macro fun
- Thread starter Reef Bass
- Start date
TitusvileSurfer
New member
Very nice series, I especially love the ORA Borealis!
"Undata (Too sharp? Something's not right. I'm going to reshoot at a lower ISO)"
Maybe the contrast could be bumped up? The polyps look plenty white enough but the base could stand to be a little darker. That said I think it looks just fine as it is.
"Undata (Too sharp? Something's not right. I'm going to reshoot at a lower ISO)"
Maybe the contrast could be bumped up? The polyps look plenty white enough but the base could stand to be a little darker. That said I think it looks just fine as it is.
Reef Bass
colors and textures
Thanks TS. I appreciate the feedback.
I'm surprised that I seem to care what a bunch of people I've never met think of my photos. A number of you have proven your talent and abilities exceed my own (not that that's that difficult) and so your opinions have weight. As a side note, while I appreciate the gentleness of peoples' comments, I think more constructively critical suggestions could be more beneficial from a a teaching / learning perspective. Saying a picture is "nice", while a sign of approval and a pleasant / pleasing comment, is not as helpful as saying "perhaps more contrast would reduce the flatness" or "more DOF would get more of the subject in focus". (not you TS, you followed up your "nice" with a concrete suggestion and observation) Maybe just suggesting the single most obvious point of improvement could be a compromise between "nice pic" and "step away from the camera". :lol:
Yeah, I like the Borealis too. It's a furry little guy. I'm noticing how important polyp extension is for me in my macro pics and Borealis doesn't disappoint. While other corals are keeping their dainty polyps mostly tucked into their coralites, Borealis lets it all hang out. I like that kind of honesty. I also like the lighting, composition, focal plane placement and DOF in that shot.
Yes, I think the Undata could be more contrasty. I've shot a number of pics of that coral and it just looks too flat and too sharp / noisy. Obviously I'm having a hard time putting my finger on the issue other than to recognize the pic should be better.
Still loving the camera and lens (and tripod!). I can see texture on the tentacles of the polyps of the Peach Millepora! I didn't know the tentacles HAD texture!
I'm surprised that I seem to care what a bunch of people I've never met think of my photos. A number of you have proven your talent and abilities exceed my own (not that that's that difficult) and so your opinions have weight. As a side note, while I appreciate the gentleness of peoples' comments, I think more constructively critical suggestions could be more beneficial from a a teaching / learning perspective. Saying a picture is "nice", while a sign of approval and a pleasant / pleasing comment, is not as helpful as saying "perhaps more contrast would reduce the flatness" or "more DOF would get more of the subject in focus". (not you TS, you followed up your "nice" with a concrete suggestion and observation) Maybe just suggesting the single most obvious point of improvement could be a compromise between "nice pic" and "step away from the camera". :lol:
Yeah, I like the Borealis too. It's a furry little guy. I'm noticing how important polyp extension is for me in my macro pics and Borealis doesn't disappoint. While other corals are keeping their dainty polyps mostly tucked into their coralites, Borealis lets it all hang out. I like that kind of honesty. I also like the lighting, composition, focal plane placement and DOF in that shot.
Yes, I think the Undata could be more contrasty. I've shot a number of pics of that coral and it just looks too flat and too sharp / noisy. Obviously I'm having a hard time putting my finger on the issue other than to recognize the pic should be better.
Still loving the camera and lens (and tripod!). I can see texture on the tentacles of the polyps of the Peach Millepora! I didn't know the tentacles HAD texture!
klepto
New member
Very enjoyable photos Ken!
Here's some of my thoughts as you are asking for them!
For my tastes, the ORA Borealis has a much more pleasant lighting/feel than the other images. Not sure if it was closer to an actinic, your exposure was on.. or what- but it seems to have a more balanced tone. The Mille and Undata shots appear to be slightly (only a stop or two at most i would imagine) overexposed. I like the sharpness on the Undata, but would try to bring out some more saturation. Finally I see the composition on your Birdsnest shot as a bit too dominated by the Digitata in the foreground- if you can keep Digi's branches limited to roughly 1/3 of the way into your frame I believe your subject will stand out more (obviously there are exceptions- if you taste leans more towards the current composition, stick with it!)
thanks for sharing your photos!
Here's some of my thoughts as you are asking for them!
For my tastes, the ORA Borealis has a much more pleasant lighting/feel than the other images. Not sure if it was closer to an actinic, your exposure was on.. or what- but it seems to have a more balanced tone. The Mille and Undata shots appear to be slightly (only a stop or two at most i would imagine) overexposed. I like the sharpness on the Undata, but would try to bring out some more saturation. Finally I see the composition on your Birdsnest shot as a bit too dominated by the Digitata in the foreground- if you can keep Digi's branches limited to roughly 1/3 of the way into your frame I believe your subject will stand out more (obviously there are exceptions- if you taste leans more towards the current composition, stick with it!)
thanks for sharing your photos!
