Best way to take pictures with actinics?

roktsintst

roktsintst

New member
I just got home w/ my new Nikon D60 and i took a couple nice pictures before the lights went out. now just the Actinics are on and all the pictures are blue and blurry.

Any tips on how i should set the camera to get good actinic pictures?
 
if you plan on taking pictures using just the acttinics you will need a tripod or shot at a high iso speed. Bad about the higher ISO is that is gets to grainy if you expose to long.
 
Setting the custom white balance is bad for actinics.

At least on my camera...:lol:
034165d6.jpg
 
I don't have that :(

Edit: When I bought my camera last year, I didn't even realize you could get a point and shoot with RAW...
 
Well RAW is more of a necessity than a luxury concerning antics. Here is what I whipped up real quick:
Untitled-5copy.jpg

It isn't great...but with RAW it could be perfect.
 
Also if it wasn't blurry and grainy to start with, that would probably help...I'm pretty sure I was in ISO 400 and kept my aperture wide open...maybe I just missed the focus.

What all did you do to it? I played around with the levels for a while, but no amount of adjustments that I was doing was getting rid of the overall green tinge. I wonder if maybe it would be better if I had just kept the white balance setting from shooting with the 14k on and adjusted the levels from there?
 
What editing program do you use? I have dinosaur Photoshop (like version 5.5 Dinosaur). It's time to update (yeah I said that when CS1, 2, and 3 came out). So I'll wait until CS 4 ;). They use CS3 at my school so I know my way around it. Very annoying when I go home though.:mad:
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13829431#post13829431 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Slakker
Also if it wasn't blurry and grainy to start with, that would probably help...
Click to expand...
Yeah I was only referring to the colors. Blurry and grainy has little to do with actinics. Its your duty as an American to get that right, not much I can do there lol.
 
I'm using CS3 now, but I had 5.5 for a long time.

I've done a lot of stuff with photoshop, but outside of the auto-adjustments I've never actually used it for photo-enhancement...lol

Edit: LOL! I'm not sure what else I can do for the blurries, short of buying a pro-style tripod for my $130 point and shoot...I mean, I know it would be a good investment for the future and all, seeing as I plan to upgrade to a DSLR at some point, but it still seems ridiculous to put more into a tripod than i did my camera :D
 
Hmmm well in 5.5 I used:

Curves
Color Balance
Hue/Saturation
Selective Color

Not necessarily in that order, I just played with it for a little bit and tried to get it in the ball park. Those are the adjustment fields I used though. I can't see the coral so I don't even know what color it is supposed to be in the first place. I just went with the first thing that looked believable.
 
Yeah, that's pretty close to what it looks like under the actinics. I guess I'll just have to play for more than 3 minutes if I ever manage to take a shot under the actinics that actually has some clarity :D
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13829522#post13829522 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Slakker

Edit: LOL! I'm not sure what else I can do for the blurries, short of buying a pro-style tripod for my $130 point and shoot...I mean, I know it would be a good investment for the future and all, seeing as I plan to upgrade to a DSLR at some point, but it still seems ridiculous to put more into a tripod than i did my camera :D
Click to expand...

The question isn't whether the money is ridiculous because a good support costs more than what it is supporting. The question is whether the money is worth getting a sharp shot of your corals (not to mention anything else) in low light without flash when it would otherwise be impossible.
 
well i had it in RAW but i got much better pictures when using a tripod. i still need ot figure out how to adjust the color on the camera.

Lots of reading Ahead For me!
 
Your not factoring in all the extra costs associated with a DSLR. That camera cost about $500. My 40D has cost me about $6000 when you factor in the extra goodies, which granted you don't have to have. If your going to get a DSLR though...it sort of defeats the purpose not to. A 40D is 1 step above a "digital rebel" so from my perspective, the G10 is 1/10 the price of said Rebel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Anemone
iPhone Pictures!
Replies
14
Views
779
Uncle99
Uncle99
raidendex
Fixing White Balance
Replies
2
Views
559
wvned
wvned
M
Can't find 60"VHO Actinics anymore... LED recommendations
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
griss
griss
E
What’s the best way to approach this?
Replies
3
Views
383
SantaMonica
S
Altpers0na
Jebao return pump
Replies
10
Views
818
Altpers0na
Altpers0na
Back
Top