Recents shots from Bay of Pigs, Cuba

This is the link to a new album of photos taken last Saturday at Bay of Pigs.

Edited in LR. Some are cropped. Risized from 6000 x 4000 px to 1920 x 1280.  Not resized when crop was smaller than this size

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4028300953/albums/uw-shots-from-bay-of-pigs

Your comments and critics are welcome. Your inputs would help improve my photography.

Regards

Hector

Craig, I post here some of the close-up shots from Gallery Album "Bay of Pigs" (in next I'll focus in WA). I would appreciate your comments and critics (as well as other's)

Edits in LR (from JPG) NOT Cropped +9 contrast -24 shadows +5 clarity +5 dehaze +5 Saturation

Edits in LR: Just cropped from RAW file

Edits in LR. Just cropped from the RAW file. Some adjustments might help

Edits in LR Cropped +0.43 Exposure +9 contrast +5 clarity +4 dehaze +7 Saturation

Edits in LR NOT Cropped +0.27 Exposure +10 contrast -38 shadows +5 clarity +4 Saturation some spots removed.

Edits in LR: Just cropped from the RAW file. Some adjustment would help.

Edits in LR Cropped -78 Highlights +10 clarity +12 dehaze +7 Saturation

Edits in LR Cropped +1.36 Exposure -12 Highlights -49 shadows +46 blacks +9 clarity +4 dehaze +12 Saturation

Edits in LR Cropped +0.66 exposure +13 contrast -7 highlights +9 clarity +13 dehaze

Edits in LR. Cropped (a very small portion of the original) +9 clarity +26 dehaze

And here some of the WA shots (from gallery "Bay of Pigs")

Edits in LR There are 2 similar photos treated differently. this has: Custom WB ,+0.27 exposure, +16 contrast, +61 shadows, +24 clarity ,+27 dehaze ,+19 saturation

Edits in LR AWB as shot +0.04 Exp +19 contrast -35 shadows +5 clarity +26 dehaze +10 saturation some adjustments in HSL

Edited from JPG Not cropped +19 contrast -100 highlights + 12 clarity + 4 dehaze +66 saturation

Edits in LR Not cropped, Custom WB, +0.27 Exposure, +100 shadows, +5 dehaze, +12 Saturation Some fine tuning in HSL

Edits in LR from JPG original (not RAW) Custom WB +0.35 exp +7 clarity +26 dehaze +32 saturation

Edits in LR edits from JPG (raw was lost) +7 contrast -21 highlights +2 dehaze +15 saturation

Edits in LR  (from practically unrecoverable photo): Custom WB -1.12 Exp -35 contrast -100 highlights +13 clarity +63 dehaze very small adjust.. in HSL

PHXAZCRAIG wrote:

Hector1959 wrote:

Craig, I post here some of the close-up shots from Gallery Album "Bay of Pigs" (in next I'll focus in WA). I would appreciate your comments and critics (as well as other's)

Edits in LR (from JPG) NOT Cropped +9 contrast -24 shadows +5 clarity +5 dehaze +5 Saturation

Too bad you didn't leave some blank lines between shots. Makes it easier to comment in-line.

What should I have to do? put some space between photos? I' try to do it next time

I don't have much to say about this one. Basically a 'fish shot' I am a bit suspect of your processing settings as I think it leads to some harshness, but I am not familiar with your RAW files and what you can squeeze out of them. But in general, I've become very hesitant to use the Clarity slider. And since I don't have a Dehaze function, I'm not sure what it is doing.

This first photo, as some others, was edited from the JPG file. My card became corrupted and I had to use a Data recover program.

In the process, some files were lost.This is the original JPG photo not post-processed, just resezed to 1920 x+1280

Link to :gallery https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4028300953/photos/3895258/dsc03173-lr-no-edit

Not post processed.

Edits in LR: Just cropped from RAW file

I think I like it uncropped better.

Edits in LR. Just cropped from the RAW file. Some adjustments might help

This is not bad, but I wonder if you had the diopter on? I'd like to see if sharper, but again I don't know if you've already got the maximum out of your camera here.

I find Christmas Tree worms to be sort of the mallard duck of underwater shooting. Relatively easy to find, flashy, but can be hard to get maximum detail out of it. In the shot above I'd try for a bit more contrast, possibly pull down the highlights too (to keep detail in the white tips).

