June Photo Contest: Wrasses!
- Thread starter gregr
- Start date
- Status
Hardly a photograph anymore? Ouch!
I do have a clue what I am doing: www.aquariumdesigngroup.com
All I have done is show the true colors of this specimen the way the human eye sees it, not how a digital device sees it. I even color compare my prints to the actual tank for accuracy. Photoshop is a valuble tool for this process.
Doesn't look natural? And other submissions with marginal focus, poor DOF, and major color casts do look "natural"?
general data for the shot:
1/200 at f/22 , ISO 100
I do have a clue what I am doing: www.aquariumdesigngroup.com
All I have done is show the true colors of this specimen the way the human eye sees it, not how a digital device sees it. I even color compare my prints to the actual tank for accuracy. Photoshop is a valuble tool for this process.
Doesn't look natural? And other submissions with marginal focus, poor DOF, and major color casts do look "natural"?
general data for the shot:
1/200 at f/22 , ISO 100
Last edited:
maroun.c
New member
Very nice pics in that gallery.
I'm still confused with the picture you posted here, With a f/22 that tank must be pretty well lit as I don't see effects of flash that would light up a pic at f/22 at 1/200 using 100 ISO?
Not saying it's not true but I'm amazed with the clarity of that shot and the flashless appearence. can you please share your tank lighting as well as camera, lens and lighting used for this picture? It would be great to post a comparative out of the camera shot. However I guess that would be better done in a separate thread.
I'm not against image processing as it's an art in itself but it would be great if a camera is capable of similar results without extensive photoshoping.
That's a hard comment for people just starting or with less knowledge in photography.
Guess it'll be much more usefull to share your techniques and teach others when you have such impressive capabilities be it photography or photoshoping.
I'm still confused with the picture you posted here, With a f/22 that tank must be pretty well lit as I don't see effects of flash that would light up a pic at f/22 at 1/200 using 100 ISO?
Not saying it's not true but I'm amazed with the clarity of that shot and the flashless appearence. can you please share your tank lighting as well as camera, lens and lighting used for this picture? It would be great to post a comparative out of the camera shot. However I guess that would be better done in a separate thread.
I'm not against image processing as it's an art in itself but it would be great if a camera is capable of similar results without extensive photoshoping.
That's a hard comment for people just starting or with less knowledge in photography.
Guess it'll be much more usefull to share your techniques and teach others when you have such impressive capabilities be it photography or photoshoping.
Blazer88
Premium Member
Also, using F/22 would essentially have infinite DOF but the live rock isn't in focus in the picture which is strange. Are you sure those are the correct settings? I'm guessing a typo as I've never seen any tank have enough light to use ISO 100 and 1/200 shutter speed, let alone an aperture of F/22. Do you have the original with the exif intact? My photo was at 1/100, ISO 1000, and F/5. In comparison to your numbers, you have about 8 times the amount of light as I do. I'd love to hear what equipment you used for that.
My pleasure!
My camera is a Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II DSLR, (16 megapixel), so the resolution is very high.
In terms of flash, the reason you do not see the shadows is a direct result of the technique itself, designed to eliminate shadows as hard shadows are in fact (in many professionals' opinion) what make this type of shooting look truly unnatural.
So here I used 2 Canon 580EX external flashes-- one mounted above the tank, the other handheld, down low and angled up toward the subject, and stopped down 1/3. In this way you capture the subject "in between" the two flashes and the shadows are effectively cancelled out.
I am also using a wireless trigger to fire the flashes. The Canon version is model ST-E2.
With the dual flash set up, you can shoot VERY fast (1/200 for my camera is not a problem), use very big f-stops (again f/22 here), and shoot very low ISO (100 in this instance, those these are all pretty typical settings when I do specimen shooting/macro work).
So indeed, a big part of the of the high clarity, very wide color gamut, and very low noise is owed to the high-end equipment I am using, but there is of course some knowledge of how to use it necessary. For sure very similar and even outright superior results can be achieved with a decent mid-range DSLR and the two flash set-up.
