new reef tank photo
- Thread starter jsenske
- Start date
marino420td
Premium Member
Re: new reef tank photo
Lets hear it. Great shot!
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10474061#post10474061 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jsenske
I am happy to share some of my knowledge of how to get a decent full tank shot, if you happen to think this is decent, that is!
Lets hear it. Great shot!
marino420td
Premium Member
First of all, I highly suggest that everyone click on jsenske's red house and view the gallery on his webpage. Breathtaking set ups (and homes).
As far as specific questions, I have some. I never seem to get a full tank shot that I'm happy with. I can't get the colors to match naked eye and the corals at the top always seem to be overexposed.
Example
I shoot with a Canon 10d.
Also, how do you get the photos (on your website) that are full room shots with a perfectly exposed tank included?
Thanks in advance for any advice.
As far as specific questions, I have some. I never seem to get a full tank shot that I'm happy with. I can't get the colors to match naked eye and the corals at the top always seem to be overexposed.
Example
I shoot with a Canon 10d.
Also, how do you get the photos (on your website) that are full room shots with a perfectly exposed tank included?
Thanks in advance for any advice.
jwedehase
New member
Would you be willing to share your completely unedited, straight out of the camera shot of this? This is a beautiful shot, no doubt. Very impressive!
I'm curious about white balance, as mentioned above. I'd also like to know how you managed a high enough shutter speed to capture the fish without motion blur. My guess is that this is related to your supplementary lighting (multiple strobes?). Finally, part of my reason for wanting to see the original photo is that I'm curious how much post processing there was. Don't get me wrong, I don't intend to portray "Photoshop" with a stigma. I consider it every bit as important as the camera setup. I'm just thinking we may learn a trick or two from it.
Thank you for posting this, and here's a thank you in advance for all the work you've created for yourself in opening this to questions.
I'm curious about white balance, as mentioned above. I'd also like to know how you managed a high enough shutter speed to capture the fish without motion blur. My guess is that this is related to your supplementary lighting (multiple strobes?). Finally, part of my reason for wanting to see the original photo is that I'm curious how much post processing there was. Don't get me wrong, I don't intend to portray "Photoshop" with a stigma. I consider it every bit as important as the camera setup. I'm just thinking we may learn a trick or two from it.
Thank you for posting this, and here's a thank you in advance for all the work you've created for yourself in opening this to questions.
Thanks for asking.
I will post the "original" tomorrow when I am back in the office. I think that is a key part to understanding the/my process. The RAW file off the camera is pretty pathetic, and I will freely admit that the real work is done in Photoshop. No current digital camera is EVER going to properly expose an aquarium on its own without very elaborate (and expensive) and properly set up and maintained lighting (and I am using arguably the best DSLR available- Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II.
You have to learn how to properly process the image and for me, a powerful tool for doing so-- PHOTOSHOP (I'm using CS3)-- is essential. There's a real myth/misconception the immediate feedback and accessibilty of digital cameras mean that post-processing is sort of "optional" or somehow not important in some way. I mean, with film the process is pretty involved to get a final image. There's actually LOTS of processing going on to produce a quality, balanced image. The same holds true for digital. Its obviously just done on a computer and not in a darkroom.
SO-- for 90% of my shots-- especiall y on reef tanks-- I am just using available light. This one was in a corporate office and I had to get in and get out in about an hour, so elaborate setup was not an option anyway. I arrived with camera, tripod, and some black material which I put up behind me to block some reflections.
I shoot 100% RAW, and frankly never produced a full tank shot of any real quality until I learned how to exploit the power and versatility of the RAW file.
Ok, I am rambling already. This is not the place to write a book on the subject! Sorry about that.
marino- If you are trying to get it in a single shot, I suggest the following range of settings:
ISO: 200-400 (lower ISO will = less noise and grain, so lower is better!
shutter speed (to get clear fish) at least 1/50. Anywhere around 1/30-1/80 should be achieveable with the strong lighting on reef tanks. In this shot, the main shot is 1/60, f/6.3 at ISO 200. The fish however were shot at 1/80, f/4. YES-- I composite to av=chieve this look because all the fish are NEVER going to be in the scene, perfectly composed, at the same time. So I pick the best fish from several exposures and using layers/ layer masks and brushes I add them into the image one at a time. And I don't want to argue about "cheating" or any of that crap. All these fish are in this tank, and I am not moving them into positions they were not in, but rather keeping the settings the same and of course using a tripod so the core scene remains constant. I want to show the full grandeur of a tank and make the image a piece of "art" also, so I make no bones about my processing methods/philosophies.
