0.27 Exposure, -22 Highlights, -100 shadows (to disappear background) , +21 clarity and +22 dehaze, +12 saturation

Peacock Flounder - seems a bit soft to me, and I would prefer it to be a bit brighter. Also, the graduated filter might help a bit here.

I will see what I can do here in LR about brightness. When shooting it was just possible to focus on the eye since to narrow DoF.

Lionfish - OK, these guys are pretty easy to photograph as they tend to move slow and let you get the composition you want. Which in this case means you could have done better. I don't necessarily mind the fish coming into frame, though I would have captured the whole fish if possible, but the distraction in the lower right should be cropped out. Also, pull the highlights down more to recover detail around the eye, and add a touch more contrast. I would have preferred the camera to be lower and a bit more to the left here to get more of the face.

Easy fish to shoot. Image was not cropped. Intentionally shoot not the whole fish. Wanted to show more detail but not as much as in other shots were I shot just shot the area around the eyes. A compromise between show what it is and more detail.

Pretty clear conditions. Where did you shoot these?

These shots were taken north of Havana, just in front the city, no more than 300 feet from the shore. Similar latitude than Roatan so sealife is similar.

I have quite a few diving shots at my website (URL below). There is also a page there added recently showing some Before and After processing examples of my dive shots.

PHXAZCRAIG wrote:

Some more thoughts on Lightroom processing.

I have 6.14, and it does not have some of the controls you use, like Dehaze. That could affect all the other settings, but I'm not quite sure what it does.

Dehaze is an amazing tool. I started recently to use it. Normally is more useful in the positive side, at least in underwater photography. In topside photography it may provide an "desirable" effect. High levels are not useful. I am not clear if it could replace Clarity at some point.

Dehaze helps to eliminate some of the turbidity of water.

I see you using a lot of Clarity. I've learned to be very careful with it as it tends to emphasize things in a harsh way. I typically put in a very nominal amount (+2). I used to use more, but eventually mostly quit using it. It reminds me of oversharpening.

Yes, I use a lot of Clarity. It was one of my favorite tools before Dehaze. I use a lot of Vibrance too but now that I think about it I tend to use it less in close-ups. In close-ups I realize that I do use more Saturation or HSL to correct or emphasize (or not) colors or hues, for instance color of water.

A typical ballpark set of adjustments for a lot of my images will have something like this:

1. Contrast ends up at +10-25

I tipically ends below +20. Clarity doing the "selective" contrast adjustment in midtones.

2. Highlights pulled down 10-100% - highly dependent on reflective areas

Mostly I do the same. Rarely in + side

3. Shadows pulled up +10-50 - highly dependend on scene

I do play hard with shadows but only in some of the photos. In most I leave it at "0". When dark areas (mainly in close-up backgrounds are no really useful I pulled it down to -100. Like If shot at high shutter speed or high F-number. Sony A6300 has a max sync speed of 1/160 so black backgrounds depend more of aperture. Sometimes they are not so black so I try to emphasize it in LR.

4. clarity at +2

I do use clarity mostly below +20. But with +2, I practically see no difference. I start noticing changes from 6 or 7

5. saturation at +10-15

Mostly I do the same.

6. black point pulled down very carefully until histogram just kisses the left side. I use this as a dehaze technique, but it have to balance this with exposure and contrast adjustments.

I practically do not use Blacks or white points. Just in some cases of "try and see"

7. sharpening - most shots are left at the Lightroom default. Some are sharpened a bit more, but I feel like I only need sharpening on a 45mp image if I've somehow missed focus a bit.

I leave it untouched. But in some cases, I sharpen selectively using Adjustment Brush

You should definitely crop more.

In fact, I do crop but I like a lot to get an acceptable composition out of the camera. I do crop also to make different versions of a same photo or take a detail of an image to make another.

My originals are 24 Mp. When using +6 diopter I have a narrow (angle)  field of view and a very narrow DoF. +6 Diopter "forces" me to work at a distance shorter than 165 mm. So unless, it is a very tiny subject (like a goby) I do not crop a lot.

It is true that I tend to get as close as focusable to shoot a more "macro-like" photo and I could be on the max distance for diopter, have a (very) little more DoF and do some crop in post.

Without the diopter I can place the camera farther, have more DoF but I would have to crop too much to single out small critters.

Nice photos of yours.

