Dr Foster/Smith Divers Den Photos

[dustint]

My take on purchasing from any online coral joint is that its a bit of a gamble. If the place is reputable and has been around a while, then chances are your going to be happy. I think the pictures are going to be a good representation of the coral your buying. But heck, the coral could change color once in your tank. This is true with any coral bought from any source.

The sponsor brought up in the post has been around a long time so I wouldnt hesitate ordering from them. Heck Ive bought from dealers, not this one, who had reviews stating that they where crooks, and I still ordered from them and was pretty happy. But hey, I had a zoanthid addiction at the time and would have bought from someone on the street corner.

I would think that if a dealer changed a color from brown to say bright purple on a coral, then yes they are using photoshop layers and wouldn't be around long.

 

[Crusty Old Shellback]

While I haven't purchased anything from Diver's Den, I have made many other purchases from the good Dr's. I think they do a good job at trying to represent what they have to offer. So I don't beleive that they would try and enhance the color of theri coral photos just to make a sale. They have a very good reputation in the pet industry as a whole.

Pled, while you may personally know the photographer and her methods, your post is far from relaying some information. It appears more to me that you are bashing those who simply asked a question to increase their knowledge. Calling them ignorant is a bit too much don't you think when they are simply trying to learn?

If your truly a master with the camara, then here's your opportunity to educate and teach a fellow reefer, not to belittle him because he seeks knowledge. How's one to learn if they don't ask questions?

As the proverb says:
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for the day.
Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a life time"

 

[Stolireef]

It is true, however, that they and most other online places use far bluer light than many reefers, and they photograph from directly above, and folks should understand that things may not look even close to what they see once in their tank.

To their credit, Divers Den states how they photograph and most do not, but it still leads to disappointments.

Randy or others:

I guess this leads me to two questions. First, why does photographing from the top down produce such different results? I notice this with my clam (which looks dramatically more vivid when viewed from the top rather than the front of the tank).
Second, since most reefers spend their time looking at the front of the tank, would it not make more sense to provide photos from that perspective to potential buyers? That said, they do note the same on their website so I'm not complaining about failure to disclose but rather asking about the reason behind their methodology.

 

[psteeleb]

Randy or others:

I guess this leads me to two questions. First, why does photographing from the top down produce such different results? I notice this with my clam (which looks dramatically more vivid when viewed from the top rather than the front of the tank).
Second, since most reefers spend their time looking at the front of the tank, would it not make more sense to provide photos from that perspective to potential buyers? That said, they do note the same on their website so I'm not complaining about failure to disclose but rather asking about the reason behind their methodology.

It's a very valid point that doesn't get much attention. Top downs are more vibrant due to the corals or clams orienting their pigments to reflect excess light. The most intense light is from the top therefore the pigment orientation (in this case the sybiotic relationship with algea called Zooxanthella) is oriented to the top reflecting more light up then off to the side.

As for part two of your question I wish I had a top down coral reef I even considered using mirrors for viewing but lights and wave action tend to get in the way, so I climb a ladder.

 

[feh]

A ladder? Is your stand at std height?

 

[Stolireef]

As for part two of your question I wish I had a top down coral reef I even considered using mirrors for viewing but lights and wave action tend to get in the way, so I climb a ladder.

Me too. When I originally planned my tank, it was going to set up a lower stand so I could look 'top down'. Wife nixed the idea stating that she didn't want to have to look down at the tank when standing. Oh well. I now use the ladder technique as well.

 

[OregonReefer2]

I know the person who takes these photo's. have for years. I can promise you when she and I talked we spoke of the ways to most accurately represent the true color of the livestock. They are not juicing up there photo's.

Unless you have calibrated your screen (which some of us do daily) and are in a neutral environment (which some of us have had to actually build) then you screen and surrounding lighting is going to change the color of the images. Blaming someone else for your lack of experience in this field is ignorant.



15 years in the industry, and you are flat out wrong on this. You just need to learn how to use your camera better. I have had 160 or so clients in the last week, which is common for me. Accurate color pays my mortgage. We have to do it in camera shot right the first time with no post. That is the difference between being a professional photographer and well, whatever it is you do.



So obviously you have never used a macro lens. Using your ignorance to place blame on a seller is ridiculous.

A macro lens by design has a very shallow depth of field. They are not shooting at F45 (I know for sure because I know the camera she uses and it does not have this range) and using externaly lighting to pump up the flas so of course anything is going to have an out of focus backround, just like EVERYTHING ELSE SHOT WITH A MACRO LENS.

Reading a thread where people are flaming a good person after I know how hard she tries to make everything accurate and using there own lack of knowledge as justification is not humorous to me. The lack of respect for the knowledge behind what transpires is not surprising. It seems to be common place that people know 3% and are suddenly experts.

