Dr Foster/Smith Divers Den Photos

[d2mini]

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.

If you have to start a statement with "no offense" that's just another way of saying "I'm about to be an a-hole but here it goes anyway". :facepalm:

We're talking color here, not exposure. My meter is fine.
No matter what, the crazy lighting in our tanks is going cause some color issues. Even if you get one coral pretty much correct, the one next to it won't look right. I even encounter situations where one color on the coral is correct and then another color on the same coral but from the opposite side of the color spectrum does not look the same as it does in person. And no digital sensor this side of medium format can handle the dynamic range so if you are not using supplemental lighting to fill shadows, some post work is needed there as well.

I dunno what you are shooting all day, but it's high volume and I completely understand the need to get it correct in camera and I assume you are shooting jpg which applies in-camera settings. Bu when it comes to shooting my tanks I can take my time, shoot in RAW (which I always do anyway), and then enjoy the process of getting the image to look it's best. Shooting the tank is a completely different animal than shooting portraits, catalog items, etc.

 

[NatureNerd]

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 ..

Not at all true. Use a macro lens like a portrait lens and take a head shot of a person, then use a normal prime at the same subject size in the frame and the same aperture. The DOF will be the same. Do a goggle search if you have any doubts. A 200 macro lens will have the same DOF as a 200 prime if the subject is photographed from the same distance. Take a scenic shot with a macro lens set at f/16 and you will have "miles" of DOF. The whole DOF thing is a little counter intuitive. Most of my students simply don't believe it until they experiment. The one that gets them is: a head shot with a 200mm at f/8 will have the same DOF as a head shot with a 100mm at f/8. Of course to take the same image with the 100, you have to move closer by a factor of two.

Subject magnification at the sensor is a function of distance to subject and focal length of the lens used. My earlier statement is correct. DOF is a function of subject mag at the sensor and aperture.

 

[pledosophy]

If you have to start a statement with "no offense" that's just another way of saying "I'm about to be an a-hole but here it goes anyway". :facepalm:

Some people feel that way, that's fine. People take criticism differently.

We're talking color here, not exposure. My meter is fine.
No matter what, the crazy lighting in our tanks is going cause some color issues. Even if you get one coral pretty much correct, the one next to it won't look right. I even encounter situations where one color on the coral is correct and then another color on the same coral but from the opposite side of the color spectrum does not look the same as it does in person. And no digital sensor this side of medium format can handle the dynamic range so if you are not using supplemental lighting to fill shadows, some post work is needed there as well.

You won't get accurate color without accurate exposure. This thread is about individual fish or corals, not full tank shots. For a full tank shot I would have given you different advice (I have some really nice HDR software for those which I use know however in the past I did do a composite image for a client's huge coral tank 8x12x8 if I recall correctly) .

I asked questions to see if I could help you, you replied with "it's fine". To me that is like when people say my fish is sick and all of my parameters are fine. Just sayin. You think it is a sensor problem, that's fine, I disagree. I do kinda miss medium format thought since you brought it up, my old pentax was a beast.

As for my work, I do mostly portraits, I do some commercial, and I have worked for many etailers taking pictures of there corals for sale, and do use the method I described to do so.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with using photoshop to change the look of your corals for your own personal use. I am not saying there is anything wrong with photoshop, I love it very much and spent years in school learning it. If that is what you want to do to get the look you want, all power to you. I am saying it is very possible for people with the right gear and the know how to get photo's straight out of the camera that look just like they do on Divers Den.

 

[pledosophy]

Not at all true. Use a macro lens like a portrait lens and take a head shot of a person, then use a normal prime at the same subject size in the frame and the same aperture. The DOF will be the same. Do a goggle search if you have any doubts. A 200 macro lens will have the same DOF as a 200 prime if the subject is photographed from the same distance. Take a scenic shot with a macro lens set at f/16 and you will have "miles" of DOF. The whole DOF thing is a little counter intuitive. Most of my students simply don't believe it until they experiment. The one that gets them is: a head shot with a 200mm at f/8 will have the same DOF as a head shot with a 100mm at f/8. Of course to take the same image with the 100, you have to move closer by a factor of two.