Aperture: as stated above, f/4-f/8 is a range most DSLR can work within for "accepatable" DOF. My images are usually not perfect at the edges either, but even there, once you learn layers and layer masks (essential) in Photoshop, you can combine multiple exposures where you have focused on specific parts of the image (fore, mid, and background for example). This is not "chaeating", it's just smart use of the tools before you.
As for the color cast, shooting RAW would remedy that because you can easily adjust the white balance manually, but of course it is always better to get it right in camera. My auto white balance is pretty accurate, but I always have color casts which I deal with in a whole wide variety of ways. But as a start and if you didn't or can't shoot RAW, I use a Hue/Saturation adjustment layer. You have to learn how to use adjustment layers if you want to produce a really exceptional digital image of an aquarium, in my opinion! It would be nice if we had all this amazing strobe lighting and hours for set up an testing. Then maybe some of the need to get good at Photoshop would be diminished. But until you reach that point, an investment in Photoshop and committing yourself to learning how to use it makes a lot more sense and is far less expensive (and cumbersome).
Click the "Master" dialog box, and it drops down a list of colors.
Choose Blues. The eyedropper tool will appear. Place it over a strong blue portion of your image and click. Then go back to the Saturation slider and move it back. It will pull out the selected range of blue that you clicked on which is in this case going to be pulling blue out of the whole image.
Another, perhaps simpler way of dealing with that blue cast is to go into:
Image>Adjustments>Match Color.
When the Match Color dialog box opens, check the Neutralize box and presto! The cast is removed. Use the Fade slider to adjust the influence/amount of the cast. Photoshop may have pulled out too much of the blue for eaxmple, and the Fade slider lets you put some back in.
As for my room/tank shots, what I do these days is a composite. I expose for the room, then expose for the tank, then combine the good tank with the good room. Your camera will NEVER EVER resolve the differences between the room light and the aquarium light. The composite is not "cheating" it's actually conveying far more reality than your camera and a single exposure will ever. There is no other way to make it work as good as a composite does. I used to select the tank, make all my adjustments then inverse the selction and make all my adjustments to the room, but that never worked nearly as good. To shoot the room I'll do a really long exposure-- like 2-3 seconds or more-- at f/18 or f/22, ISO 100. That gives max DOF, clarity and focus. Then I expose the tank more "as usual", preferably with the lights off in the room. All of this is of course done with a tripod and taking great care not to move it at all.
Again, I ramble! Sorry, there's just kind of a lot to it-- it is not a simple thing/process really at all, and I spend a lot of hours on these images obsessing over details. There's much much more so feel free to ask away.
I will post the "original" tomorrow when I am back in the office. I think that is a key part to understanding the/my process. The RAW file off the camera is pretty pathetic, and I will freely admit that the real work is done in Photoshop. No current digital camera is EVER going to properly expose an aquarium on its own without very elaborate (and expensive) and properly set up and maintained lighting (and I am using arguably the best DSLR available- Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II.
You have to learn how to properly process the image and for me, a powerful tool for doing so-- PHOTOSHOP (I'm using CS3)-- is essential. There's a real myth/misconception the immediate feedback and accessibilty of digital cameras mean that post-processing is sort of "optional" or somehow not important in some way. I mean, with film the process is pretty involved to get a final image. There's actually LOTS of processing going on to produce a quality, balanced image. The same holds true for digital. Its obviously just done on a computer and not in a darkroom.
SO-- for 90% of my shots-- especiall y on reef tanks-- I am just using available light. This one was in a corporate office and I had to get in and get out in about an hour, so elaborate setup was not an option anyway. I arrived with camera, tripod, and some black material which I put up behind me to block some reflections.
I shoot 100% RAW, and frankly never produced a full tank shot of any real quality until I learned how to exploit the power and versatility of the RAW file.
Ok, I am rambling already. This is not the place to write a book on the subject! Sorry about that.
marino- If you are trying to get it in a single shot, I suggest the following range of settings:
ISO: 200-400 (lower ISO will = less noise and grain, so lower is better!
shutter speed (to get clear fish) at least 1/50. Anywhere around 1/30-1/80 should be achieveable with the strong lighting on reef tanks. In this shot, the main shot is 1/60, f/6.3 at ISO 200. The fish however were shot at 1/80, f/4. YES-- I composite to av=chieve this look because all the fish are NEVER going to be in the scene, perfectly composed, at the same time. So I pick the best fish from several exposures and using layers/ layer masks and brushes I add them into the image one at a time. And I don't want to argue about "cheating" or any of that crap. All these fish are in this tank, and I am not moving them into positions they were not in, but rather keeping the settings the same and of course using a tripod so the core scene remains constant. I want to show the full grandeur of a tank and make the image a piece of "art" also, so I make no bones about my processing methods/philosophies.
