Honest opinions on my picture quality
- Thread starter adammreef
- Start date
IPT
Active member
k, the first two are spot on techincally. Sharp, nice color, good exposure. The 3rd is a tad soft in the eye (of course that could just be my eyes....
) and the 4th appears to have some sort of glare type reflection on the glass (or a streak or something).
Overall very ncie, especially the first two. Wouls have been even better with less DOF or if he was further from the rocks so the background was softer or less obvious but nice images just the same.
Is it in a reef? Any issues with him? I am seriosuly considering getting one in my mixed 75 (soon to be 120). I know it's hit and miss, but how have your experiences been with him?
) and the 4th appears to have some sort of glare type reflection on the glass (or a streak or something). Overall very ncie, especially the first two. Wouls have been even better with less DOF or if he was further from the rocks so the background was softer or less obvious but nice images just the same.
Is it in a reef? Any issues with him? I am seriosuly considering getting one in my mixed 75 (soon to be 120). I know it's hit and miss, but how have your experiences been with him?
Recty
New member
Exactly what I was thinking as well, except I think the whole fish in pic #3 is slightly out of focus, not just the eye.k, the first two are spot on techincally. Sharp, nice color, good exposure. The 3rd is a tad soft in the eye (of course that could just be my eyes....
Very nice looking flame, I like the slightly aberrant look to it.
adammreef
New member
Thanks for the feedback, when you say that the third one is soft what do you mean by that? And yes I agree in the last picture that the glare is there I'm thinking its a combination of the flash and the glass being a little dirty. As for the fish in general I have never had a problem with mine they can be hit or miss just like any other angel, but mine is great and the tank he is in has only mushrooms and some zoas. But I would add him into a full reef tank with no worries.
Recty
New member
Meaning it isnt "sharp", it's soft. The lines are a little blurry, it's out of focus just slightly.
None of them look sharp to me. I don't think that it's necessarily your fault directly. Parts of every image are sharp and in focus. The problem is that it's not usually the fish.
With your camera you can manually select your focus point, or manually focus, that'd be a good start.
With your camera you can manually select your focus point, or manually focus, that'd be a good start.
adammreef
New member
Thanks again for the feedback. I see what you mean about the shots being a little out of focus would this have anything to do with the fish? He was very difficult to even get these pictures of because he was moving very fast also I was not using a tripod for any of these shots do you think that would also help at all? Doug thanks for the feedback I will give that a shot tonight as well. The one question I have for you is how would I be able to manually focus with the fish moving so fast?
TitusvileSurfer
New member
Manually focusing literally means turning the focus ring on your lens to track your fish. I noticed you are using a 28-135mm lens so auto focus speed and speed leave a little to be desired. By manual focusing you can make up for slow auto focus, but it takes a lot of practice and hand eye coordination. The first two were pleasing and sharp enough for casual observation, but I agree they weren't sharp enough when it comes down to being critical.
I have had a flame angel in my mixed reef (SPS, LPS, and softies) for about a year with no problems. As others said above, it can be hit and miss, and luckily, it was a hit on the first try for me.
As for the photos, I have to agree with Doug and TS on this one. Not much else to add.
As for the photos, I have to agree with Doug and TS on this one. Not much else to add.
In that case, they're all excellent. :lol:
Matias Ilhabela
New member
try putting the machine in manual mode, set at 250/11 or 200/10, a decrease of the flash point and take pictures, then you can correct the white balance in photoshop by pressing ctrl + shift + L or CTRL + ALT + L
Another option is to place the machine in order to reduce P a flash point of tb (lower intensity) that's always using the Iso in 100
Another option is to place the machine in order to reduce P a flash point of tb (lower intensity) that's always using the Iso in 100
Jacob D
New member
Overall I think they are good. Fish are very challenging. The focus in #4 is good; too bad about the glare. The others are close. You also appear to have a little motion blur also; 1/100 of a sec is not really fast enough to freeze motion. 1/200 would be better. I think these are as good if not better than the average fish shots posted here.
Manually focusing for fast action is next to impossible if you can't predict where the subject will be when you release the shutter.
Manually focusing for fast action is next to impossible if you can't predict where the subject will be when you release the shutter.
Jacob D
New member
LOL, Doug tell us how you really feel about the 28-135. Always picking on it... I know you secretly love it; you're just embarrassed to admit it
xtm
Active member
I think the sharpness is acceptable, but the fish seems to be over saturated especially on the red channel. (There is almost no detail on the fish's head) On your PP I would slightly desaturate this channel. #4 has some flares.. not a huge issue really, but IMO you should only show the best of the best.. meaning just the first 3 photos, which are very nice.
Overall I think you did a pretty great job. Small fishes aren't easy to photograph.
Overall I think you did a pretty great job. Small fishes aren't easy to photograph.
The new IS 100m macro is supposed to be very nice, but the original is still an excellent lens (and quite a bit cheaper).
The 28-135 was the worst lens I've ever owned. I hated it. The build quality sucked, it wasn't sharp, it had horrible CA, the zoom changed every time you moved the camera, contrast was terrible, the IS didn't really work. My happiest experience with it was getting getting money for it in my paypal account from some unsuspecting sucker.
How's that? :lol2:
TitusvileSurfer
New member
I should have held my tongue about the eh? It was just a guess given his focal lengths and apertures. I forgot about Doug's passionate enmity until after I wrote it.
It was just a guess given his focal lengths and apertures. I forgot about Doug's passionate enmity until after I wrote it. Another suggestion for you... Get the flash off the camera. Get a hotshoe, get a strobe, get something other than the built-in popup flash. You see the harsh fish shaped shadows you your pics?
See one here? This was actually taken with 2 umbrellas, one behind and above, the other at about a 60* angle from the fishes' perspective, and lower powered than the main. (I think my body blocked the main a bit as there is a hint of a shadow from the fill.)
See one here? This was actually taken with 2 umbrellas, one behind and above, the other at about a 60* angle from the fishes' perspective, and lower powered than the main. (I think my body blocked the main a bit as there is a hint of a shadow from the fill.)
