Yes, you have guessed it. I am going to bore you once again with the topic, “Whether to Flash or Not?” This is a matter of little import to those who do not regularly submerge their precious cameras in high-pressure saltwater, something which surely violates fundamental laws of nature and sanity.

The vast majority of people snapping away today depend on their cameras to decide whether to flash or not. I am against this notion, since it produces countless nasty-looking photos Alas, I am a voice crying in the wilderness. My word on the matter is simple:  Learn how to make the flash on your camera submit to your will and then learn when you need it and when you’d get a getter image without it. Many people have thanked me for this entirely unsolicited advice. Your mileage may vary.

So, what’s the big deal underwater? Who cares?

Well, you do care, if you are interested in seeing what a given critter actually looks like underwater. If you just want a pretty picture with bright colours, then you turn on your flash and you will have far less work to do on your computer to get a usable, if misleading image. I usually want my images to display to you what I saw. Here is (yet another) example, a Divaricate Tree Coral (Dendronephthya roxasia):

I think that it is quite pretty as it is. Moreover, it is exactly as it appeared to  me when I saw it at about 25 metres at Barracuda Point,  which is lousy with the things.

From the same position, I took this image with the flash turned on:

Well, that too is a pretty image, but it’s not what I saw. One has to remember that, the deeper you go, the less of the spectrum is left. Only blue and a little greenish light penetrate more than a few metres. So, everything looks blue. Your eyes magically adjust to most of this and restore some balance. However, when you add the sunlight colours of the flash, which is designed to mimic sunlight (its colour temperature), then you completely upset the colours which are displayed in the resulting image. In effect, you have shown the object as it would appear at the surface.

Here’s another one:

That’s a Palm Coral (some species of Clavularia)  which has appeared here before. It was shot in with the natural lighting. Check the delicate green shades in the centres, especially around the edges of the clump, where the exposure is a little less. This is a very pretty coral with delicate nuances of colour.

In this flash shot that I got last Saturday for comparison, the nuances are overpowered by the sunlight-white light of the flash:

All of the pretty greens are lost.

Here is one more example. This one is a little harder to justify. This is our old friend and regular on Madang – Ples Bilong Mi,  the Spotted Shrimpgoby (Amblyeleotris guttata):

For comparison, I made one exposure with natural light and one with flash. By now, I’m sure that you can see the difference. The shot above is flash-less.

This one is with the flash turned on. Again, it is not an unpleasing effect. In this case, it does score some points. Because it intensifies the colours that are the distinctive markings of the fish (primarily the orange spots and the dark pectoral fins, not to mention the clown-like eyes), it helps one to remember the primary identification features:

If you memorise the image above, you’ll have no trouble identifying the species when you are cruising over the sandy bottom.

You just have to remember that the first example image, without the flash, is how it is actually going to appear.

We cruised out to Planet Rock in Astrolabe Bay Saturday morning for our regular weekly dive. It was murky with fresh, green water from the Golgol River down to about fifteen metres. At that depth there was a thermocline (a sharp change in water temperature). Below, it was much clearer.

The best shooting was up-close because of the murk.

I’ve talked before about my preference for available light shooting. I’m most particular about it underwater.

Here’s an example of why:

The image above is exactly what I saw with my eyes. The colours are as I remember them. Having been a photographer nearly all my life, I’m pretty particular about colour being correct. I took the image without flash and then used Photoshop to correct the colours so that they looked as I remembered them. To me, this seems to portray the scene more naturally – as a diver would see it.

It’s good to note here that this trick works only to a certain depth, depending on water clarity, topside weather (sunny or cloudy), and the time of day. These all affect how much and the quality of light that you have to work with.

This is the same nudibranch shot with flash. Since the colour temperature (how reddish or bluish) of the flash is designed to mimic sunlight, using flash underwater actually shows you how the subject would appear as if it were seen at the surface in sunlight. Not necessarily what you’re after, if you want ‘realism’ – whatever that might be.

As you can see, the whole image takes on a pinkish glow and areas that appeared to the diver as white can sometimes look reddish:

It’s possible to correct for this in Photoshop, but it’s simply easier to skip the flash and take the naturally lit shot.

Sometimes, there’s simply no choice. If there is insufficient light, you’ll not get a decent image without flash. If you’re too deep, there’s hardly anything left but blue and some purple light. You can’t, as they say, squeeze blood from a turnip. You can’t get reds, yellows, greens, etc. If there’s nothing left but blue light. You have to turn your flash on.

Here’s a little hermit crab shot at about thirty metres:

Though to me he looked mostly bluish-greenish, with flash he appears ‘natural’ to our eyes. If fact, he appears as if he were sunlit in a couple of feet of water instead of one hundred.

There you go. Flash has its place underwater. I have to admit that, if I had the kind of money it takes to purchase fancy underwater photographic equipment (thousands and thousands of bucks), I probably would. In that case, I’d probably use flash a lot more. The dinky flash on my Canon G9 is effective only to about a half-metre.

It reminds me of the old ‘fox and the grapes’ story. As the grapes were out of reach of the fox, he concluded that they were probably sour anyway, and he went about his way satisfied. Since the pricey gear is out of reach for me, I am quite happy to learn to squeeze the most possible performance from the equipment that I can afford. The fancy gear is probably more trouble than it’s worth anyway.

That’s my sour grapes.

NOTE:  All the above concerning shooting with available light applies only if you are shooting in the RAW mode on your camera and processing with the Photoshop Camera RAW filter or some equivalent. If you’re shooting photos underwater in the JPG mode with no underwater filter mounted on your camera or your camera does not have an ‘underwater’ shooting mode, then you will probably never get shots that really satisfy you unless you use flash. Everything will simply look greenish or bluish.

I love the colours that I see underwater. It is a different world. But it is not all bright garishness down there.

Like all underwater photographers, I strive to capture colours that mesmerise the viewer while conveying an approximation of what I saw with my eyes. While I want to be accurate, I also need to do what is necessary to convey a pleasing image. This means a little cheating at times.

But how does one create a truly accurate photograph of what one was actually seeing? The interactions of lens and sensor physics, depth, water quality, and computer post-processing create so many variables to deal with that it becomes a highly subjective exercise.

One thing that I’ve discovered is that the flash on the camera is my enemy. The photo above of a Moorish Idol (Zanclus comutus) was taken using only natural light. The flash was turned off. Without getting all technical, let’s just say that available light photography underwater stretches every corner of the photographic envelope. It’s not easy.

Chasing the fish, keeping it centred in the viewfinder, keeping it in focus, remembering that during all that you can’t shake the camera because you don’t have the flash to ‘freeze’ it for you . . . It all uses up a lot of air.

It’s worth it, however, because I can honestly say that the colours that you see in the photo are exactly (as near as I can remember) what I saw. It’s a new photographic adventure for me.

Here are a couple of other similar photos that I took yesterday at Planet Rock. This is an overhead shot of Richard Jones.

Here’s one of Rich along with Lorraine Collins as they photograph a magnificent anemone. Note that only the brightly coloured anemone stands out. (Click any photo for a larger one.) Another thing that I like is that all the shadows are in their natural positions. Things don’t look as if they are being illuminated artificially by a source not located overhead.

The colours are not vibrant, but they are accurate. These were taken on a hazy day at about 25 metres. The water above was milky and greenish from the discharge of the Golgol River. Nearer the surface colours would appear brighter, but never as vivid as is seen when using an electronic flash.