Aperture: as stated above, f/4-f/8 is a range most DSLR can work within for "accepatable" DOF. My images are usually not perfect at the edges either, but even there, once you learn layers and layer masks (essential) in Photoshop, you can combine multiple exposures where you have focused on specific parts of the image (fore, mid, and background for example). This is not "chaeating", it's just smart use of the tools before you.
As for the color cast, shooting RAW would remedy that because you can easily adjust the white balance manually, but of course it is always better to get it right in camera. My auto white balance is pretty accurate, but I always have color casts which I deal with in a whole wide variety of ways. But as a start and if you didn't or can't shoot RAW, I use a Hue/Saturation adjustment layer. You have to learn how to use adjustment layers if you want to produce a really exceptional digital image of an aquarium, in my opinion! It would be nice if we had all this amazing strobe lighting and hours for set up an testing. Then maybe some of the need to get good at Photoshop would be diminished. But until you reach that point, an investment in Photoshop and committing yourself to learning how to use it makes a lot more sense and is far less expensive (and cumbersome).
Click the "Master" dialog box, and it drops down a list of colors.
Choose Blues. The eyedropper tool will appear. Place it over a strong blue portion of your image and click. Then go back to the Saturation slider and move it back. It will pull out the selected range of blue that you clicked on which is in this case going to be pulling blue out of the whole image.
Another, perhaps simpler way of dealing with that blue cast is to go into:
Image>Adjustments>Match Color.
When the Match Color dialog box opens, check the Neutralize box and presto! The cast is removed. Use the Fade slider to adjust the influence/amount of the cast. Photoshop may have pulled out too much of the blue for eaxmple, and the Fade slider lets you put some back in.
As for my room/tank shots, what I do these days is a composite. I expose for the room, then expose for the tank, then combine the good tank with the good room. Your camera will NEVER EVER resolve the differences between the room light and the aquarium light. The composite is not "cheating" it's actually conveying far more reality than your camera and a single exposure will ever. There is no other way to make it work as good as a composite does. I used to select the tank, make all my adjustments then inverse the selction and make all my adjustments to the room, but that never worked nearly as good. To shoot the room I'll do a really long exposure-- like 2-3 seconds or more-- at f/18 or f/22, ISO 100. That gives max DOF, clarity and focus. Then I expose the tank more "as usual", preferably with the lights off in the room. All of this is of course done with a tripod and taking great care not to move it at all.
Again, I ramble! Sorry, there's just kind of a lot to it-- it is not a simple thing/process really at all, and I spend a lot of hours on these images obsessing over details. There's much much more so feel free to ask away.
jwedehase
New member
I've been using Photoshop (even professionally, for a living) since v3 (only CS2 now), so please feel free to dig deep into adjustment layers. Perhaps I'll spend some time scouring the Web about this, as well.
And thanks for the Match Color/Neutralize. That's amazingly effective, and I never even knew it was there.
And thanks for the Match Color/Neutralize. That's amazingly effective, and I never even knew it was there.
melev
Well-known member
I'll have to try some of these suggestions. I can't shoot in RAW with my camera, so that option is out.
You mentioned masks and layers to insert crisp fish into the image. So how are you extracting the blurry fish? If you wanted to do a tutorial with examples, more of us could benefit.
That is a stunning picture. Made me want to know more.
You mentioned masks and layers to insert crisp fish into the image. So how are you extracting the blurry fish? If you wanted to do a tutorial with examples, more of us could benefit.
That is a stunning picture. Made me want to know more.
Thanks guys.
You don't have to "extract" the blurry fish per se when you use layers/layer masks. My process is to find the best overall image an use that as a base. Then I am looking for the best aspects of other exposures to augment my "base" image- keeping in mind that all the exposures were shot from the same tight position using a tripod of course, so when you "paint in" features from other exposures, they are perfectly positioned to the base exposure. This is achieved on the shooting side by using a tripod, and I even use a remote shutter release to prevent any additional camera shake from manually pressing the shutter button on camera.
In Photoshop, I am opening my base image, then opening subsequent images to layer and from which to paint (using brushes tool-- essential to learn) desirable features into the base image.