Reef Bass
colors and textures
Thanks for your thoughts klepto. I appreciate your input.
I agree with your Borealis lighting comment. I'm not sure I can articulate the specific reason it was successful. The coral was down front on the bottom, so the halides were above and almost behind which seems to add to a sense of translucence to the polyps. I could feel that there was goodness in the shot while I was shooting.
I have to giggle a bit about the Mille. I was fighting the overexposure issue for a while and reshot several times. I intentionally shot the Mille -1/3 on the exposure to counteract the areas that on the rims of the coralites that wanted to blow out. Maybe more reduction of exposure would have been better. I was trying to maintain detail on the edge of the coralites which this picture did better than some of my other tries. When I intentionally reduce the exposure the pic gets darker so I have to boost the brightness while being sensitive to the areas that want to blow. It's a balancing act that I'm still working on.
The Undata pic I'm not happy with. You and TS are both right that more saturation and contrast would help. I'm going to reshoot it. While I could add saturation and contrast to the existing shot, I'm just not happy with the image. I know I can do better.
Your comment about the Digi upstaging the Birdsnest is right on. It wasn't a staged shot. I noticed an interesting look and juxtaposition of colors through the viewfinder and clicked off a few.
Thanks again for your comments. If nothing else they make me think about why I did certain things the way I did (or didn't address items that I should have!). And then I either gain confidence that I made the right decision or learn from my mistake(s!) so I am better for my next shot.
I agree with your Borealis lighting comment. I'm not sure I can articulate the specific reason it was successful. The coral was down front on the bottom, so the halides were above and almost behind which seems to add to a sense of translucence to the polyps. I could feel that there was goodness in the shot while I was shooting.
I have to giggle a bit about the Mille. I was fighting the overexposure issue for a while and reshot several times. I intentionally shot the Mille -1/3 on the exposure to counteract the areas that on the rims of the coralites that wanted to blow out. Maybe more reduction of exposure would have been better. I was trying to maintain detail on the edge of the coralites which this picture did better than some of my other tries. When I intentionally reduce the exposure the pic gets darker so I have to boost the brightness while being sensitive to the areas that want to blow. It's a balancing act that I'm still working on.
The Undata pic I'm not happy with. You and TS are both right that more saturation and contrast would help. I'm going to reshoot it. While I could add saturation and contrast to the existing shot, I'm just not happy with the image. I know I can do better.
Your comment about the Digi upstaging the Birdsnest is right on. It wasn't a staged shot. I noticed an interesting look and juxtaposition of colors through the viewfinder and clicked off a few.
Thanks again for your comments. If nothing else they make me think about why I did certain things the way I did (or didn't address items that I should have!). And then I either gain confidence that I made the right decision or learn from my mistake(s!) so I am better for my next shot.
xJake
Active member
I really don't have enough expertise to be giving you any type of helpful criticism, but I must say...These photos are stunning! The "Peach Millepora" and "ORA Borealis" are two of the best close-ups I've ever seen. You can actually see the distinctions in the pigmentation pattern of the coral tissue. I also love the fact that you can even differentiate the small bumps/imperfections on the polyp tentacles.
What body-lens combo are you using? You may have mentioned it already, but I couldn't seem to find it when I was skimming through the comments. That M. undata would make a great subject for focus stacking, BTW.
As for your desire for wanting tougher criticism, it simply doesn't happen too often on here - at least not IME. You really need to go to a photography-specific forum (outside of RC) if you want more useful input. I've seen this type of scenario happen with other online forums as well; that is, the sub-forum for a related, yet more obscure, discussion topic doesn't foster the same type of environment as a forum that is specifically dedicated to that topic.
What body-lens combo are you using? You may have mentioned it already, but I couldn't seem to find it when I was skimming through the comments. That M. undata would make a great subject for focus stacking, BTW.
As for your desire for wanting tougher criticism, it simply doesn't happen too often on here - at least not IME. You really need to go to a photography-specific forum (outside of RC) if you want more useful input. I've seen this type of scenario happen with other online forums as well; that is, the sub-forum for a related, yet more obscure, discussion topic doesn't foster the same type of environment as a forum that is specifically dedicated to that topic.
Reef Bass
colors and textures
Thanks klepto. I shot a bit different with ISO 100 and exposure -2/3. I bumped the brightness in post to compensate. While there was a difference in starting material, I think my first shot I must have unintentionally flattened the image in post too much by lightening shadows and reducing hilights. This time I reduced exposure to compensate for the tendency of the polyps to blow and then didn't need to reduce hilights thereby maintaining contrast.
do you take RAW pics?
Reef Bass
colors and textures
Hi Mike.
Yes, I shoot in RAW. My lights are a high color temperature (20,000K) and it's much easier for me to get colors right shooting in RAW and setting the color temp in software (I use Photoshop Elements but there are lots of programs one can use).
