Dear Members,

after reviewing an article I just was asking myself the question:

“Are you bored from photographing nothing but fish underwater?”

Certainly,.. most of us started diving or underwater photography just
to capture and see marine life. But if you digest the above statement,
aren’t you thinking about alternative subjects worth photographing?
- What do you think about that?

Another questions that drives me is:

“Should it be obvious that an underwater photo was taken underwater or not?

I mean,… why all the hazzle and massive gear, if we can also
take a picture of the flowers in my mothers garden or a smurf
sculpture in the pool that will not look much different, compared
to a picture taken of it while not submerged? What is the magic
that water adds to a picture? Are there pictures that do not
benefit from beeing taken underwater? In that case, is that
just for “the sport and exercise of underwater photography”?

- I intend to exaggerate my statements here for the sake of
a good discussion and would be very happy if you also could
consider the second statement in your replies.

Warmest regards, Andi

Andreas Voeltz - 27 December 2006 06:16 PM

Dear Members,

after reviewing an article I just was asking myself the question:

“Are you bored from photographing nothing but fish underwater?”

Certainly,.. most of us started diving or underwater photography just
to capture and see marine life. But if you digest the above statement,
aren’t you thinking about alternative subjects worth photographing?
- What do you think about that?

Bored?  Nope.  It is never the same twice - position, sun, how the fish is looking, facing.  Each time there is something different and something new.  A trait or behavior that is different or another challenge.  The closest I ever come is once in awhile diving without a photo or video rig just for the sake of diving a dive without any toys.  I curse ever getting into underwater photo/video while packing the gear up and hauling it where it has to go, but always am happy when I can get to the room where I am staying, unpack the gear and know I can capture photos.

Andreas Voeltz - 27 December 2006 06:16 PM

Another questions that drives me is:

“Should it be obvious that an underwater photo was taken underwater or not?

I mean,… why all the hazzle and massive gear, if we can also
take a picture of the flowers in my mothers garden or a smurf
sculpture in the pool that will not look much different, compared
to a picture taken of it while not submerged? What is the magic
that water adds to a picture? Are there pictures that do not
benefit from beeing taken underwater? In that case, is that
just for “the sport and exercise of underwater photography”?

- I intend to exaggerate my statements here for the sake of
a good discussion and would be very happy if you also could
consider the second statement in your replies.

Well if you take photos of fish, it is pretty clear it is underwater

And people love them, particularly non-divers.

We are fortunate to be able to dive and capture images, and when we get the good shots, even more so.

Despite the fact that many of us who dive and hang out at boards such as digideep are pretty sure everyone in the world are divers who take photographs, that is not the case ####, many on dive boats do not even shoot.

And we can bring back images that capture the excitement and beauty and let others know about it.  To the extent that we can influence anyone positively by showing these images and get them thinking about other aspects of the world and things that need to be treasured and saved, it is a good thing.

We are lucky to see the underwater world.  Of course other things are worthwhile to shoot also above water, but I love the challenge of shooting beneath the waves.

Hi Drew,

thanks for your reply and insights.
It is good to read that you still
enjoy underwater photography!

By the way, ..
The article I was refering to earlier
is now online with some nice pictures.

What do you and others think,
after reading it and looking at
Sharon’s shots?

Cheers, Andi

Andreas Voeltz - 29 December 2006 12:16 AM

Hi Drew,

thanks for your reply and insights.
It is good to read that you still
enjoy underwater photography!

Always..  Grew up with cameras my entire life and diving with a camera bought something new and special to it

Andreas Voeltz - 29 December 2006 12:16 AM

By the way, ..
The article I was refering to earlier
is now online with some nice pictures.

What do you and others think,
after reading it and looking at
Sharon’s shots?

Cheers, Andi

I think it is great artform, and it opens the door up as to what is underwater photography and by extension, other things we run into.  (This is hard to write all up, definately would be a great topic if we ever get together on a dive trip and discuss over a few beers.)

Meaning - sometimes divers pose behind corals or near fish, is that moving away from underwater photography?

The people who shoot from the bottom of the pool up underwater photography?

When we adjust photos after taking them in Photoshop to correct colors, or crop them does it mean we are not really taking a photo and letting computers do the work?  Or is it nothing different than the old days of cropping, dodging and burning with printers and negatives?

So the bottom line is defining what underwater photography (or photography) is to some degree.  Sharon’s shots are great and she is using the water to convey moods and feelings and her shots are definately in the realm of art - in other words when compared to photos of fish Sharon’s shots are mmediately evident that there is “art” - a woman hanging clothes on a line underwater in a dress leaves no doubt that the was a intent in making the shot.

Though by the same token, many underwater shots (in the more fish subject way) approaches art.  The shots you have of the Great White, with the lighting and exposure to me also conveys a sense of art and someone who can capture this.  But I think it is an extension of the fact most people do not think of photographs as art, they think of them as photographs.  It is only when something is done that it is outside the perceived norm in a photograph that people start to look at them as art. 

Trying to compare the two and determine which is better I think is an argument that no one can ever win, nor do I think it is necessary.  Both are valid ways of approaching the underwater world.  One is just bringing back what is there and the other is using the beauty of water and light to bring back things from the imagination.  I guess the only time there is a conflict is if you are trying to compare them (such as in photo contests) which I think is unfair anyways. 

Great topic Andi and great work Sharon.