I also shoot 100% RAW. The RAW file-- unlike a jpeg-- is more like a "digital negative". It allows you to imbue the image with a truer sense of what you as a human being see in the aquarium-- not what a soulless digital camera sees. The sensor is in effect is only capturing the base light/color information. Editing with RAW file software allows you to add the data yourself that normally you would have left up to the camera to do for you. It's more complex than what I can lay out here in single post, but hopefully that gives some sense of what's going on here.
So, I only kindly ask that my work not be discriminated against simply because the approach is different. This is something I have studied and spent years working hard at. I have not added any color that was not there to begin with, and I actually use saturation with great caution, as when you push saturation too hard, and inherent symptom is graininess and blotchy or blown out areas of the color gamut. I don't believe in a lowest common denominator system when it comes to photography-- that obviously makes no sense.
Not to shamelessly plug another site, but it is so educational, I think it's OK-- but do check out this site dedicated to this type of shooting. It's www.aquatic-photography.com and it's all about aquarium photography and how to do create better images of your fish. many of the regulars there are far better than me, for sure, and you can really learn a lot. Many of the images I see around the internet are typical of beginners-- they are just pointing their camera at the tank and accepting what they get back. There is a more precise way to do this, and the results are so enjoyable.
I'd love to help anyone get better at photographing their fish and aquarium. There countless Photoshop techniques to very simply make your images better-- not manipulate them into something they are not, but bring to life what is actually there.
My camera is a Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II DSLR, (16 megapixel), so the resolution is very high.
In terms of flash, the reason you do not see the shadows is a direct result of the technique itself, designed to eliminate shadows as hard shadows are in fact (in many professionals' opinion) what make this type of shooting look truly unnatural.
So here I used 2 Canon 580EX external flashes-- one mounted above the tank, the other handheld, down low and angled up toward the subject, and stopped down 1/3. In this way you capture the subject "in between" the two flashes and the shadows are effectively cancelled out.
I am also using a wireless trigger to fire the flashes. The Canon version is model ST-E2.
With the dual flash set up, you can shoot VERY fast (1/200 for my camera is not a problem), use very big f-stops (again f/22 here), and shoot very low ISO (100 in this instance, those these are all pretty typical settings when I do specimen shooting/macro work).
So indeed, a big part of the of the high clarity, very wide color gamut, and very low noise is owed to the high-end equipment I am using, but there is of course some knowledge of how to use it necessary. For sure very similar and even outright superior results can be achieved with a decent mid-range DSLR and the two flash set-up.
I also shoot 100% RAW. The RAW file-- unlike a jpeg-- is more like a "digital negative". It allows you to imbue the image with a truer sense of what you as a human being see in the aquarium-- not what a soulless digital camera sees. The sensor is in effect is only capturing the base light/color information. Editing with RAW file software allows you to add the data yourself that normally you would have left up to the camera to do for you. It's more complex than what I can lay out here in single post, but hopefully that gives some sense of what's going on here.
So, I only kindly ask that my work not be discriminated against simply because the approach is different. This is something I have studied and spent years working hard at. I have not added any color that was not there to begin with, and I actually use saturation with great caution, as when you push saturation too hard, and inherent symptom is graininess and blotchy or blown out areas of the color gamut. I don't believe in a lowest common denominator system when it comes to photography-- that obviously makes no sense.
Not to shamelessly plug another site, but it is so educational, I think it's OK-- but do check out this site dedicated to this type of shooting. It's www.aquatic-photography.com and it's all about aquarium photography and how to do create better images of your fish. many of the regulars there are far better than me, for sure, and you can really learn a lot. Many of the images I see around the internet are typical of beginners-- they are just pointing their camera at the tank and accepting what they get back. There is a more precise way to do this, and the results are so enjoyable.