I am almost sure I had the diopter on. Seeing the original I think I could not have get that close without the diopter. This photo had no processing, Just what LR adds when exporting to JPG

this was the original (resized):

RAW exported to JPG by LR. No other processing

And taking your suggestions this is a version with -80 highlights and +20 contrast

Processed as per Craig' s suggestion

Edits in LR Cropped +0.43 Exposure +9 contrast +5 clarity +4 dehaze +7 Saturation

Seems nice.

Edits in LR NOT Cropped +0.27 Exposure +10 contrast -38 shadows +5 clarity +4 Saturation some spots removed.

I don't like the composition here, with the bottom antenna cut off. Might be a good one to crop into the details.

Good remark. The camera should have pointed a little lower for better composition

Edits in LR: Just cropped from the RAW file. Some adjustment would help.

Edits in LR Cropped -78 Highlights +10 clarity +12 dehaze +7 Saturation

Edits in LR Cropped +1.36 Exposure -12 Highlights -49 shadows +46 blacks +9 clarity +4 dehaze +12 Saturation

Possibly the best of the bunch, though I'd like a lower angle. This spinyhead blenny is a tough subject to capture without blowing out the face, not to mention getting a shot in focus in what is usually a lot of current surge.

Your comments shows me how much I need to improve my perception of a good photo. I was not sure to upload the first 2 of these 3 and hesitant about the blenny. I loved this blenny, the composition, the shadows, the color/tint of its surroundings so I decided to uploaded besides my perception that is somewhat out of focus (eyes are not bright enough).

The first 2 are small portions of the original. Very cropped. They were a TRY of your suggestion that I should crop more (and more). The first of 3 (Damisela (Stegastes planifrons) is not even post processed, just RAW cropped and exported JPG by LR.

Edits in LR Cropped +0.66 exposure +13 contrast -7 highlights +9 clarity +13 dehaze

Edits in LR. Cropped (a very small portion of the original) +9 clarity +26 dehaze

I'm not keep on shots where you are looking down on fish. Also, on this last one, pay attention to the harshness of the background coral. It looks like some highlight reduction might help there. This is also a type of look I see when clarity gets pushed up.

In the first of this 2 photos I was shooting small critters on the cask of a sunken boat, and this fish swam by and I shot it. The background is the coral covered side of the boat.

For the second I was not even looking for this shot. The fish came to "eat' my finger (cropped from photo)  and I try to shoot it eating but I could not. It was first a no-keep but then I explored the option of a crop.

This a new version of this photo with -50 HL, +5 Contrast + 5 Sat. What do you think?

I'm interested in your techniques for white balance. On the above, I would have tried an eyedropped tool on both a white coral speck and the black eye portion.

I really do not white balance the shots when I use the strobes, what is mostly the case in close-up.  And even for WA, if I dislike the color of water I use more the HSL  hue eyedrop and move till  I get what I want. It normally makes the aqua and blue slider to move.

For shots where no strobes are used, I tend to find a neutral color in image for the eyedropper. In the photos with my buddy diver and wreck I turned strobes off, about 20 m deep. Then, I tried to white balance. I first pointed the eyedropper on the gray of the Z-240 strobes but I did not liked the result. But I took it as as base and then play with temp and tint sliders to find something closer to I was looking for.  In fact I was not doing here a perfect WB but looking for a look of my liking.

PHXAZCRAIG wrote:

I suspect you should be adding a fair bit of sharpening, with a small radius value.

I am not adding any sharpening but I see the export dialog has a "sharpen for screen" box and it is marked.

The one where you toned down the harshness of the background coral is improved, but the white balance seems a bit off. I'd keep playing with it, but I don't know how to describe what I'd be looking at and doing exactly.

I made a new verision of this photo puting temp in +9. (the source  is a JPG original) This is the result:

same as before adding +9 in TEMP

I also made some adjustments  to this phote which I had just cropped and exported to JPG.  I think it now looks more vivid

+ 20 contrast, -50 shadows, +5 dehaze, +12 saturation  (no sharpen for screen)

I also like them better with these adjustments. Thanks for your suggestions.

Have you look the group of WA shots?

Regards

Thanks very much, Graig. I' ll work it out following tour suggestions  and be back in a while .

regards

PHXAZCRAIG wrote:

Hector1959 wrote:

And here some of the WA shots (from gallery "Bay of Pigs")

Edits in LR There are 2 similar photos treated differently. this has: Custom WB ,+0.27 exposure, +16 contrast, +61 shadows, +24 clarity ,+27 dehaze ,+19 saturation

Edits in LR AWB as shot +0.04 Exp +19 contrast -35 shadows +5 clarity +26 dehaze +10 saturation some adjustments in HSL

All of the above have white balance issues. I'm not sure how clear it was, or how much water you were shooting through, but I think you should be able to get better results, like the below.

