Posted by Isaac Szabo on March 23, 2010 at 2:56 AM
It seems like this is the time of the year for nature photographers to look back through old pictures. I processed a few older underwater shots today, and I thought I'd share this picture of a Banded Darter from the Buffalo River taken last spring. This fish is about 2 inches long and lives in riffles.
Posted by Larry Fischer on March 23, 2010 at 7:47 AM
Very NICE! Underwater is something I've not seen on NPN. Refreshing.
Colors are wonderful as well as the detail on the fish.
More!!!
the fisch himself
This is great Isaac! Definitely something we haven't seen. I would be curious to know your exif info and more about your processing. Did you have to do some serious work to get the vivid color and clear water or was it really that clear?
Keep 'em comin
Posted by Taylor Reed on March 23, 2010 at 9:41 AM
Great shot, super clear for underwater
Posted by drew resnik on March 23, 2010 at 11:59 AM
yep...all good from my view! thanks for sharing.
Posted by Isaac Szabo on March 23, 2010 at 2:39 PM
Thanks everyone.
Karla: Nikon D300, 60mm micro lens, iso 200, f/8, 1/250 sec.
In general, natural light underwater photographs do require more post processing than land photographs. Shooting underwater is kind of like shooting in fog – detail, contrast, and saturation decrease the farther away you are from your subject and the deeper your subject. You often need to increase contrast more with underwater photos than with land photos. Proper white balance can be tricky as it varies with water type, depth, and subject distance, but it is essential in getting good color.
A huge factor in getting good underwater photographs is shooting in clear water. I’m always on the lookout for exceptionally clear streams (and if anyone has any suggestions I’d be very appreciative). The Buffalo River can be really clear (10-15 ft visibility) in certain spots with the right water conditions at the right time of year.
The photo of the Banded Darter above actually did not require extensive post processing as the fish was in relatively clear and very shallow water and was very close to my lens. However, photographs taken at a greater depth and distance like this Longnose Gar from the Buffalo River do require more post processing to look good.
Posted by Daniel Loomis on March 23, 2010 at 5:51 PM
Very impressive. Not an easy shot for such a shy and retiring species.
Your underwater shots are a nice change of pace. I like the link to the Gar as well.
Posted by Larry Roberts on March 23, 2010 at 9:55 PM
Wow! Great stuff. I have an EwaMarine (spelling) enclosure that I have never used. Your photos may change that. Again, very nice!
Posted by Tom Kennon on March 23, 2010 at 10:11 PM
This looks like a blast! You are making me want a waterproof housing for my K20D. It actually does underwater photography, but only when the tripod falls into a creek.
Discussion
15 repliesColors are wonderful as well as the detail on the fish.
More!!!
the fisch himself
Keep 'em comin
Karla: Nikon D300, 60mm micro lens, iso 200, f/8, 1/250 sec.
In general, natural light underwater photographs do require more post processing than land photographs. Shooting underwater is kind of like shooting in fog – detail, contrast, and saturation decrease the farther away you are from your subject and the deeper your subject. You often need to increase contrast more with underwater photos than with land photos. Proper white balance can be tricky as it varies with water type, depth, and subject distance, but it is essential in getting good color.
A huge factor in getting good underwater photographs is shooting in clear water. I’m always on the lookout for exceptionally clear streams (and if anyone has any suggestions I’d be very appreciative). The Buffalo River can be really clear (10-15 ft visibility) in certain spots with the right water conditions at the right time of year.
The photo of the Banded Darter above actually did not require extensive post processing as the fish was in relatively clear and very shallow water and was very close to my lens. However, photographs taken at a greater depth and distance like this Longnose Gar from the Buffalo River do require more post processing to look good.
Your underwater shots are a nice change of pace. I like the link to the Gar as well.