Why can't I take nice photo's of my tank?

[Jeff000]

I shoot with a Nikon D700, and have a few lenses to pick from.
24mm f1.4
85mm f1.4
24-70 f2.8
70-200 f2.8 VRII

I have published images, and get paid to take photos just about every weekend.
But for the life of me I can not seem to get the stunning photos that I see all the time, I figure my equipment has to be more then good enough.

So it has to be me. I have to be so stuck in my niche that I am blind to what I need to do.

I have custom LED's on my tank, somewhere in the 20,000 kelvin color range.
And no idea how blue when just the blues are on.

So where do I start? I assume the 85mm lens will be the ticket. Although I like the 24 better for a FTS.

 

[Misled]

First read the stickys up top. Take note about tripod, turning off pumps, and shooting in raw and then adjusting white balance in post. Yea, the 24 0r the 24-70 is probably the best for a FTS. If you want to get the close up macros you see here, this works best.

 

[Jeff000]

First read the stickys up top. Take note about tripod, turning off pumps, and shooting in raw and then adjusting white balance in post. Yea, the 24 0r the 24-70 is probably the best for a FTS. If you want to get the close up macros you see here, this works best.

Hmm adjusting WB in post is something I haven't really done in years and years. Not sure I remember how, lol.
I always turn off pumps. Not sure tripod is needed, at f1.8 I can shoot at 1/320 and ISO 400. And shooting ff I can get away with ISO 1000 without noise.
I can get crystal clear pictures, it is the color that I have a hard time creating.

I can crop to get the macro look, but the colors are very hard to create. But will borrow a macro lens.

EDIT
I should note that shooting at 1.4 is far too shallow unless you want a single polyp. Around 2.8-3.2 is where I like to shoot as far as DOF for the fish tank.

 

[Robb in Austin]

How about an example of your work?

 

[Misled]

If it's the colors you're having trouble with, pretty much the only way to get them right is shooting in raw and adjusting later. Or you can always use a flash to help tone the tank lights down. A few people here talk about manually setting the white balance, but IMO it's loads easier to just fix after. I do use flashes a bit, but I use them off camera to keep glare down. Like Rob said, show us some pics.

 

[Jeff000]

Here are a couple simple crops, zero editing. Flow was on still. Using a 60mm f2.8 macro I found in my closet. I get pretty bad vignetting as it is a dx lens, but the crops looks ok.
Shot at f3.3, ISO 200, 1/200 no tripod.




Tryee Setosa, should be hot pink

ORA pearlberry, ok this one is kinda close in color, but not anything special

Tryee pink watermelon, this one I have a hard time getting all it's colors, it looks neon under my lights, but almost looks blown out when I take pictures

http://www.jekomedia.com/other/macro/4.JPG
http://www.jekomedia.com/other/macro/5.JPG

 

[IslandCrow]

Although you can no doubt shoot at f/1.8 with fast enough shutter speed not to need a tripod, that depth of field is generally going to be far too narrow, especially if you want to do macro photography. Speaking of which, one lens I didn't see in the lineup was a macro lens. It's really going to go a long way if you want to take close-ups of your fish or corals. As for white balance in post, that should be pretty easy depending on the editing software you use. First, shoot in Raw. . .I speak Canon better than Nikon, but believe that's called NEF in your case. If you're using Photoshop (either elements or CS), you can adjust your white balance when you open the image in your Raw editor. It will be the first two sliders. If you have something white and waterproof, you can place that inside the tank, angled about 30-45 degrees from vertical and take a picture of that. You can then use the eyedropper tool to set a whitepoint reference, and that should get you at least in the ballpark for what you want (I'll almost always still tweak it a little after that).

Otherwise, tell us a little bit about your current technique. The biggest problems I see with your photos right now is your aperture is too wide and your white balance is off.

 

[Jeff000]

Although you can no doubt shoot at f/1.8 with fast enough shutter speed not to need a tripod, that depth of field is generally going to be far too narrow, especially if you want to do macro photography. Speaking of which, one lens I didn't see in the lineup was a macro lens. It's really going to go a long way if you want to take close-ups of your fish or corals. As for white balance in post, that should be pretty easy depending on the editing software you use. First, shoot in Raw. . .I speak Canon better than Nikon, but believe that's called NEF in your case. If you're using Photoshop (either elements or CS), you can adjust your white balance when you open the image in your Raw editor. It will be the first two sliders. If you have something white and waterproof, you can place that inside the tank, angled about 30-45 degrees from vertical and take a picture of that. You can then use the eyedropper tool to set a whitepoint reference, and that should get you at least in the ballpark for what you want (I'll almost always still tweak it a little after that).

Otherwise, tell us a little bit about your current technique. The biggest problems I see with your photos right now is your aperture is too wide and your white balance is off.

I shoot mostly fashion and commercial, and mostly with natural light and modifiers. Use a grey card for setting WB normally, but it doesn't work in the super blue light. The 85 almost lives exclusively on my camera. Kinda surprised it doesn't do macro actually.
I'll pick up the 105 posted be misled here too.

Is there any way to white balance in camera for so blue?
And what aperture should I be shooting at?
I'll try f8ish and correcting my WB tonight and see what I end up with.

