Which camera - sorting white balance

A filter isn't the answer for snorkelers photographing in the upper 5 metre zone

Relatively inexpensive and easy - even in 'auto' mode - but putting it on-off or off-on - no thanks

Demonstrating that filters do deal effectively with white balance

Picture without filter
A filter works but seems inconvenient and unnecessary with the right camera.

The photos left and right are from Magic Filter's web site.   Both from a compact on auto exposure and auto white balance.   I have no idea whether from snorkeling or scuba diving or the depth.

If you are going to use a filter, choose a solid lens filter

If your camera housing is really simple it won't even have a thread for external, wet-lens mounting - (it must, simple as that).

For this situation, Magic filters can come as sheets of plastic which are cut and attach to the camera lens surround, or inside the underwater housing.   I've read of their being stuck on with Blu Tack.
Clearly, the only way to remove the filter is to go ashore.   Hmmmm!

So, make sure your underwater housing has an external thread.   Then you buy a solid lens filter which screws to the outside of the housing.

At least it can be screwed on and off in the water.

Why filters aren't suitable for snorkeling photography of fish but are fine for static objects such as coral

Why I don't recomment filters.   Choose a camera that automatically sorts white balance.   It makes life so much simpler.

If photographing just two or three metres down, or less, on a very bright day, filters can overdo their job and photos can have a red tinge.

So at these shallow depths the filter needs to be removed.   This is why solid lens filters are clearly better than cut sheets.   They can be screwed on and off without going ashore.
pugnacious chromis nibbling hand

Which camera for snorkeling
P5  of 11-  Next -
Another way a camera can sort white balance