Thanks very much for your comments and sugestions

Regards

Hector

Here are some examples:

Sea Rod - in this case I've pulled down highlights more than I'd like, and the tips have gone a bit blueish, but at least I can see the details:

Here's another one that came out better:

Here's an arrow crab showing the typical problem I have - getting the part sticking up from the head in focus as well as the claws:

Here's one that cropped up well, though the claws are covered by a Brittle Star. I worked with the white balance on this one, but I think the color is pretty close. More golden than most.

Here's a similar Lionfish crop to yours. I had to do a lot of work to tame the highlights here. I think I used the eyedropper tool on a white spot to set white balance.

Social Feather Dusters: I often have a lot of cropping choices. Perhaps I cut this one off a bit at the bottom.

One of the 'techniques' I use to get more depth of field is to stand back a bit and crop in. My cameras (36mp D810 and 45mp D850) have enough resolution to do this.

My late wife and I had planned a Cuba trip last year. I would have loved it. Always wanted to dive around Cuba.

Thanks PHXAZCRAIG

Very useful lessons. As I had said I am relatively to UW photography.

I haven't even been a habitual (less professional) photographer topside.  I started diving 3 years ago and soon I realized I had to "record evidence" of that wonderful world.

Diving became almost an obsession and necessity and UW photography became my favorite hobby not too long after.

I studied practically by myself just reading online. Then I took a course with SSI  but it was not a big deal.

Thanks again. I took this bunch of photos and uploaded expecting critics and comments to help me improve but yours were more than I had expected. They show a dedication and vocation to help others that is laudable.

If ever in Cuba, let me know.

Regards

Well, I had to do it faster. I started diving at 57, I am now 60. Having the sea in front of "my face" it is easy to go diving so I do it in every available time if weather and sea waves allows. In the next weeks I' ll have 250 dives.

After being comfortable with diving I bought a GoPro clone to video underwater. I liked video editing. So it was fun. After a few month the camera started failing and my wife told me that it happen because I had bought cheap, that should have bought a GoPro.

At the same time I dived once in Varadero with a multiple UW Photo constests winner who did it with a G16. So I replied my wife why should I buy a GoPro if for not much money I could buy a real camera. So I bought a G7X with Fantasea Housing. Then, strobes: It came first to my hand, and old but solid Nikonos 105 and I bought YS-01. I am planning now to buy a second YS-01

After a year and a half I flooded the camera in the rinse tank !!!!!! It was my fault, not housing' s

I had the choice to buy another G7X but I decided to give a step further and bought the A6300 and did some "economies" buying the Seafrogs housing with extra short and dome ports, so as the vacuum valve to avoid or reduce flooding risks. They offer an acceptable / functional quality housing for much less than others. I see the housing as the insurance of the camera so why paying more for insurance that for the object itself.

I have dived about 10 times with this rig. I am still getting familiar with it. Most of the times with the short macro port.

Next purchase will be the strobe to have a couple of identical ones. And later, lenses, macro and wide angle since the kit lens is said not to be too sharp, but not very decided about which ones . For macro I am in love with Sony 90 mm but too costly on one side I am not really sure if I can manage it UW, so maybe I 'll decide for the 50 mm and eventually use the wet diopter for supermacro. For Wide-angle I am also in love with Sony 10-18 for which i have the zoom ring that come in the Seafrogs Bundle. But also too expensive. Seagfrogs started selling a focus ring for the Samyard 8mm and maybe this is a more affordable option.

Regards

Craig, I first bought a wet diopter cause my camera was a compact and it was the only way to gain some magnification.

As I haver learned from theory, magnification is dependant of lens focal length and focusing distance. There are several ways to increase magnification, ones increasing focal length and ones reducing focusing distance. In the first group you have the extensions tubes and teleconverters. In the second, diopters (also named close-up lens)

You have use TC. The downside of a TC is that you loose aperture in the same proportion as you increase magnification.  So less light passes thru. Your 105mm f/2.8 with a 1.4 TC becomes a 147mm f/3.9 (rounded 150 mm f/4). That I think is clear for you.

Now, diopters reduce the minimum focusing distance of a lens. But they impose also a maximum focusing distance that is the Focal length of the diopter.   For instance with my +6 diopter is Focal length 165 mm (in my case, INON UCL-165M67 this FL is considered UW)  My focusing range goes from max 165mm from the lens to some let' s say 80 mm (this minimum  I think has to be with the lens behind the diopter but not sure).

So you have a small range to place the camera and be able to focus. But in the positive side there is practically no lost light and good diopter are even achromatic to reduce CA.

They are more effective with lens of long focal length than those with short. So, with my zoom lens I try always to use it in 50mm. Theoretically, the native magnification of aprox 0.22x of this lens becomes about 0.60x with my +6 diopter.

