Deepest Dive Under Antarctica

Check out lucid dreaming. Becoming "awake" and aware within a dream is a really intense and amazing experience. A fairly cheap way to experience other worlds.

True...

I prefer this pic I edited:

http://i.imgur.com/lY7VbXG.jpg

Over the original...

(Seriously, I prefer the more surreal version of pics I take some times, over the original.

I took that pic of hearst castle, and the original was rather bland, some detail too dark, some washed out, it was crooked etc...

I edited it to this, and I prefer this version over the original.

I also make most pics of myself in Black and White... I prefer B&W over color.)

There's truth to this, but bear in mind computer screens also can't capture the vivid colors that exist in real life.

Just yesterday I went to an arboretum and saw some beautiful bluish-purple morning glory flowers that are very much outside of the sRGB gamut.

They don't look altered to me. Some special filter on camera are applied, of course, but doesnt seem any Photoshopping was involved.

Of course water is THIS clear when you dive in most cold waters, given Antarctica. Lower temperatures make less stuff to bloom in water so no living material to "soil" the water body; and also lower temps. add clarity - same as colder air makes objects look sharper.

Experience: diving across European cold waters since 13; taking semi-pro photos since 19 yrs old.

I'm an underwater photographer. You're not wrong, but here's the thing, the deeper you go, the less light is present and the reds get filtered out. My fingernails and hands at 60ft down look purple. So editing is a must. Here's a good overview of a common underwater photograph practice: http://diveadvisor.com/sub2o/get-your-white-balance-done-rig...

It's the equivalent of telling someone to pose facing the sun so there's enough light shining on their face. We do the same thing but with strobes and editing, because when you're 100ft down, it's never lighter than twilight.

These Nat Geo photos don't look altered all that much. Good photographers will make subjects look as they do to the naked eye.

It's really not so simple as this. It's really dim under the sea ice and these divers have used strobes and floodlights to pick out subjects in a dramatic way. On that front I don't think the images required much tampering with. It's just a photographic way of trying to convey the grandeur and beauty you'd experience if you were actually there.

In terms of how "vivid" the photos are, the problem is often quite the other way around to how you put it.

I've spent a lot of time exploring jungles and coral reefs, marvelling at the divesity of nature, all the jewel-like lifeforms on display. It's very difficult to capture with a camera what your eyes perceive as brilliant coloration and exquisitely contrasted form. Your visual system makes many profound processing adjustments based on your total lighting environment: chromatic adaptation, simultaneous contrast, perceptual constancy, and so on. You perceive a green insect on a green leaf as vivid and striking when you're in the jungle with it, but dull when looking at the correctly exposed photo you took of it.

Not to mention your vision has a larger dynamic range than a camera sensor and a wider color gamut than a typical computer screen.

Crude postprocessing will attempt to correct for this by just pumping up saturation, which is maybe what you're complaining about on Instagram. But the best nature photography compensates in other, more subtle and appropriate ways, and the result approaches the wonder we experience "in real life".

Dont go there, please. Leave it alone.

Like I needed another reason to be scared of the ocean

Network Engineer and GSAR (glacier search and rescue). I did an AMA down there that hit the front page of Reddit if you're interested in learning more about it:

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5656e1/iama_i_dont_ha...