And you sir are a moron if you think they have their fish in rock stocked DTs so they can spend an hour tearing rock out to catch a fish. Your stupidity however, is completely overshadowed by what an a$$ you are.

I wasn't flaming them and don't care that, it appears IMHO, they impose a more attractive background in their photos. I said they seemed accurate but maybe you missed that part.

 

[mhurley]

simmer down with the name calling and let's step off our high horses too please.

 

[KeiferTheReefer]

I believe he probably took offence to you saying his friend was photoshopping the pics of species onto a background!

If you actually look through the DD site, you wil notice right away that they are not cut/ paste as you said! All backgrounds are different, and even shadows are present on most pics. I have to agree also, that a macro lens will indeed give you an out-of-focus background....common sense here!

DD is probably the most reputable online source there is, I am sure they wouldn't compromise that by cut/paste techniques! As others have said, they tell you right up front how they take photos, and I believe they would have no reason to lie about that!

 

[MaxxedMan]

Fat girls have been doing it since myspace

I'm afraid to ask what STD height is

 

[pledosophy]

And you sir are a moron if you think they have their fish in rock stocked DTs so they can spend an hour tearing rock out to catch a fish. Your stupidity however, is completely overshadowed by what an a$$ you are.

I wasn't flaming them and don't care that, it appears IMHO, they impose a more attractive background in their photos. I said they seemed accurate but maybe you missed that part.

Scrolling through any page of fish in the Divers Den section will clearly show that you are wrong. All the backgrounds are different. Nor does a piece of liverock make a tank a display tank, that is a further assumption on your part.

Having an opinion is fine, I like this color blue more then that color blue. What you are making is an accusation that affects a business and peoples livelihoods. You are doing so without merit, IME.

 

[pledosophy]

Ok, I'm all ears. Put your money where your mouth is.
Let's hear how you get your DSLR to get the colors of your corals to look exactly as they do in real life with no additional lighting, just the tank lights. I'll test it out. PM if you want.

Custom White Balance, this will change at different places in your tank, so you will have to shoot a new card for each coral.

Proper Exposure, your going to need an external light meter for this, not the one in your camera. This is where most people run into problems IME. Your internal meter is trying to get everything to a grey value and will alter the color. The severity of the impact will largely have to do with which in camera metering mode you are using.

Camera settings. Some cameras come set to change the value as you take a picture by increasing the amount of contrast, saturation, etc. Make sure to set these to neutral.

Another tip for corals which might have a minimal impact on coloration, but nothing significant but does help the photo's IMO is to turn off all of the pumps in the display so the water is at a stand still. The cleaner the water the better as detritus floating by will have an impact, but the main reason is for focusing for the longer exposures without getting movement and resulting in higher ISO's.

If you don't have the gear, you can always use a good raw converter later on a calibrated monitor to try to recreate the natural color. Personally for me, it is not uncommon for me to take 20,000 pictures in a week, and sometimes more then double that. If I actually had to pay someone to color correct each one of those images I would make zero profit. Even if it only took a minute an image can you imagine the expense? Perfect color out of the camera is very possible.

Edit: Also turn the lights off in the room you are shooting in. Best time to take tank pictures is in complete darkness in the rest of the room. Forgot to mention that.

 

[pledosophy]

Wow. Now I feel like a troll. As noted in my op, I admit my inexperience with photography and i'm not bashing F&S. i'm certainly not trying to insult the photographer. I am trying to understand the difference between the site photos and what is in the fed ex box, if any. I think I have a better handle on that now. Thanks.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

Sorry for making you fee like a troll.

 

[NatureNerd]

That is the difference between being a professional photographer and well, whatever it is you do.

So obviously you have never used a macro lens. Using your ignorance to place blame on a seller is ridiculous.

A macro lens by design has a very shallow depth of field. They are not shooting at F45 (I know for sure because I know the camera she uses and it does not have this range) and using externaly lighting to pump up the flas so of course anything is going to have an out of focus backround, just like EVERYTHING ELSE SHOT WITH A MACRO LENS.

Reading a thread where people are flaming a good person... The lack of respect for the knowledge behind what transpires is not surprising. It seems to be common place that people know 3% and are suddenly experts.

Whoa! Let's take a moment here. Because of some ad practices, people don't trust much of what we see on the web. It is an easy assumption to make if you don't know the details. Let's treat everyone with the respect you cite above.

I agree that DD does about the best at trying to fairly represent their items. The whole topic of color rendition is quite complex.