What I've found in shots like the above is sometimes there just isn't enough contrast to be had due to water conditions. You can try to inject some, but it will likely block up the shadows and still not look right. On the first two, try this for me: Starting from scratch, brighten it up some, and try white balance off some grey metal areas in the foreground. Once you get it in the ballpark, try dragging the black slider down until the left edge of the histogram almost touches the end. You should quickly get a feel for what is too much. These aren't the best shots to demonstrate the technique, but you may see a lot of the haziness in the water disappear. You have to really work the shadows though to not overdue it where you want detail.

In this post I will "talk" about the the shots with the diver.

Water conditions in Bay of Pigs are very good although lately there is always some kind of haze.

The first 2 photos were taken 20 m deep, no strobes. There was a lot of water in between. It could there have been less if I had set the zoom accordingly. I checked the settings and I now see that it was 31 mm. I could have been much closer in 16mm. The 2nd was processed from the JPG (RAW lost in recovering SD data).

The 3rd wat shot below 4m, most is ambient light. Processed from original JPG, No WB, HL -100 and Sat pushed up to +66 to "show" the corals.

1st and 2nd were shot with similar settings but 2nd is Originally JPG so camera includes its own "processing".

Below the 3 originals (just resized) followed in first 2 by photo processed as per your indications.

original resized

Exp: +1.00. WB Eyedropper in the regulator. Blacks: -60

Exp +1.00. WB Eyedropper in regulator. Blacks: -60

Now it looks clearer and nicer but I think it does not represent well what I saw underwater. (neither one has done). I would work the water color.

original resized

Exp; +0.5 WB Eyedropper in regulator. Blacks: -55

As processed from a JPG, WB does not seem to work well. It resulted too pink. Some more adjustments are needed but I left it this way as a case of study.

original resized

For this photo you gave me no particular suggestions so I try to experiment with WB and tweak LR settings. (original JPG)

I first WB using the Clamp screw for the eyedropper

exposure: -0.50 - contrast: +20 -blacks -25. The result was this:

An interesting approach but I dislike the color of the sand (maybe batter than before but still not as white as the real one in place). and that of the water. So I tweak the settings in HSL.

Changed hue, sat (up) et luminance (down) for the water.

Change luminance up of yellow to make coral as more touched by the strobes, and green to reduce a little the greenish tint on the sand.

I pushed temp a little down.

The result was this:

What do you think? I really appreciate what are you doing for me and my shots.

Regards

PHXAZCRAIG wrote:

Edits in LR Not cropped, Custom WB, +0.27 Exposure, +100 shadows, +5 dehaze, +12 Saturation Some fine tuning in HSL

White balance seems OK on the above shot, but it could be brighter. And you have that big hole in the detail in the lower right - might consider cropping this image about the halfway point down, to eliminate most of the dead area.

This photo above was originally badly shot. The sponges are badly lit. Zoom was 31mm. I should has been 16mm to be closer and strobes would have lighten better the scenes. I don't know either (not remember) at what power I had them, but looking at the original I see strobes did not do their job. If it wasn't at 20m deep i will say the strobes did not fire at all.

This is the resized original

As per suggestions, I now left WB as i had customized, pushed exposure from +0.27 to +0.50 and cropped the image

Then, I increased contrast to +10, left the settings I had used in HSL for the water and pushed up saturation of orange. . T

The result is this (much better)

As per Craig's suggestions

Edits in LR from JPG original (not RAW) Custom WB +0.35 exp +7 clarity +26 dehaze +32 saturation

The above is close, but look how harsh the azure vase is in the background. To me, that's generally a case where you want to lower the highlights, and possibly the overall exposure. (Then increase exposure locally, or in shadows only, etc.)

Same case as above: badly shot. 31 mm, instead of 16 mm. Strobes not lighting correctly. See original below.

Edited from JPG. (RAW lost)

Post-processing did not really changed too much of the shot (mostly lighter and more saturation) , no WB. So better adjustments would have provided better results.

When you say "locally" do you and the use of the adjustment brush?

