S/S Borghild

[Ole Gammelsæter]

Some images from a recent dive on the wreck of SS Borghild. Built at Aker Shipyard in Oslo, Norway in 1898. Sunk in 1938, close to the town of Kristiansund, after hitting a rock. A true "Donald Duck wreck". Meaning that is stays upright on a more or less flat sandy seabed, and still in one piece.
The conditions during the dive was not great. Overcast and bad visibility. D700 with a 16mm fisheye lens used. And two strobes.

[Øivind Tøien]

Great wreck images, I particularity like the use of the background diver to provide scale and visual depth in #3.
There must be a lot of colorful growth in #1 & 2, so I wonder how color versions would work out?
Looks like the depth is challenging - do I see a stage bottle under the arm pit of the background diver?

[Akira]

Hi, Ole, these are really intriguing images.  I wonder how much the angle-of-view of the 16mm fisheye would be narrowed.

Anyway, thanks for sharing!

[elsa hoffmann]

great images - I am always fascinated by U/W shots - thanks for posting!

[Ole Gammelsæter]

Thanks for the comments.

Øyvind: the depth of this wreck is 45m, so little or no marine growth. I can post colour versions.
The diver in the background uses a rebreather, so the stage bottle you see is his bail-out. I also used a stage bottle, buth with pure oxygen for use on the decompression stops (from 6m and up). The diver in the foreground did not have any stage, so he was hanging on decompression 15 minutes longer than me.
Akira: The field of view for the fisheye lens is the same as above water. A dome port is used, which prerves the lens coverage and also corrects corner sharpness. Only when a rectilinear lens is used in combination with a positive dioptre, a small reduction (5-10 degrees) of the coverage will result. And of course when using a lens behind a port with a single flat front element. This will result in a magnification of 1.33, caused by the refraction index between water and air.

[Akira]

Ole, thanks for the technical details which make me even more interested in these images. 

[Jørgen Ramskov]

Wow, great shots. I would love to see more. Do I understand correctly that you're at 45 meters below surface?

[Øivind Tøien]

Thanks for the details Ole. This is obviously not an average recreational dive.

[Ron Scubadiver]

Wow, so much better than typical fish portraits.  I have technical diving training and have been around rebreather users, so I understand some of what was involved in this activity.  For the non divers around here, 40M is the depth limit for recreational diving and deco stops with oxygen are also outside the limits of recreational diving too.  The divers here could not fully surface without injury unless they made long stops at various depths to allow excess nitrogen to leave their bodies.  Breathing pure oxygen speeds this process, but that is complicated because pure oxygen is toxic at depth.  The usual procedure (IIRC) is to hang on a rope or from a marker at about 5M breathing O2 for as long as it takes and watch the fish swim by.  If one runs out of breathing gas or their equipment malfunctions during this time they are in trouble.  This risk is managed by using redundant breathing systems and carrying about 50% more gas than should be needed for the dive.

[John Geerts]

Thanks for your explanation Ron. That gives a good impression on the difficulty of the circumstances of this operation  and gives literally depth to the  excellent photo's.

[Ole Gammelsæter]

Jørgen: yes, it is at 45m depth. Maybe not normal recreational diving depth, but still a quite easy dive. No current or waves. Many dive on this wreck with standard equipment and procedures too, but I prefer the larger tanks and "technical diving" kit and procedures so that I can stay at depth a bit longer.

Øyvind, attached is a colour version of the propeller. Which one do you prefer?