Talk:Underwater photography

Water sports Low‑importance

	Underwater photography is within the scope of the WikiProject Water sports, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Water sports. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Water sportsWikipedia:WikiProject Water sportsTemplate:WikiProject Water sportsWater sports articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Underwater diving Mid‑importance

	Underwater diving portal This article is part of WikiProject Underwater diving, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Underwater diving-related articles to a feature-quality standard, and to comprehensively cover the topic with quality encyclopedic articles.Underwater divingWikipedia:WikiProject Underwater divingTemplate:WikiProject Underwater divingUnderwater diving articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Convert from List to Article

An article should be more than just a whole bunch of lists. I'd rework the article myself, but this is really out of my area of experience. Anyone else? —Frecklefoot 13:43, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Removed from article

This paragraph is specifically to discuss the merits of including or excluding the inclusion of www.underwaterphotography.com on the timeline, as the current justification is inadequate and is being removed as vandalism.

The individual adding it is affiliated with the website (a concern), but of greater concern is that the inclusion rationale includes multiple unsubstantiated claims.

Specifically, the claim of "first" is questionable: the UW-PHOTO mailing list (originally at Majordomo@world.std.com) was founded in 1994 (4 years prior to the above), and it had online archives. Original announcement can be found at: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.scuba/msg/11d589844b92b4c5?hl=en

Similarly, for the claim of being "...critical in the evolution of u/w photography during transition from analog to digital...", lacks citation; it is also an unsubtantiated claim.

A Google search very close to the actual website's name produces no surprises. But searching on terms relevant to the UW photo industry may be more revealing to gage relevance and significance.

For example, "Ikelite Founder" (without quotes) returns a list of websites that begins with Ike Brigham's Dec 2006 death notices. The #1 hit on Google is www.wetpixel.com. #2 is studiolighting.net, #3 is digideep.com, #4 is scubadiving.com (Rodales Publishing's magazine's website), #5 is divephotoguide.com, ...etc. The advocated website is nowhere to be found. Searches for Jim Church's death (2002) produce similar results. Jim and Ike's names were selected because they were frequent contributors UW-Photo back in the 1990s.

I don't want to piss on the contributor's website, nor his interest in its history and contributions: claims merely be substantiated and proper, which includes avoiding to overstate the significance of various contributions.

Comments invited. Please also note that if the standard is to be set that this site be included, then logically similar resources must be too, specifically UW-PHOTO and www.wetpixelc.om

-hh (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from article

I removed this from the article's second paragraph:

There are not super secters to taking good photo's. shoot up, bracket-bracket-bracket, get close.

Most of it sounds like nonesense. Super secters? Shoot up, bracket-bracket-bracket, get close? I can guess what is meant by "Shoot up" and "get close," but "bracket-bracket-bracket"? If these are common photography terms, they need to be explained. Even cursory explanations would be better than nothing. —Frecklefoot 18:19, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Cleanup needed?

There's a lot of "generally", "typically", and similar phrases that talk about the common case, but not why they're the common case, or when the uncommon case might occur. Probably needs a general cleanup, more than I can give it ... 130.194.11.64 04:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional photographers

I have reinstated the list of links to professional photographers websites. My justification is that many of these are fine examples of the art of underwater photography, rather than blatant attempts to make money from the people that visit the sites. As resources for people who are interested in the topic I consider them valuable. Please do not delete the list without discussing here first. --Cheesy Mike 15:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read again WP:NOT#LINK and we are not making a directory of all professional photographers around the world. The list is already excessive. If some of them are notable enough, then create an article about them and then put wikilink in the See Also section. I didn't discuss here because it is stated there in WP:EL and WP:SPAM. — Indon (reply) — 16:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, having that many links is just silly. Wikipedia is not a collection of external links, and that's official policy. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support removing all the links to individual photogaphers. The sites are not about Underwater Photography in general, so lack the requirement for symmetry noted in WP:EL. Also WP:NOT#LINK. If the photographers themselves meet WP:NOTABLE then they can have a page devoted to their work. This article is not the place for these links. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 17:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies

I am an underwater photographer and there are a number of inaccuracies in this article which need to be corrected/properly researched.

"In practice, underwater photographers only use either wide-angle lenses or macro lenses, " - this is incorrect. While the use of these lenses in common, standard range zoom lenses are also used and provide flexibility where the photographer needs to shoot a range of subjects which may vary in size. This is important as the lens cannot usually be changed mid-dive.

