Photo Project - pics

[reeformadness]

I have this pretty little zooanthid

I would like this thread to be a project in which maybe some of you photographers can help us novices out. I just got a cheap tripod and remote for my Canon Digital Rebel. I have 18-55 digital lens and 80(?)-300 standard. This pic, although not bad, is not exactly capturing the true color of this zooanthid. The green on the inside is much bolder and darker, yet flourescent green. I would like to show this to you but don't know how. I imagine my white balance might be the remedy but still am at a loss. This pic was taken with "sunny" white balance. ISO 100. I messed with custom white balance by pointing at my tank first, but came out too much on the red end of the spectrum. I also tried bracketing, but this is the best I have so far. Make a suggestion and I will post results.

 

[gregr]

Hi-
What were the aperture and shutter speed settings? If you can't recall, the camera records that data for every shot it takes. All the data is put into an exif file and it looks something like this (an example from a shot I took):

File: _L9N4809.CR2
File size: 6,941KB
Image Serial Number: 000-4809
Camera Model: Canon EOS-1D Mark II N
Camera serial number: 0000424467
Firmware: Firmware Version 1.1.0
Date/Time: 2006:12:23 10:09:51
Shutter speed: 1/125 sec
Aperture: 20
Exposure mode: Manual
Flash: External E-TTL
Flash exposure compensation: -1/3
Metering mode: Evaluative
Drive mode: Continuous (low): frame 1
ISO: 400
Lens: 100mm
Focal length: 100mm
AF mode: One-shot AF
Image size: 3504 x 2336
Image quality: Raw
White balance: Fluorescent
Color space: AdobeRGB
Saturation: High
Contrast: +1
Sharpness level: 3
Tone: Normal
Custom Functions:
CFn 2: No exposure without CF card
CFn 4: Shutter release: AE lock; AE button: AF
CFn 15: 2nd-curtain flash synchronization

The file is viewable in various software programs- what are you using to edit/view your photos?
Anyhow, I think if you take that picture again and slightly underexpose it you might get what you're looking for. Exposure compensation is what you need to set (negative 2/3 stop for starters). You can't use compensation in auto or any of the scene modes- I recommend aperture priority for this kind of shot.

 

[reeformadness]

Thanks for your interest. F/5.6 and 1/3 sec...I have not gotten in to editing since I got the new camera although I have used photoshop in the past. OK, I know what aperture priority is...what does negative 2/3 stop mean? I also had 0 step exposure compensation. I probably have this way wrong...LOL...but do you mean - 2/3 * 5.6 should be my exposure compensation?

 

[Blazer88]

Greg, quit showing off that you have a 1D MKII, lol. Reeformadness, -2/3 is the exposure compensation. I generally shoot corals in aperture priority, ISO 100, and the f-stop around F/16'ish depending how I want my depth of field. You will need a tripod as the shutter speed with be fairly slow, keep that in mind. About the color, join the many who can't get accurate color. I shot in RAW (auto WB) and process in photoshop to get it as close as possible.

 

[reeformadness]

Nice profile pics, guys! What is RAW about? I have that option. Does it make a difference in my picture?

 

[Blazer88]

A long-winded version of RAW is here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

Does it make a big difference? Yes, it does. There are many settings that you can adjust, WB being very important, before you save the picture as a jpeg. This gives you ultimate flexibility to select and adjust the white balance, sharpness, and a whole host of other settings to help the picture look how it does to your own eyes. I have a few examples of jpeg vs. RAW if you are interested. It is definitely worth checking into RAW and learning how to utilize it.

 

[reeformadness]

Thanks for that info on the exposure setting. That's really helpful. Does this basically just shorten the shutter speed that would otherwise be chosen in an automatic mode? Or is it different? Anyway here's a new pic after the first just for comparison. F20 - 1/10 sec - -1.7 steps underexposure - ISO 1600 (I'm sure now I should have done 100 after seeing grainyness (sp?)) But anyway

original shot

newer shot

 

[reeformadness]

picture might not look better, but a little more accurate color and better detail. Any other tricks? I just installed photoshop again on my computer.

 

[gregr]

I suggest -1 stop instead of -1.7 stops of negative compensation. The shutter speed is going to be very long so you want to make sure it's on the tripod. And you might want to use a two second delay [self-timer] because the simple act of pressing the button jiggles the camera, and on a long exposure like that it might make a difference. If the subject is moving at all you may want to even turn the pumps off so the water movement is minimized.

 

[reeformadness]

Thanks. i will try that tommorow when the lights are back on. I have a tripod and remote so I'm good there, but turning off the pumps is a good idea.

 

[reeformadness]

Oops. Missed yours Blazer. Thanks for the link. I will turn on the RAW setting tommorow. I would like to see a comparison of the two formats if you don't mind.

 

[gregr]

Good deal. Looking forward to seeing the results.

 

[reeformadness]

OK. I tried raw, but don't know how to view the photo. I have Photoshop 5.0. Do I need a newer version?

 

[reeformadness]

OK. I can open in Canon Zoombrowser. Should I convert to .bmp or will I lose quality doing this?

 

[reeformadness]

Hmm...I can open as... in photoshop but it says my file size is wrong. Zoombrowser says file is 3072 X 2048, but this doesn't work when I enter into pixels. File size showing in photoshop is 6572454 bytes. I set to 3 channels, interleaved, 16-bits, and I have byte order as IBM PC. Is this right? Won't estimate a header size for me.

 

[reeformadness]

It only gives me 8 or 16 bit depth options. Is this the problem? Nevermind. PS5 supports it as 8-bit X 3 channels I think.

 

[gregr]

Photoshop 5 won't be able to see the raw file- you'll need at least 7 I think. So the best thing to do is use Zoombrowser to convert it to a tif or jpeg, then you can look at it in Photoshop. The big benefit of shooting in raw for aquarium photography is the ability to adjust the white balance during the conversion. Look for the adjustment options in Zoombrowser and play with the color temp settings to get the image colors right.

 

[reeformadness]

OK Thanks...I will also try to get the new photoshop

 

[reeformadness]

Here is what I did in Zoombrowser and the old Photoshop. The color is getting closer. Should be more green. I think the new Photoshop might be the answer. The pic is good though.

 

[gregr]

I just got the latest version of Photoshop yesterday. It's outrageously resource intensive but the raw converter is very good. Still not sure if it's as good as Capture One- that's what I normally use. The reason I got the CS2 is I found out the color temp adjustment goes all the way up to 50K Kelvin! What I don't like is how they changed the file browser (now called Bridge) - with 2g of ram it is bogging my computer down