And, just to put the expertise point into context: "macro lens by design... very shallow depth of field", is a very incorrect statement. DOF is only a function of aperture and subject magnification at the sensor. Any lens with the same aperture and subject magnification at the sensor will have the same DOF. In fact, macro lenses tend to have smaller minimum apertures so they can deliver more DOF than other lens designs when shot fully closed down.

Also, "not shot at f/45.. know for sure...camera she uses..does not have this range...". It is the lens blade design, not the camera, that sets/limits the range of aperture and hence DOF.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Randy or others:

I guess this leads me to two questions. First, why does photographing from the top down produce such different results? I notice this with my clam (which looks dramatically more vivid when viewed from the top rather than the front of the tank).
Second, since most reefers spend their time looking at the front of the tank, would it not make more sense to provide photos from that perspective to potential buyers? That said, they do note the same on their website so I'm not complaining about failure to disclose but rather asking about the reason behind their methodology.

It has to do at least in part to the way light is reflected, but for some creatures, including certain fish and clams, the effect is really dramatic. I'm my tank, a bright blue clam from the side is bright green when seen from above.

 

[d2mini]

Custom White Balance, this will change at different places in your tank, so you will have to shoot a new card for each coral.

Proper Exposure, your going to need an external light meter for this, not the one in your camera. This is where most people run into problems IME. Your internal meter is trying to get everything to a grey value and will alter the color. The severity of the impact will largely have to do with which in camera metering mode you are using.

Camera settings. Some cameras come set to change the value as you take a picture by increasing the amount of contrast, saturation, etc. Make sure to set these to neutral.

Another tip for corals which might have a minimal impact on coloration, but nothing significant but does help the photo's IMO is to turn off all of the pumps in the display so the water is at a stand still. The cleaner the water the better as detritus floating by will have an impact, but the main reason is for focusing for the longer exposures without getting movement and resulting in higher ISO's.

If you don't have the gear, you can always use a good raw converter later on a calibrated monitor to try to recreate the natural color. Personally for me, it is not uncommon for me to take 20,000 pictures in a week, and sometimes more then double that. If I actually had to pay someone to color correct each one of those images I would make zero profit. Even if it only took a minute an image can you imagine the expense? Perfect color out of the camera is very possible.

Edit: Also turn the lights off in the room you are shooting in. Best time to take tank pictures is in complete darkness in the rest of the room. Forgot to mention that.

None of that is new to me and when it comes to shooting the tank, 90% of the time it still doesn't get it perfect. It only gets me close.

 

[snorvich]

Well, while we are on the "subject" I know of an LFS that has their corals in tubs so you HAVE to look top down because they know the color is better.

 

[Stolireef]

Sorry for making you fee like a troll.

Pled:

No problem. You are clearly pretty knowledgeable about this and I'm learning quite a bit from reading the thread, both about merchant practices and photography.

Frankly, I'm the world's worst reef photographer (always cut off their heads or feet). I've been considering getting an SLR so I can use manual focus and having my daughter play with Photoshop to better reproduce what things look like when you look at the front of the tank.

Thanks for your input.

 

[pledosophy]

And, just to put the expertise point into context: "macro lens by design... very shallow depth of field", is a very incorrect statement. DOF is only a function of aperture and subject magnification at the sensor. Any lens with the same aperture and subject magnification at the sensor will have the same DOF. In fact, macro lenses tend to have smaller minimum apertures so they can deliver more DOF than other lens designs when shot fully closed down.

Also, "not shot at f/45.. know for sure...camera she uses..does not have this range...". It is the lens blade design, not the camera, that sets/limits the range of aperture and hence DOF.

Regarding DOF, that is an elementary understanding of it, but it does not translate to all things photography. The depth of field of a 200m macro lens set to f16 can be less then an inch, while a 200m non macro lens that same DOF at F16 can be several miles.

The focal length of the lens as well the the magnification will affect depth of field, not just the aperture.

In regard to the camera, this may surprise you, but not all camera's accept all lenses. Some models have a more limited lens selection. It can do with the type i.e. canon, sony, nikon, olympus and can also have to do with the model (i.e. some canon cameras do not accept all canon lenses)

 

[pledosophy]

None of that is new to me and when it comes to shooting the tank, 90% of the time it still doesn't get it perfect. It only gets me close.

No offense but obviously you are doing something wrong or having an equipment malfunction. I am not magic and it works for me all day long. It is a bit unreasonable to think I can teach you a photography lesson over a forum but I gave you the ground work.

If this is consistent in most of your work, perhaps send your meter in for calibration. What meter are you using?

If you are using gear that is in good order, and a descent camera that formula works very well. I was even able to consistently replicate it ten years ago with a 10D.

Keep practicing and you'll get it.