I do all the usual things you hear about - clean your glass inside and out, turn off all pumps, use a tripod and shoot straight through the glass. Shooting perpendicular to the glass is very important for clear, undistorted images. A novice with a point and shoot shooting straight through the glass is more likely to get a better picture than an expert with a high dollar dSLR and lens shooting at an angle through the glass.
An implication of this limitation is that in order to reframe a shot slightly left or right, you can't just turn the camera. You have to move the tripod in order to maintain a perpendicular aspect to the glass. Often times my lenshood is very close to or pressed up against the glass and noticing the gap between the hood and the glass around the lens circumference is another way to gauge how straight on one is shooting.
I usually set the camera to Av mode and lens to manual focus. I start with ISO 100 and try to use that if I can, which is much of the time shooting stationary objects like corals.
Sometimes the subject needs to be moved or "posed" for decent results.
These days I've been remote shooting with live view, meaning my camera is attached to my laptop via usb and I control the camera from my laptop (except for focus, which is manual). Live view locks up the mirror and allows me to see on the laptop screen or camera back (the 50D has an awesome display b.t.w.) what the image sensor sees.
If the subject is changing its distance from the camera or autofocus is required, live view is useless. But for shooting relatively stationary corals, it's custom designed for my needs.
I set the focal plane manually. When I'm really trying to be specific with where the focal plane is placed, I'll use the closeup or magnified view which can be very helpful.
My usual goal with macro photography is to have as much as the subject in focus as possible with a pleasantly vague background. I'll start around f11 or 13 if I can but it all depends on the scene, subject and lighting. And sometimes nice results can be had going as open as f2.8, again depending on subject and composition.
With no water flow and stationary corals, one can get away with fairly long shutterspeeds, upwards of a second or two. Stopping pulsing Xenia on the other hand requires a shutterspeed at least as fast a 1/80-1/100th. 1/100th may not be fast enough for fish.
Once I've captured the image, I load it into Photoshop Elements where I set the white balance / color temperature and fine tune contrast, brightness and / or sharpness. I save the file as PSD to preserve image quality during my workflow. When I'm happy with the image I'll resize it down for screen display (72dpi, 8-900 pixels at the longest / widest dimension) and save it as jpg.
This is just what I do currently. "There are many ways to skin a cat" and "Your mileage may vary".
Ken
Yes, I shoot in RAW. My lights are a high color temperature (20,000K) and it's much easier for me to get colors right shooting in RAW and setting the color temp in software (I use Photoshop Elements but there are lots of programs one can use).
I do all the usual things you hear about - clean your glass inside and out, turn off all pumps, use a tripod and shoot straight through the glass. Shooting perpendicular to the glass is very important for clear, undistorted images. A novice with a point and shoot shooting straight through the glass is more likely to get a better picture than an expert with a high dollar dSLR and lens shooting at an angle through the glass.
An implication of this limitation is that in order to reframe a shot slightly left or right, you can't just turn the camera. You have to move the tripod in order to maintain a perpendicular aspect to the glass. Often times my lenshood is very close to or pressed up against the glass and noticing the gap between the hood and the glass around the lens circumference is another way to gauge how straight on one is shooting.
I usually set the camera to Av mode and lens to manual focus. I start with ISO 100 and try to use that if I can, which is much of the time shooting stationary objects like corals.
Sometimes the subject needs to be moved or "posed" for decent results.
These days I've been remote shooting with live view, meaning my camera is attached to my laptop via usb and I control the camera from my laptop (except for focus, which is manual). Live view locks up the mirror and allows me to see on the laptop screen or camera back (the 50D has an awesome display b.t.w.) what the image sensor sees.
If the subject is changing its distance from the camera or autofocus is required, live view is useless. But for shooting relatively stationary corals, it's custom designed for my needs.
I set the focal plane manually. When I'm really trying to be specific with where the focal plane is placed, I'll use the closeup or magnified view which can be very helpful.
My usual goal with macro photography is to have as much as the subject in focus as possible with a pleasantly vague background. I'll start around f11 or 13 if I can but it all depends on the scene, subject and lighting. And sometimes nice results can be had going as open as f2.8, again depending on subject and composition.
With no water flow and stationary corals, one can get away with fairly long shutterspeeds, upwards of a second or two. Stopping pulsing Xenia on the other hand requires a shutterspeed at least as fast a 1/80-1/100th. 1/100th may not be fast enough for fish.
Once I've captured the image, I load it into Photoshop Elements where I set the white balance / color temperature and fine tune contrast, brightness and / or sharpness. I save the file as PSD to preserve image quality during my workflow. When I'm happy with the image I'll resize it down for screen display (72dpi, 8-900 pixels at the longest / widest dimension) and save it as jpg.
This is just what I do currently. "There are many ways to skin a cat" and "Your mileage may vary".
Ken
Similar threads