I'd love to help anyone get better at photographing their fish and aquarium. There countless Photoshop techniques to very simply make your images better-- not manipulate them into something they are not, but bring to life what is actually there.
Last edited:
WOW-- skeptical indeed! You need to spend about 5 minutes at Aquatic Photography Forum and you will see the settings and techniques I am using are VERY common. In fact, I learned them from others there that are way better at this than me. They can also explain the DOF issue you raise. I forgot to mention above I am using a 100mm macro (prime) lens. With the amount of light generated by 2 flashes, aquarium (available) light is a non-issue, though it is helpful that most reef tanks have VERY bright light, and this one was no exception, but the dual flash set-up is really what achieves this effect. The focus of a true dedicated macro lens is a differnent beast all together. f/22 does not focus to infinity. It gives maximum DOF on the subject in focus, which is in this case the fish. That's why the fish is SO sharp from end to end, and that's the idea.
This technique is about perfection, not compromise, and capturing the full depth of beauty of aquarium fish. You'll find when captured using this technique, the subtle beauty and almost hidden hues of otherwise "bland" fish are revealed and it is almost magical. Intensely colored specimens like this wrasse reveal color, depth and pattern that almost overwhelms the senses. That's my goal, not to portray some photoshop trickery, but to truly reveal the beauty of these fishes.
The Canon 100mm macro is a very sophisticated, function specific lens, and will produce very different results from any zoom lens or "macro" setting on a P&S.
No typos, just sound technique used by many. Ed Greenberg is the founder of APF and he taught me all of this.
Digital photography is a combination of both camera and software. Just like with a film camera the work in the darkroom has everything to do with the printed image. Digital cameras NEVER resolve an aquarium properly from my experience. I have never had a sensor alone accurately reproduce the dynamism of what my eye sees, so I use the software to get the image closer to that and skepticism rather than "please tell me how you do that" won't help anyone progress.
I'd be happy to show the original RAW file of this image for all to see. Shall I create a separate post for that?
Last edited:
maroun.c
New member
Jsenke,
I realize my post ight have sounded a bit skeptical but if you read it again
I didn't ask you to show the original to proove your statment as you don't owe that to anyone.
Reason for asking for an out of camera pic was only to assess how good that camera was and to see the differrences with some new processing method (still it's only for learning objective and not to question your honesty so dont' feel obliged to do it)
I did think about dual flash setup (not because I'm so knowledgeable in photography) but because I previously worked on it with dual flashs in flash softboxes trigered wirelessly visa Nikon CLS will post pics of their reflection on full tank shots and some pics with that setup, However I never reached anywhere near the amount of light you describe to go that fast in my shutter or that small in my aperture.My setup had the two flashes at both edges angled down and towards the tank. Once again sorry for the confusion and for what it's worth you have a winner shot.
Most of my attempts at single, Dual and Dual in softobox flashes can be seen here
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v617/Maroun/Flash Photography/?start=all
I did have some good results from the similar lighting but never managed to achieve what you did in PP that is in having hte image truely reflect what you see.
I realize my post ight have sounded a bit skeptical but if you read it again
You'll realize i wasn't asking you to proove what you are saying just expalining as it was a bt different from what you usually see.
I didn't ask you to show the original to proove your statment as you don't owe that to anyone.
Reason for asking for an out of camera pic was only to assess how good that camera was and to see the differrences with some new processing method (still it's only for learning objective and not to question your honesty so dont' feel obliged to do it)
I did think about dual flash setup (not because I'm so knowledgeable in photography) but because I previously worked on it with dual flashs in flash softboxes trigered wirelessly visa Nikon CLS will post pics of their reflection on full tank shots and some pics with that setup, However I never reached anywhere near the amount of light you describe to go that fast in my shutter or that small in my aperture.My setup had the two flashes at both edges angled down and towards the tank. Once again sorry for the confusion and for what it's worth you have a winner shot.