Extensions tubes is something I've been thinking about as an alternative

Regards

Oh!!

I now understand. You were using a diopter on WA shots just to reduce the focusing distance of your lens to "match"  with the virtual image created by the dome, not for macro shots. That' surely why the shop suggested a low diopter.

I have never used "dry" diopters but I know there are some cheap ones (a few $) that most people say they are not good. I have always used for macro

But, now make me wonder if softness in my shots are due to focusing, kit lens quality or the use of a diopter, my camera is set to shoot only when in focus, but when pressing the trigger one can move the camera.

...

I have been watching your shots from Roatan in your website. Indeed, I realized that I had visited your site some time ago.  Nice shots, and as you said, most are the "same" (not talking of quality) as mine.

Interesting your before-after section.

Regards

PHXAZCRAIG wrote:

Hector1959 wrote:

Oh!!

I now understand. You were using a diopter on WA shots just to reduce the focusing distance of your lens to "match" with the virtual image created by the dome, not for macro shots. That' surely why the shop suggested a low diopter.

Yes, it was supposed to improve IQ on the wide angle, but I never noticed any particular improvements. I shot with and without it.

If it was the same with or without diopter then I think diopter was useless, at least with that particular lens. I mean, the Minimum Focusing distance of the lens was shorter than the point where virtual image is "formed".  it will be useful, in the case MFD of the lens is longer than the point where virtual image is.  I think it works like that.

I have never used "dry" diopters but I know there are some cheap ones (a few $) that most people say they are not good. I have always used for macro

I just remembered that I had previously used an RX100 II in a Nauticam housing, and I also bought a pair of wet lenses for it. One macro and one dome, to extend the range of the 28-100 equivalent lens.

I don't think I even tried the dome port, but I did try the macro several times. (It was on a flip holder).

I was dumb and didn't realize I could test it above water, though I'm still a bit unsure if things change significantly, from a testing perspective.

I have tested and used the diopter above water (in macro uses)  and it works. Magnification results I think might be different above and under water due to refraction but I am not pretty sure since I am not clear how cameras interpret distances UW, I mean if it takes real or apparent distance for focusing.

Certainly in the water the macro filter forced me to a VERY close distance, probably a couple of inches. I was never able to get a shot in focus, probably because of the distance, and the narrow DOF. In that respect it was the opposite of my TC experience, other than sharpness. The TC allowed me to stand off.

I find difficult to focus with the +6 diopter but far from impossible. Focusing light is a must. My main concern is narrow DoF that makes difficult to get shots in focus as the slightest movement when triggering could put the focus point elsewhere, so the keep ratio is low.

But, now make me wonder if softness in my shots are due to focusing, kit lens quality or the use of a diopter, my camera is set to shoot only when in focus, but when pressing the trigger one can move the camera.

You should be able to compare the sharpness of your shots with and without the diopter to see if there is a significant loss of sharpness. It may be equipment as well as technique.

I would try to make such test above water because UW it would  difficult to assert differences due to changing conditions UW, even within short fraction of time, and the fact that comparable shot has to be taken at different distances. I'am afraid results could be misguiding.  In its category the UCL-165 is a good close-up lens and is said not no be the cause of problems. In the lens category, however, the 16-50mm is not as highly regarded.

...

I have been watching your shots from Roatan in your website. Indeed, I realized that I had visited your site some time ago. Nice shots, and as you said, most are the "same" (not talking of quality) as mine.

Yes, you can spot Caribbean shots pretty easily.

Interesting your before-after section.

I threw that together very quickly for a Facebook album I think. I need to go find some extreme examples. But those are pretty typical.

Hopefully my shots are getting better over time. I'm not sure they are, but my post-processing skills have at least improved. I had some back-sliding with the D850 partly because of learning a new camera underwater, but mostly because I was experimenting with new stuff - trying the TC for the first time, trying the Internal Correction Filter for the first time, trying to shoot some video with the DSLR for almost the first time (disastrous), using a non-TTL flash trigger the first time, and just dealing with little things like the shutter release lever moving between the D810 and D850 housings.

I also think my shots have improved over time but no as much I had desired considering all the efforts done to achieve it. Many of my latest shots are not much better than those from my first dives with the G7X. Maybe I'am becoming somewhat more picky (don't know if the word is correct)

regards

yes, I had read about that Lembeh stick but I have hesitated to use it. I have an inox rod that could serve as one.  I am going to dive Saturday  in Giron (Bay of pigs) and probably I' ll take it with me.