With both images open, select the Move tool (keyboard shortcut is the V key to slect this tool), then select (by clicking on) the image from which you are wanting to add some feature (be it a clearer fish, a better area of focus on a coral-- whatever), hold down the shift key while you drag that image onto your base image. This will match up the two images pixel-for-pixel so when you paint in something, it is in the "same place" in both the image from which you are pulling a feature and the base image.
Now the image you just dragged over will appear on top of your base image and Photoshop will automatically create a new layer from it. Now add a layer mask to the top (not the base) image. The mask will at first appear white so it will be "tranaparent" so to speak, and you will still see only your new, top image. Well, you want to see your base image and then just paint in 1 or 2 features from your top (added) image. So you need to convert the mask from white to black. To do this, hold down the Control key and hit the Backspace key. Sometimes it's holding down the Alt key and hitting backspace-- one of these two key combinations will covert your white mask to black. There's other way to do this also-- in effect your are just "filling" the mask with black.
Now you will see your base image only! The layer mask filled with black has covered up the top image entirely.
Now select the brush tool (keyboard shortcut is the B key). Set your foreground color to white That's those two little squares in the layers palette menu. Hit the D key to set them to the default of black and white (if they are not already black and white), and use the X key to switch them back and forth between black and white.
By painting with white on a black mask you are revealing what is "underneath" (actually, it's on top of, but let's not get too abstract) the image you sell all of. So you are using the brush to paint in those specific areas from the image you added to your base image. Using the X key is helpful to switch back and forth between black and white so you can precisely paint in the desired feature.
Another good tip when using brushes is to use the bracket keys
( [ ] ) to easily change the size of your brush "on the fly". You will need to adjust brush size to accommodate painting in various features with varying degrees of precision.
It's all about layers and brushes!
You don't have to "extract" the blurry fish per se when you use layers/layer masks. My process is to find the best overall image an use that as a base. Then I am looking for the best aspects of other exposures to augment my "base" image- keeping in mind that all the exposures were shot from the same tight position using a tripod of course, so when you "paint in" features from other exposures, they are perfectly positioned to the base exposure. This is achieved on the shooting side by using a tripod, and I even use a remote shutter release to prevent any additional camera shake from manually pressing the shutter button on camera.
In Photoshop, I am opening my base image, then opening subsequent images to layer and from which to paint (using brushes tool-- essential to learn) desirable features into the base image.
With both images open, select the Move tool (keyboard shortcut is the V key to slect this tool), then select (by clicking on) the image from which you are wanting to add some feature (be it a clearer fish, a better area of focus on a coral-- whatever), hold down the shift key while you drag that image onto your base image. This will match up the two images pixel-for-pixel so when you paint in something, it is in the "same place" in both the image from which you are pulling a feature and the base image.
Now the image you just dragged over will appear on top of your base image and Photoshop will automatically create a new layer from it. Now add a layer mask to the top (not the base) image. The mask will at first appear white so it will be "tranaparent" so to speak, and you will still see only your new, top image. Well, you want to see your base image and then just paint in 1 or 2 features from your top (added) image. So you need to convert the mask from white to black. To do this, hold down the Control key and hit the Backspace key. Sometimes it's holding down the Alt key and hitting backspace-- one of these two key combinations will covert your white mask to black. There's other way to do this also-- in effect your are just "filling" the mask with black.
Now you will see your base image only! The layer mask filled with black has covered up the top image entirely.
Now select the brush tool (keyboard shortcut is the B key). Set your foreground color to white That's those two little squares in the layers palette menu. Hit the D key to set them to the default of black and white (if they are not already black and white), and use the X key to switch them back and forth between black and white.
By painting with white on a black mask you are revealing what is "underneath" (actually, it's on top of, but let's not get too abstract) the image you sell all of. So you are using the brush to paint in those specific areas from the image you added to your base image. Using the X key is helpful to switch back and forth between black and white so you can precisely paint in the desired feature.
Another good tip when using brushes is to use the bracket keys
( [ ] ) to easily change the size of your brush "on the fly". You will need to adjust brush size to accommodate painting in various features with varying degrees of precision.
It's all about layers and brushes!
Last edited:
Oh and here are the 2 RAW files I used to create the base image. These are all values at zero except the "As Shot" white balance which was 6500K and -2 tint. Pretty ugly, huh! I for one do not like the blue cast-- I prefer much more of a daylight look to full tank shots. I just used to not know how to achieve it! But I think it shows the true colors of the individual specimens much better, and just looks more artistic and less color cast to my eyes.
jwedehase
New member
Very cool! With this image as a reference... how much time would you say you put into Photoshop for the image? Are we talking on the scale of a couple hours (granted, PS familiarity makes things quicker)? How many layers were in the final image before it was finally flattened and saved?
jwedehase
New member
Oh, and with which lens was this particular shot taken?
