Trigger Fish at the Segontium/Missouri

[Justin Owen]

Pretty dissapointed with my last batch of pics from my MX5 - despite the good viz most were ruined with back-scatter...

Still, the two most important ones came out:

[Justin Owen]

and...

[John Gulliver]

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Justin Owen @ Aug. 30 2003,10:31)]Pretty dissapointed with my last batch of pics from my MX5 - despite the good viz most were ruined with back-scatter...

You can remove the back-scatter with any simple image-processing programme, Justin. There are several free progrmas on the Internet. I use Graphic Converter (for Mac). This image, taken with an MX5, had lots of back-scatter. Did you use the special close-up lens, by the way? I find it largely eliminates the back-scatter problem.

[John Gulliver]

Here is the original image for comparison.

[peter k]

Hi Justin,
           Is that a normal MX5 mk1? If so, how did you get the photo's onto the 'pooter?

Hi John,
         I would reckon that even though the back scatter is removed, the actual focus on the fishies has became a bit blurred. Maybe it's just happened loading them up here though.

Do you both reckon this funny wee lens thing makes a difference?

Peter

[John Gulliver]

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (peter k @ Aug. 30 2003,13:36)]Hi John,
         I would reckon that even though the back scatter is removed, the actual focus on the fishies has became a bit blurred. Maybe it's just happened loading them up here though.

Do you both reckon this funny wee lens thing makes a difference?

Peter

Hi Peter,
You may be right, though I can't really see any difference. I had the lab put all my pics on a CD, didn't bother about prints, enabling me to crop them and remove back-scatter on my computer. The pics were delivered in duplicate, high and low resolution. The high resolution pics are much better of course but I can't post them here.
As regards the close-up lens, yes, I think it does make a difference. You can get as close as 37 cm from the subject, so that there is less water between you and it. The camera's own flash is then sufficient and you don't get nearly as much back-scatter. This pic was taken with the close-up lens and I didn't need to remove any back-scatter, just crop it for posting here. I also have the old version of the MX5, by the way.

[John Gulliver]

No back-scatter in this pic either.

[peter k]

Hi John,
         Those last two are crystal clear!!!
When you say you had the lab put them onto CD for you, Is that one of your retired from work labs(i.e. scientific with all the toys and gizmos) or just a normal 'photo lab(i.e. Prontaprint)? Just I thought they could only put pictures onto CD's that came from digital cameras.
  I think I'll get one of the close-up lenses soon as well. The only thing I'm thinking about with that is, Does the viewfinder still lock over the top of it as trying to clamber back on a boat with the big grey thing flopping about is a recipe for it to get broken.

Thanks John, I'm still new to computers as well as U/W 'photos, so you'll need to bear with my probably daft questions.

Peter

[John Gulliver]

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (peter k @ Aug. 30 2003,14:52)]Hi John,
         Those last two are crystal clear!!!
When you say you had the lab put them onto CD for you, Is that one of your retired from work labs(i.e. scientific with all the toys and gizmos) or just a normal 'photo lab(i.e. Prontaprint)? Just I thought they could only put pictures onto CD's that came from digital cameras.
  I think I'll get one of the close-up lenses soon as well. The only thing I'm thinking about with that is, Does the viewfinder still lock over the top of it as trying to clamber back on a boat with the big grey thing flopping about is a recipe for it to get broken.

Thanks John, I'm still new to computers as well as U/W 'photos, so you'll need to bear with my probably daft questions.

Peter

Not daft questions at all, Peter. I was new to all this as well not long ago. I'm still very much a beginner but trying to get the best possible pics with my MX5 as I can't afford a proper u/w housing, good camera and strobes, nor do I have the patience to be a good photographer. I just want reasonably decent snaps as souvenirs of my trips and to mail to friends.
Now to your questions:
Any photolab should be able to put your pics onto a CD. They can do it from ordinary film just as easily as from a digital camera. They have special scanners for the purpose. The price varies a lot, though, at least here in Sweden, so shop around. Personally, I don't bother with prints any more, just have all my pics put straight on a CD - they can usually put several films on the same CD – then save the best ones on my computer, manipulate them to make them as good as I can – I haven't yet learnt to use all the features of the programme, so just remove any back-scatter and crop the pictures so that the subject takes up most of the space. When I want to view them or show them to others, I use the slide show feature of the programme, so that each picture is displayed for, say, 10 seconds. I show the high resolution pics, of course. It doesn't take many minutes to manipulate an image but I manipulate both versions of each (high and low resolution) so it does take an hour or two to manipulate, say, 30 images x 2.
The close-up lens and mask has a hole in the corner, so that you can attach it permanently to the camera (e.g. where the lanyard attaches) with a short piece of strong string. I just remove it from the camera lens and let it dangle. It doesn't interfere with the viewfinder, which still locks in place as usual, and it fits neatly into the camera case, which I carry clipped to a D-ring on my TP II.
I hope this helps.

[peter k]

Thanks John.
               I just gave a shop a 'phone and this is the prices they gave me;
£3.49-Prints
£3.99-CD
£5.99-Prints + CD
£1 + 40p for every print off a CD.

I think for the first few I'll get prints and CD, the prints to have something that I have at hand to show folk and the CD so I can footer about with them on one of these retouching packages.

Peter