Most of my attempts at single, Dual and Dual in softobox flashes can be seen here
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v617/Maroun/Flash Photography/?start=all
I did have some good results from the similar lighting but never managed to achieve what you did in PP that is in having hte image truely reflect what you see.
Well thank you for that.
Take a look at what some real pros are doing with fish macro photography. The setting and techniques are always the same within a few stops.
What is key to the set up is to have the overhead flash directly overhead, maybe angled back just a tad, and for the subject to be directly under it, but not too close to it (the overhead flash that is). The fill flash is, again, hand held, slightly stopped down (I don't know why really, that's just what the guys that taught me this technique say to do and it works). The wireless firing of both flashes at the same time, the proper placement of the subject and all the angles coming together can produce easily images of the quality you see in this wrasse shot.
Also, please know that to get one good all around exposure like this one, I'll take maybe 100 shots, often many more (I have filled up 2 and 4 gig CF cards) most of which are junk and have problems (99% are useless and deleted). So these are the real diamonds in the rough so to speak, especially in this shot where the fish's filaments are raised-- that was a one in a million-- very tough to capture and certainly luck plays a role, though after an hour straight of watching any one fish exclusively, you start to see patterns emerge in their behaviors/swim patterns etc. I saw that this fish would swim t oa particular point in the tank-- a particular pattern almost-- and followed that closely. I set up my flash overhead at a point where he usually slowed down to turn around, and routinely would flash his little filaments. So luck was a component, but observation and mostly PATIENCE were major points as well.
I don't mean to get offended so easily, but I am really into this and have worked hard to get decent at it and I am not trying to manipulate of fool anyone with Photoshop trickery, so when someone says my work is "hardly a photograph anymore", well that gets my dander up a bit I suppose. Photography for me is the melding of human and technology, and I choose to exercise priority of my own vision over that of a digital camera sensor, which seldom sees the world and the range of light and color (on it's own anyway) to the extent that our own human eyes do. That's all.
Take a look at what some real pros are doing with fish macro photography. The setting and techniques are always the same within a few stops.
What is key to the set up is to have the overhead flash directly overhead, maybe angled back just a tad, and for the subject to be directly under it, but not too close to it (the overhead flash that is). The fill flash is, again, hand held, slightly stopped down (I don't know why really, that's just what the guys that taught me this technique say to do and it works). The wireless firing of both flashes at the same time, the proper placement of the subject and all the angles coming together can produce easily images of the quality you see in this wrasse shot.
Also, please know that to get one good all around exposure like this one, I'll take maybe 100 shots, often many more (I have filled up 2 and 4 gig CF cards) most of which are junk and have problems (99% are useless and deleted). So these are the real diamonds in the rough so to speak, especially in this shot where the fish's filaments are raised-- that was a one in a million-- very tough to capture and certainly luck plays a role, though after an hour straight of watching any one fish exclusively, you start to see patterns emerge in their behaviors/swim patterns etc. I saw that this fish would swim t oa particular point in the tank-- a particular pattern almost-- and followed that closely. I set up my flash overhead at a point where he usually slowed down to turn around, and routinely would flash his little filaments. So luck was a component, but observation and mostly PATIENCE were major points as well.
I don't mean to get offended so easily, but I am really into this and have worked hard to get decent at it and I am not trying to manipulate of fool anyone with Photoshop trickery, so when someone says my work is "hardly a photograph anymore", well that gets my dander up a bit I suppose. Photography for me is the melding of human and technology, and I choose to exercise priority of my own vision over that of a digital camera sensor, which seldom sees the world and the range of light and color (on it's own anyway) to the extent that our own human eyes do. That's all.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10225394#post10225394 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by zenya
Guys,
If I could suggest one thing---> please take this to a separate thread to discuss techniques and critique images. I believe this thread is for submissions of the images related to the contest only.
Cheers, and let the best image win.
You are so right! My sincere apologies for getting so carried away. If mods would like to move my incessant ramblings to a more appropriate place or simply delete them altogether!
Sorry about all that.
- Status