What's your typical method of post process sharpening? I use Smart Sharpen myself, typically at 500% with a radius of 0.1 pixels, or 0.2 if it's bad, all correcting LENS BLUR. Or do you not sharpen the composite image, and only sharpen each component individually?
What's your typical method of post process sharpening? I use Smart Sharpen myself, typically at 500% with a radius of 0.1 pixels, or 0.2 if it's bad, all correcting LENS BLUR. Or do you not sharpen the composite image, and only sharpen each component individually?
I'd say 5 hours in Photoshop on average. I really enjoy it though-- I find it at once both meditative and mentally stimulating (if that makes any sense). A lot of it is just zooming in real close and inspecting for minor tweaks that individually don't do much, but collectively have a powerful affect on the final image.
Total layers is somewhere around 50 or so, though I merge them (Merge Down or Merge Visible but don't merge into the original, locked background) quite a bit as I go. I always make triple sure I am done with a particular Adjustment Layer before I merge it down though. My computer has 4GB of RAM so it can handle quite a lot before slowing down too much, but it just gets too confusing to me with too many layers working at once.
The beauty of layers, though, is that if you don't like something you did, it's so easy to just delete that layer and start over, without having damaged the pixels or any aspect of the layers underneath with which you are satisfied. It's the ultimate form of processing, in my opinion.
I also NEVER flatten an original. I save it with the background and all the other layers merged on top as a .psd with no sharpening. I always work from a duplicate of this original, which I resize and eal with accordingly. Flattening is a very permanent action!
Lens on this one was my wide angle because of the space I had to get up pretty close to the tank. It s Canon EF 16-35mm L. I use it especially for my architectural stuff, but it is great when you have to shoot a full tank from up close. My camera has a full frame sensor so there's no magnification factor, so it is a true 16mm at the widest.
Sharpening-wise, I always save the original unsharpened and then when I want to do something with it, I open it, duplicate it, and resize the the copy for whatever my application is, then sharpen the resized image. Sharpening amounts will vary dramatically on different sizes of the image. I always use Unsharp mask and make sure to zoom into 100% to see the effect of the sharpening. General ranges vary quite a bit, but I go for a higher amount-- usually around 225-350, and low radius-- almost always less than 1 pixel (0.3-0.5 on average) and a fairly low Threshhold-- usually 4. Like I say, it varies a lot on the image size and what the output will be.
Total layers is somewhere around 50 or so, though I merge them (Merge Down or Merge Visible but don't merge into the original, locked background) quite a bit as I go. I always make triple sure I am done with a particular Adjustment Layer before I merge it down though. My computer has 4GB of RAM so it can handle quite a lot before slowing down too much, but it just gets too confusing to me with too many layers working at once.
The beauty of layers, though, is that if you don't like something you did, it's so easy to just delete that layer and start over, without having damaged the pixels or any aspect of the layers underneath with which you are satisfied. It's the ultimate form of processing, in my opinion.
I also NEVER flatten an original. I save it with the background and all the other layers merged on top as a .psd with no sharpening. I always work from a duplicate of this original, which I resize and eal with accordingly. Flattening is a very permanent action!
Lens on this one was my wide angle because of the space I had to get up pretty close to the tank. It s Canon EF 16-35mm L. I use it especially for my architectural stuff, but it is great when you have to shoot a full tank from up close. My camera has a full frame sensor so there's no magnification factor, so it is a true 16mm at the widest.
Sharpening-wise, I always save the original unsharpened and then when I want to do something with it, I open it, duplicate it, and resize the the copy for whatever my application is, then sharpen the resized image. Sharpening amounts will vary dramatically on different sizes of the image. I always use Unsharp mask and make sure to zoom into 100% to see the effect of the sharpening. General ranges vary quite a bit, but I go for a higher amount-- usually around 225-350, and low radius-- almost always less than 1 pixel (0.3-0.5 on average) and a fairly low Threshhold-- usually 4. Like I say, it varies a lot on the image size and what the output will be.
marino420td
Premium Member
At least now I don't fell so bad about my original FTS . Your photoshop skills are amazing.
. Your photoshop skills are amazing.nosferatu51
New member
Sounds like some good info, I did a quick tool around with an old FTS of mine and it made it look better (particularly that neutralize tool thing). I'll definitely give this a try when I move into my new tank later this month. Thanks.
Similar threads