Subject magnification at the sensor is a function of distance to subject and focal length of the lens used. My earlier statement is correct. DOF is a function of subject mag at the sensor and aperture.

So your saying the macro lens used as a macro lens is designed to do wen taking pictures of a coral at a high aperature say f16 will have a blurred background due to the magnification.

Me too.

I guess in my thinking if your using a macro lens to take traditional headshots of people it is not being used as a macro lens.

I agree and disagree with your comment:

The one that gets them is: a head shot with a 200mm at f/8 will have the same DOF as a head shot with a 100mm at f/8.

There is so much how would you say it "less backrground" at the longer focal length I find it less intrusive which to me is at the core of what DOF is all about.

I guess this is not the forum for that though.

 

[d2mini]

Some people feel that way, that's fine. People take criticism differently.



You won't get accurate color without accurate exposure. This thread is about individual fish or corals, not full tank shots. For a full tank shot I would have given you different advice (I have some really nice HDR software for those which I use know however in the past I did do a composite image for a client's huge coral tank 8x12x8 if I recall correctly) .

I asked questions to see if I could help you, you replied with "it's fine". To me that is like when people say my fish is sick and all of my parameters are fine. Just sayin. You think it is a sensor problem, that's fine, I disagree. I do kinda miss medium format thought since you brought it up, my old pentax was a beast.

As for my work, I do mostly portraits, I do some commercial, and I have worked for many etailers taking pictures of there corals for sale, and do use the method I described to do so.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with using photoshop to change the look of your corals for your own personal use. I am not saying there is anything wrong with photoshop, I love it very much and spent years in school learning it. If that is what you want to do to get the look you want, all power to you. I am saying it is very possible for people with the right gear and the know how to get photo's straight out of the camera that look just like they do on Divers Den.

Like i said, the modern digital sensor can't handle the dynamic range with exposure and some of our tank lighting. That's a fact. I can set up a tank with a 10k metal halide and get color spot on. After thinking about it, I figured the person shooting this stuff has one or two tanks setup just for this purpose of shooting coral. That would be the smart thing to do. That way you could choose the best lighting to achieve the best photo, not the best lighting for the best looking tank. Which goes back to what we were all saying earlier about the corals looking different under your own tank lighting. Would also explain similar backgrounds. But when shooting in our own tanks, there can be some real funky lighting situations that will require some post work to be accurately represented.

And ya, you're not the only photographer familiar with hdr software, photoshop, etc. I've been working in photoshop since well before there were layers. No big deal. I shoot architecture for architects, product photography including food, jewelry, etc, and most people here have seen my work on one of our sponsor's websites and brochures at your LFS. I am quite familiar with proper exposure and color and I'm also familiar with the limitations of my equipment. I also spend a lot of the time art directing photographers and then adjusting the files I receive from them!

But now I'm done with your little ****ing match that is going nowhere. :deadhorse1:

 

[NatureNerd]

So your saying the macro lens used as a macro lens is designed to do wen taking pictures of a coral at a high aperature say f16 will have a blurred background due to the magnification.

Me too.

I guess in my thinking if your using a macro lens to take traditional headshots of people it is not being used as a macro lens.

I agree and disagree with your comment:


There is so much how would you say it "less backrground" at the longer focal length I find it less intrusive which to me is at the core of what DOF is all about.

I guess this is not the forum for that though.

Ok, like most these things, the differences are probably just in semantics. It seems we agree, we are just using different terminology. In the example above DOF is constant but background inclusion is not at all. We would both find the shot with a less intrusive background, because of the narrower field of view, more appealing. Sorry, sometimes I take words too literally. Now back to corals...

 

[cubsFAN]

pledosophy wants to marry the DD photographer and have like 10,000 of her babies...

34.