What might have caused the difference in picture quality?

[Jeanne B]

On our recent Wonder cruise we brought both a Fuji and a Kodak disposable underwater camera with us and the difference in quality is noticeably different, not that either is terrific. What's interesting is that the batch of pictures that we were so disappointed with (examples below...top one of the sharks, bottom one at CC, 3rd one of fish) cost me about $25 for Kodak Sea Processing (decided to try it once to compare picture quality but seems like a waste of money based on the pictures we got back). They're very grainy with most of them being brownish in color. It's hard to tell from the pictures below that I scanned but maybe one of you photo experts can give me some ideas?? Both of the cameras went through the x-ray machine on our flight down. I told them I had underwater cameras and they said they would be fine but on our flight home they offered to manually check them since they were underwater cameras. It was the FUJI camera that produced the worst pictures but that's also the camera that we sent out for the Kodak Sea Processing. The underwater pictures we've taken previously have always been with the Kodak disposable and have been the same quality as what we got with the Kodak disposable on this trip so it's the FUJI camera that has me puzzled...I'm wondering if I need avoid buying FUJI disposables, if it could have been the x-ray machine or if it's something to do with the Sea Processing (that I paid all outdoors for!!). We're going to St John in June and we'll be doing a lot of snorkeling and after seeing these pictures I'm debating on whether or not to buy an underwater camera rather than take our chances with the disposables. I've checked into underwater housings for our Kodak digital but there isn't one available.

 

[SyracuseWolvrine]

exposure to x-rays will add fog to pictures. It's also a cumulative effect, the more times film is x-rayed, the worse it will look.

I'd try shooting another Fuji disposable, and this time have it processed at the same place you normally process photos, don't pay extra for the special processing. Perhaps it was just 1 bad camera?

Also, in general, the quality of the disposable cameras is not great. Paying extra money for processing these pictures is probably not worthwhile. where the sea processing comes in handy is if you're using a pretty good quality camera, probably set up with at least one external strobe.

 

[pyrxtc]

I actually useed a Fujji underwater disposable on our vacation in October and the pics were great! They were bright, clear and beautiful. I would definately buy another one. It may have been the camera or the processing. To find out if it was the processing, you can take a negative back to a store and have a print made from it. If there is a difference then it was definately the processing.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

pyrxtc,

although we've disagreed in many things. I have to agree with you on this one. I brought it to my pro photolab and asked them to print as-is and the pics are amazing (considering it's a disposable camera)

 

[Ronda93]

I've had great results in the pool, but these examples look deep where the light has fallen waaaaay off. You may be able to see, but the light is very low. I'd expect the pictures to look like indoor shots without flash. I never knew they offered special underwater processing. Since the cameras had the same exposure to x-rays I suspect the processing.

By the way, how deep were you? The sharks look small ; )

 

[safetymom]

If you know someone with a recent Epson scanner you might want to have them scan your photos. There is a color restoration feature that makes underwater photos look beautiful after it takes out the color cast.

It probably was the processing that caused the problem.

 

[Jeanne B]

By the way, how deep were you? The sharks look small ; )

We were snorkeling on the surface with the sharks below us. They were probably about 50'-75' below us but they start rising towards the surface after about 10 minutes because they're accustomed to getting fed bait every day (excursion was with Stuart Coves in Nassau). That's when everyone has to start getting out...and that's also when it got a little too close for comfort for me!! The sharks were 6-8' long.


Thanks for the input everyone - I think I'll have some prints made from the negatives to see if I get any improvement.

 

[Alacrity]

Amazing critters, sharks.

As others have pointed out the quality of the disposable cameras are none too good. Also, underwater, the warmer colors are absorbed very quickly (the reds and yellows for example) so everything will look blue/grayish within 20-30 feet. In addition, unless you are in very clear water there will be particulate matter in the way that will cloud the scene. Your eyes kinda get used to it but a camera gets all the details! In order to get reasonable quality, even with a good underwater camera, you must be in clear water and close to a subject. A strobe will help but you need to be within 3-4 feet for it to be most effective. A strobe will also tend to light up the particles in the water too so you have to deal with that.

I would guess that the Sea Processing rebalances the color of the image. Many of the photo programs available will do this too (Photoshop for example). If you're lucky the auto levels will do a good job but sometimes not. $25 seems like a lot when it can be done at home with the right software and a little practice.

I also think that some films tend to different colors. I remember that Kodak slide film (Ektachrome?) used to tend to be blue. Others (Kodachrome?) were red. Could be some of that going on here? Dunno the characteristics of the films involved anymore. I can tell you that many digital cams tend to be blue/purple though.

I don't think you pictures 2 and 3 are too bad. We're those without the processing? The others seem a little dark to me. Were the film speed ratings the same for each camera? (ISO/ASA number) Could be one was a slower film speed?

 

[Jeanne B]

I don't think you pictures 2 and 3 are too bad. We're those without the processing? The others seem a little dark to me. Were the film speed ratings the same for each camera? (ISO/ASA number) Could be one was a slower film speed?

Pictures 2 and 3 were taken with the Kodak (no Sea Processing) which I'm pleased with for a disposable. The others were taken with the Fuji (sent out for Sea Processing). Both had the same film speed.

It's been interesting reading all of the responses - I'm definitely no photography expert and I've learned a few things about underwater photography thanks to all of the posts here. Thanks everyone!!

 

[Kelly Grannell]

This is what several seconds can do using Photoshop. Save your $25.



Before

After

 

[Jeanne B]

This is what several seconds can do using Photoshop. Save your $25.

Wow that's terrific!! I've never heard of Photoshop - is it a software package I have to buy or is it something I can download?? (please forgive my ignorance!!)

 

[Kelly Grannell]

It's a software. I personally use Photoshop CS2 but you can get the cheaper version called Photoshop Elements 4

PS: Jeanne, you got PM

 

[SyracuseWolvrine]

I've actually, at one point in my life, taken an underwater photography class. Unfortunately, at the moment, all my materials from that class are at my parents' house, so I don't have access to them, but there was some very interesting / useful stuff in the books.

Practicing underwater photography in a swimming pool is an interesting experience. Because there's not much down there, we brought our own props ... very interesting to have a picture of a rubber ducky tied to a can of sprite (as an anchor)

 

[rhiannonwales]

I'd question the Kodak processing - honestly i run a pro lab and i find that Kodak processing and chemistry is not kind to other brands of film.I dont like it much in general.And im not sure what "sea processing" is unless they are using it as a term for what used to be known as "push proccesing" - where they deliberatle develop the negatives at a higher speed to compensate for low lighting conditions.
Photoshop is a great program - Elements is probably best ofr the average consumer as advanced Photoshop is both very complicated and EXPENSIVE.... i mean like hundreds of $$ for the program.Its put out by Adobe - the makers of Acrobat Reader.
Good luck!
Sherrie

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Personally I don't think most people will need full Photoshop suite. Just get the Elements version. What I did to the OP's pictures were a simple "auto colour", "auto contrast" and "auto level".

As far as Kodak's methods... well, just be careful, there are lots of Kodak brand fanatics around.