"These housings also have connectors to attach external flash units, since any flash on the camera itself will be blocked by the housing." - this is incorrect. Many (probably most) housings allow the use of the internal flash and this flash is commonly used in less expensive set-ups.

"There have been some attempts to avoid the use of flash entirely, but these have mostly failed. " - this overstates the situation. The use of 'available light' for photography attracts considerable interest and can produce good results. It is most successfully used in shallow (<10m) water but also in situations where poor visibility precludes the successful use of a flash. The use of 'white balance' settings, now common on digital cameras, also produces good results without the purple water effects mentioned. A test shot of a white card is taken at the same depth as the subject and the camera uses this to make adjustments to the colour of the shot. Even at depths of 30 or 40 metres, the correct use of white balance can produce acceptable pictures. Flash is not normally used with white balance as the light it produces then appears pink.

Uwphoto1 19:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, then could you please correct that, or perhaps you can tag {{cn}} to ask for citations on specific statements that you think they are incorrect. That will challenge the editors and give the rights to other editors to eliminate the unsourced claims. Please see WP:ATT for further details. I'm not an expert of this, thus I can't correct them with my limited knowledge. — Indon (reply) — 09:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll volunteer take a stab at reworking the text for some of these above concerns.

Here's some initial thoughts:

For focal length, there are distinct realms ... wide angle, macro, etc ... which are from a generalized perspective that which is 'common', although technically, it is possible today to use almost anything. Part of this is historical constraints, as the Nikonos was only available with prime lenses (15mm, 20mm, 28mm, 35mm, 80mm, plus extension tubes & Close-Up Kit), not counting non-OEM aftermarket lenses (although these generally paralleled what Nikon offered, merely at a lower price). I think the question here is going to be balacing of generalized statements versus pendantic accuracy.

For housed systems, these fall into two general sub-categories today ... I don't want to call them "cheap" and "expensive", but that label does correlate pretty faithfully to the question of their designs of P&S versus SLR and thus, to internal vs external strobes; I also have a personal illustration of strobe placement and its effect on backscatter that I can donate on this topic as it grows.

For available light, it is a valid field. However, there will need to be discussions on the issues of monochromatic versus "coloration" methods. The laws of physics require mention, as red light is ~99% absorbed by ~20m of water, which is why colorization techniques (and strobe) exist. We very well may have to agree to disagree as to what constitutes an 'acceptable' picture from a 30m-40m depth, as 'acceptability' is indicative of being a qualitative opinion.

FYI, there's also a "third" category of still image creation, which stems from video: while a single fram could be extracted, there's also a method that takes multiple frames and "stacks" them togther to create an aggregate image, which supposedly will be of better resolution than the video format itself. I've not done this myself, but this "stacking" of multiple images sounds very similar to an astronomy technique.

Overall, it will take me awhile; I'll include additional notes here as well as I get through it.

-hh (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Equipment: 35mm not obsolete

"Nikon discontinued the Nikonos series in 2001 and, as it is a 35mm film system, it is somewhat obsolete, but some photographers still choose this approach."

35mm film, in particular Fuji Superia, saturates color far better than any digital technology, and, as such is not obsolete especially in UW photography where saturation is an issue. Certainly digital is more popular than film, and digital sales have created a used film camera market that prevents major manufacturers from making the profits they can from digital. This is not the same as obsolete.--John Bessa (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right, John. Perhaps you could look for a reliable source (photo magazine, article, etc.) that discusses the issue of saturation and use it to clarify/expand that sentence? --RexxS (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:US Navy 120209-N-XD935-302 Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Shane Tuck, assigned to the Expeditionary Combat Camera Underwater Photo Team, c.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:US Navy 120209-N-XD935-302 Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Shane Tuck, assigned to the Expeditionary Combat Camera Underwater Photo Team, c.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 15, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-08-15. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

Shane Tuck, a United States Navy mass communication specialist, conducting underwater photography training off the coast of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 2012. Underwater photography is usually done while scuba diving, but can also be done while diving on surface supply, snorkeling, swimming, from a submersible or remotely operated underwater vehicle, or from automated cameras lowered from the surface. It frequently requires specialized equipment and techniques.Photograph: Jayme Pastoric/US Navy

Archive – More featured pictures...

Holiday snaps

I've removed multiple images added today which appear to be nothing more than vanity photos:

I might not have worried so much about the first one, but as other images such as File:Turtle Selfie.jpg and File:Over Under photography by Jun V Lao.jpg have been added by the same editor, it's clear that the purpose is more to display the photographer then to improve this article. Do others find these as objectionable as I do? --RexxS (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]