Or, “The Life Aquatic with Fifteen Smackaroos”. That’s how Danny Fulgencio describes the project. For this Monday’s photography post, we return to one of my personal favorites, The Pet Issue of September 2012. Remember Redgie? Below the pic, Danny describes his effort.
Danny: Let’s face it: Photography is expensive. No matter how much money you might have to dump on camera equipment, there’s a photo company out there eager to knock a few zeros off your bank statement.
This was no less apparent last year when I was tasked with photographing two Lake Highlands waterdogs for our Pet Issue: Avery, the Robles Family’s healer-pointer mix and Redgie, the Eckel Family’s adoring black lab. So how do you photograph waterborne dogs in an interesting way? Why not shoot underwater?
Several point-and-shoot cameras offer water resistance, but what about big honkin’ DLSRs?
Just for laughs, I researched the cost of an underwater housing for my camera. You might think a waterproof box couldn’t cost that much, right? Wrong. A moderately priced housing for my particular camera sells for around $1500, while a fancy schmancy model clocks a ghastly $4500.
Sure, being able to make high-resolution photographs in Davie Jones’ Locker would be like, totally awesome, but I wasn’t shooting the Bismarck—I just needed to photograph dogs in swimming pools.
With a serious underwater housing out of the question and after having weighed the inherent risk of submerging a high-end camera in a Ziploc bag, I found this solution: a $15 five-gallon fish tank.
While the dogs’ owners threw toys into the pool, I somewhat blindly focused on the dogs with my knees on the pool’s edge, one hand holding a semi-submerged fish tank and the other steadying the camera—all while mindful of when to trip the shutter, where the waterline’s ebb and flow pressed against the glass and whether or not water was leaking into the tank. Shooting this way was neither easy nor comfortable, but in the end we were able to make a few photos with a touch more dynamism than just shooting topside.
And then there was Avery …
Danny cont.: For several reasons, including the obvious, it may be unrealistic to expect Nat Geo-quality shark photography in your neighbor’s pool. In retrospect, keeping the glass free of water droplets would have been a plus, and a little preparation with Rain-X might have done the trick. Also, expect a fair amount of trial and error—emphasis on error. And, finally, as lovable as they may be, working with animals is often unpredictable at best.
But if you want to make some interesting poolside photos this Summer—which may start any day now—it might be fun to buy a cheap fish tank for your camera and give your photos the Poor Man’s Jacques Cousteau treatment.
Besides, you can later use that fish tank to stow your loose change. But be warned, if you do so with the intent of saving for an elite underwater camera housing, you might want to trade in that five-gallon tank for the 55-gallon variety.