I applied your suggestions:

I had increased exposure to +.35, so I put it back to 0.  reduced HL to -35. Increased temp from +16 to + 30 Increased sat of orange in HSL,. And left general saturation as in first edit. the result is this:

As per Craig's suggestions

Edits in LR edits from JPG (raw was lost) +7 contrast -21 highlights +2 dehaze +15 saturation

Similar to the last one. There are some glary highlights. Imagine this scene as above-water and what it would look like if you put on a circular polarizer. The colors would darken, deepen and the highlights would look like glare was gone or reduced. In post the way I approach this is to start by lowering the highlights to the point that glare areas are gone. Then I work to overall lighten the remaining portions, if necessary.

Also processed from a JPG image. It was barely edited from the original. No WB. +7 contrast, -21 highlights (maybe  should have lowered more as you suggest) and +15 saturation (probably the more impacting adjustment made).

This was the original:

original resized

After WB to

+30 in each  Temp and Tint, HL in -100, contrast in +10, sat in +5 , some  spots removed and some minor adjustment of the blue in HSL the result is:

Much more colorful, maybe to much (but I am from the Caribbean and you know what that means

Your comments are welcome and appreciated.

PHXAZCRAIG wrote:

Edits in LR (from practically unrecoverable photo): Custom WB -1.12 Exp -35 contrast -100 highlights +13 clarity +63 dehaze very small adjust.. in HSL

Now here is a situation I've seen plenty of times. And you can do better, assuming you have the dynamic range I think you do. First, white balance using an eyedropper on the barracuda. Next, play with overall exposure and highlight reduction to brighter things up without going too far with the silver scales. Then crop, and add a BUNCH of contrast in, and you may come up with something like this:

Barracuda always seem to hover just out of decent photo range. Eagle rays are worse.

I do an apart with the barracuda. I had initially thought to discard this shot . This was the JPG original from where I edit (I now found the RAW so I will work on it).

original. I was close to discard it.

I have experimented starting from your suggestions and try and tested several settings. I was not satisfied with the first one I am not either very satisfied with any of the other version i have tried. But this is a good exercise

This is how it results from WB in the barracuda (and slightly adjusting) , -100 HL,  +70 contrast, -1.25 exp. , +40 whites, + 20 dehaze., +12 sat , adjusting water in HSL and even for my first time the use of split toning. And more cropping

By the way, I took your barracuda and experimented. I mainly dehazed and Adjusted hue and saturation of the blue/aqua. This is the result:

What do you think?

Thanks and regards

PHXAZCRAIG wrote:

I think there have been some improvements, but I also see that you are severely limited by the loss of the raw files. Not much you can do with JPGs.

On using the eyedropper tool - in general it is less and less accurate to use a point farther away, perhaps more than 3 meters or so, depending on clarity of water and depth. In the previous shots, I would recommend trying the sand closest to the camera in the shot with the diver and coral. But not much can be done starting with a JPG.

I don't worry about white balance when shooting underwater, but if I did, I would try to get close using Live View and playing with white balance until things seem close. Sometimes I purposely shoot something close to me to be used to white balance the shots around it. When diving in Fiji in 2009, I met a videographer who really had to get white balance right in-camera (can't do much with white balance after the fact). He had zip-tied a small white card to the top of one fin, and he would re-do white balance when he changed depth. My shots are kind of an equivalent, except I do the balancing in post.

Shooting eventually becomes interactive with how you post-process, whether it be shooting a white card or some close detail, or shooting in RAW at lowest ISO for maximum dynamic range. As you change post-processing techniques, your shooting discipline will change to match the requirements. Things like realizing you need to be closer to get a certain shot to come out, or turning flash down when shooting highly-reflective subjects to buying certain cameras.

This last paragraph is a good indication of what I need to focus on. I need a discipline, I need a routine as a second nature, I need also planning. maybe shoot less in every dive a choose better subjects, position, settings. I am not expecting to become a pro, in the sense of someone who make his living out of this but i like to do things as best as I can.

I had never thought to make WB at any depth and as I had said before I do little (or none)  WB in post for close-up shots were the strobes lights correctly, on the assumption that strobes temperature is similar to daylight so there is not too much to balance. But it seems that I am wrong.

Thanks,

Regards

Yes, it seems that my assumption is wrong.

I will take that into account and will use more the WB in post and even consider do it UW

I have 2 strobes. One is YS-0! with Color temp 5600 (5250 with Diffuser) and the other is a Nikonos 105 with color temp 4700 (not specified with diffuser). I have just ordered a new YS-01 to have a well matched pair and keep the Nikonos as a complementary strobe.