Strike!

> As a digital neophyte, I'm having more fun than wot you can poke a stick
at
> with the Sony DSC-P5 and it's underwater housing that's rated to
40-metres.
> Mind you, I'm still terrified by the F... word!  (Flood!)

Ah yes :-) Before we went to the Similans, I tried to get my Nik V serviced,
so I would at least have something to shoot with underwater. The cost,
however, was very high, about 50% of a new camera, and since I meant to sell
it after the trip, at an expected 50% of cost, it was a nonsense to have it
serviced!

So I took it, fully expecting it to flood at some stage, and it did, after 5
dives :-) So the whole boat got to play "let's see what's inside a Nikonos
V" that night, and I now have a much deeper appreciation for what is
involved in a flood and in a servicing. Not to mention a steely
determination never to buy another Nikonos V :-)

On the more serious side, I would recommend that anybody who takes camera
equipment underwater get DEPP insurance. See
http://www.equipmentprotection.com/programs/depp.html for details.

> The only problem that I've found is that the on-board flash tends to wash
> out all of the colours and detail - and that disabling the flash
completely
> sometimes fails to show the true colours or sufficient detail? :-(

There are several solutions that MIGHT work, alone or in combination.
Firstly, it is possible that the camera has a function that allows you to
set the white balance manually. A digital camera uses white as the base
colour from which it determines all other colours. Topside, it uses a
"standard" white, but all whites are not born equal (despite what the NAACP
might think - grin!).

White looks very different in different lighting conditions and under
different light sources, so many cameras allow you to set the white balance
to settings like "tungsten", "sunlight", "cloudy", "neon" and so forth. The
best ones allow you to actually aim the camera at something that YOU
consider white, and set the camera to assume that shade as white in the
calculation of colour rendition.

So if your camera has this latter feature, set it to whatever you find
underwater which you deem white.Otherwise, at least set it to "flash".

Another solution would be the one we have recently discussed, whereby you
put a deflector on the housing to fire a slave, which you can have much more
control over.

A third would be to place a diffuser (a thin white sheet of plastic) over
the flash port, which would soften the light from the flash. Topside,
ladies' stockings are also excellent for the purpose, but I'm not sure I
even want to try to visualize how you might apply it to a camera housing :-)

A fourth would be to try a favourite of some underwater digital
videographers (and some mask manufacturers), and place a red filter over the
port. This has the effect of restoring many colours otherwise lost without
flash. All Ike's video housings, and some digital camera housings, come with
this filter. Any decent camera shop stocks so-called "gel filters", which
are really only thin pieces of cellophane or acetate in various colours.
Topside, they are meant to slot into a holder on the front of the lens, but
a pair of scissors and some velcro or the like should be all you need to get
it to adhere to your housing.

Lastly, many digital cameras are equipped with so-called light-gathering
lenses. This is terrific in low-light conditions, but sometimes works
against you underwater - especially if you shoot up - towards the sun-lit
surface! Now, shooting up is, IMO, imperative for decent underwater shots,
so your only recourse is to ALSO follow the second adage: get close!

There, that should give you something to play with :-)

> How much de-fogging solution do other people use?

Never used any, never seen it used. Is that recommended by Sony ?

> dive, do they apply it?  Are there any other tips for eliminating housing
> humidity? (Small silica gel packs?)

I would consider that a much better solution.

 >Is the on-board flash best disabled and
> an alternate exterior lighting source beter?

Yes, for a whole number of reasons. Basically, onboard flashes are rarely
any good on any camera - above or below water. The light they emit is too
close to the subject and to the lens, resulting in very hard light, and - on
the surface - in the dreaded red-eye effect. Removing the light source a
distance from the lens and subject generates many more options, and nearly
always more pleasing lighting. Underwater, on-board flash also tends to
result in more backscatter, again because it is too close to the lens.

> Is an accompanying U/W video
> light a worthwhile investment?

Depends. If you have a light-gathering lens on the camera, you could get
very washed-out pictures. I would go with a slave strobe.

> BTW, Mate!  I lob into Singapore on the 15th April, (staying at the
Pan-Pac)
> so you'd better start topping up the bar fridge!

Consider it done :-) Will Tricky be with you (affirmatively, I may have to
actually buy one more fridge..) ?

> Dehydration can lead to a terrible thirst!  :-)

I though you were permanently pickled...? ;-)

Bjorn