 

[Reef Bass]

+1 for white balance and dof issues. +1 for shooting raw. In camera white balance is less accurate and more hassle, IME. Once you do set the color temperature during post, you'll be tickled with the results and the ease, and you'll shoot everything in raw.

For dof, the absolute f stop number is not critical, just not wide open. And if you're having trouble exposing sufficiently at a midrange fstop, that's where the tripod comes in. Turn off the pumps, allow the water to settle and use exposures upwards of a couple seconds if you need to. Corals generally don't move much, or very fast, once the current stops. Thus you'll be able to get bright, clear, color accurate photos.

 

[Misled]

RB hit on some of the DOF, but it gets quite a bit shallower the closer you get to the subject, so keep that in mind also. You can also probably use a set of extension tubes with the 85, that will allow you to focus much closer than without.

 

[returnofsid]

Some cameras allow a White Balance adjustment, based on a Kelvin range. I've found some people, who have trouble setting a CWB with a white/gray card, have good results setting with the Kelvin range. Might try that.

I'd also suggest shooting in RAW and adjusting white balance in post processing.

 

[Jeff000]

+1 for white balance and dof issues. +1 for shooting raw. In camera white balance is less accurate and more hassle, IME. Once you do set the color temperature during post, you'll be tickled with the results and the ease, and you'll shoot everything in raw.

For dof, the absolute f stop number is not critical, just not wide open. And if you're having trouble exposing sufficiently at a midrange fstop, that's where the tripod comes in. Turn off the pumps, allow the water to settle and use exposures upwards of a couple seconds if you need to. Corals generally don't move much, or very fast, once the current stops. Thus you'll be able to get bright, clear, color accurate photos.

I shoot everything in NEF (RAW).
2.8 isn't wide open on my 24 or 85, but still far to shallow I think.

RB hit on some of the DOF, but it gets quite a bit shallower the closer you get to the subject, so keep that in mind also. You can also probably use a set of extension tubes with the 85, that will allow you to focus much closer than without.

hmm forgot about extension tubes, my 85mm is probably my best lens so would be nice to use it.

Some cameras allow a White Balance adjustment, based on a Kelvin range. I've found some people, who have trouble setting a CWB with a white/gray card, have good results setting with the Kelvin range. Might try that.

I'd also suggest shooting in RAW and adjusting white balance in post processing.

I can only go up to 10k kelvin in camera, works not bad for day shots, but not even close to good enough for just blues.

I feel like a noob learning WB again, I'm used to setting with a grey card in camera and then if needed using that grey card in post to set my WB as a batch. But for some reason the grey card is not effective with the blue.

 

[Reef Bass]

Try setting the white balance / color temperature during post. You're already shooting in NEF and needing to post process anyway. Should only add 10-20 seconds to your work flow. So much easier than fiddling with in camera white balance settings or gray cards.

Yes, 2.8 is still very open, even if not the widest your lens will do (lucky guy). I was talking midrange, like f8-11. I've done f18-22 when more dof was a good thing.

That last pic was f3.2 at 1/320. You could close your aperture several stops before running into an exposure or motion blur issue.

 

[nemosworld]

Look into photoshop lightroom, if you are on a pc and aperture for mac.
Great programs, i use lightroom and its very easy to use. And they are lots of presets that are free for it on the web. But those are for post processing images other than our reef tanks.

 

[BlueCorn]

Look into photoshop lightroom, if you are on a pc and aperture for mac.

Lightroom works the same whether you're on PC or Mac. Aperture is similar but I don't care for the RAW convertor as much.

I feel like a noob learning WB again, I'm used to setting with a grey card in camera and then if needed using that grey card in post to set my WB as a batch. But for some reason the grey card is not effective with the blue.

If you've got an RGB histogram, keep an eye on the blue channel. Even though the luminosity histogram may look fine, the blue channel is almost certainly clipped; i.e. even if you get WB where you'd like it you're missing a bunch of information.

 

[BlueCorn]

I've done f18-22 when more dof was a good thing.

DOF isn't one of those things that automatically gets better as you go with a smaller aperture. Diffraction starts occurring above f/13 on full-frame and f/11 on cropped sensors; i.e. by going higher that you need to, you're actually making your image less sharp.

 

[Reef Bass]

Yes, I realize that and that is why I suggested a midrange fstop. I was going to mention diffraction at smaller apertures but didn't. Thank you for pointing that out.

In the specific instance I wanted the greater depth of field I was willing to trade off some sharpness.

 

[Jeff000]

If you've got an RGB histogram, keep an eye on the blue channel. Even though the luminosity histogram may look fine, the blue channel is almost certainly clipped; i.e. even if you get WB where you'd like it you're missing a bunch of information.

well I'll be. Never figured a use for RGB histogram before, never even thought to look at it.

I figured out to make them look awesome though I think. I will post a couple samples tomorrow.

 

[BlueCorn]

well I'll be. Never figured a use for RGB histogram before, never even thought to look at it.

It's actually quite useful. Fall color, for example often clips the red channel if exposed the way the luminosity histogram displays it.

 

[Jeff000]

It's actually quite useful. Fall color, for example often clips the red channel if exposed the way the luminosity histogram displays it.

How do you use it as a tool to help you though?