|
|
Post by fishguy on Feb 9, 2012 21:01:12 GMT -6
So based on the above pics should i also increase my aperture. Some of my pics were rather dark. You shot those at 3.5, so you can't increase it. You need more light and you are maxed out with a 3.5 lens at 1600 ISO. Hook up that flash again. Flash is the way. Flash is the key. Flash is the secret sauce. |
|
|
|
Post by bnoel210 on Feb 9, 2012 21:15:24 GMT -6
Would adding like another light strip to the top of the tank help at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by glenoweth on Feb 9, 2012 22:37:27 GMT -6
sure it will help.
|
|
|
|
Post by signde on Feb 9, 2012 22:38:15 GMT -6
i completely and adamantly disagree that a flash is necessary for aquarium pictures. in fact i simply refuse to use one. not a single one of the pictures i have ever posted on this board have used a flash. if you provide enough top down lighting and can work the other parameters just right you can take stellar fish pics without a flash.
having said that, you need to learn to crawl before you can walk, so yes, follow the advice given to see how the parameters affect your pictures. in the end it is all about light. it's just math.
|
|
|
|
Post by glenoweth on Feb 9, 2012 22:39:50 GMT -6
I would use auto ISO imo untill you learn more about F stop, and shutter speed. one u get that down then u can play with ISO settings.
|
|
|
|
Post by fishguy on Feb 10, 2012 1:14:34 GMT -6
I stand corrected. I should have wrote, "Light is the way. Light is the key. Light is the secret sauce."
But where you gonna get light?
The thing is, indoors it's really hard to get enough light without a flash unless you give up something that is likely to lower the quality of your photos - like a slower shutter speed (gets you blurrier shots on moving fish), a wider aperture (reduces depth of field and sharpness on zoom lenses like yours), or higher ISO (grainier photos). Since you already have a flash handy, it's the easy solution to the biggest challenge when shooting fish indoors - getting more light on your fishes.
And since math got brought up (I love math!), let's do a little bit of the math behind lighting to show you why another strip won't help much. Since you're already at 1600 ISO at your lens' maximum aperture of f3.5, doubling your light will only let you knock your ISO down to 800. (You have to double the light to cut your ISO in half). 800's better than 1600, but you really want to be at ISO 200 if you are striving for near-professional results. To get to ISO 200 you need a total of eight light strips. (Double your light three times.) But then you're still at f3.5, and your particular lens is going to perform its best/sharpest at around f8. So once you have the eight strips, add 4 more to get you to f4 (that's half a stop up from f3.5). Double the total (12 more) to get to f5.6. Double all that, or 24 more, to get you to f8. So 48 strips will be about the light you're after.
(BTW, if you had a macro lens, you'd want at least another 48 strips for a total of 96 to get you to f16, but lots of people would say you should get 192 strips so you can shoot at f22. )
Of course, there are other possibilities to getting this much light. You can haul your tank outside on a sunny day, for example. Cutting a big hole in your roof might do it. Personally, I recommend pulling out that flash and having some fun blinding your fish for a couple of hours.
|
|
|
|
Post by jon carman on Feb 10, 2012 8:53:42 GMT -6
The great thing about fish, and photography is that there are many ways to have success. The way i try and do both is learn basic theories and experiment to find what works best for me. If I tell you shutter speed aperture and iso to use, but you dont understand what they mean and their relationship to each other, you might take a couple good fish pics, but you wont be a good photographer.
You have a great entry level camera to learn on, and i would suggest the 50 or 60mm prime lens. Learn the basics and you will be dangerous in the photo contest. Anf olan mills will never steal anymore money for crappy pics of your kids.
|
|
|
|
Post by bnoel210 on Feb 10, 2012 9:04:50 GMT -6
Ya i cant wait to photo my kids and send those to family
|
|
|
|
Post by bnoel210 on Feb 10, 2012 9:33:07 GMT -6
Like Jon said its important to know why you use certain settings for different pics and right now im lost in the sauce lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by signde on Feb 10, 2012 21:31:23 GMT -6
fishguy, you obviously know your stuff, but i think you are talking about a level that is beyond what most of us here would generally accept as great. most of us here are taking pictures that end up on the internet at a max of say 800 pixels. even with a ridiculously high iso, once you shrink that 12, 8, or even 3 megapixel image down to half a megapixel, most people aren't going to notice as much grain.
also some cameras (and i love my canons for this) deal with the higher iso in a much better fashion than others. thank you software (and math!)
imo, depth of field is really a stylistic preference. personally, I LOVE a shallow depth of field. it makes getting that perfect shot kind of like a game.
but yes, i agree light is the key. that truly is the essence of photography.
|
|
|
|
Post by fishguy on Feb 11, 2012 0:18:05 GMT -6
signde - We agree on most things - especially that there's no substitute for light. And what makes a good photo is certainly in the eye of the beholder. But I was going on the assumption that if someone laid out $500+ for a DSLR and a decent lens, they are looking to raise the bar of their photo-taking skills. And if you have a DSLR and a bright flash , why settle for grainy and "pretty good" when you can have "wow" just by spinning a few dials around? IMO, that's like picking a Chevy when you could have driven off in a Ferrari for the same price.
And I agree, there's a lot to be said for a shallow depth of field (DoF) in lots of types of shots. It works well when shooting a single fish - especially if its side is facing the lens. But for a a group of fish or a single fish facing into the lens, it may or may not look so great. The "right" DoF depends on what you're doing, and what you're after when you're doing it. People new to photography don't realize that when they shoot at f3.5, they are trading off the right exposure for a shallower DoF, and they don't understand why parts of the photo are blurrier than they expected.
And we'll have to agree to disagree that shrinking an image makes high ISO graininess less noticeable or somehow improves an image's quality. It's pretty easy to spot high ISO shots on web photos, IMHO. If it wasn't noticeable, everyone would set their cameras that way all the time. Personally, I look at ISO 1600 as a setting of last resort when there's not enough light, not a place to start if you start out with a goal of getting a strong image.
Lots of light brings with it the freedom to experiment with settings while still getting decent shots, and that's the road to getting better at taking pictures.
|
|
|
|
Post by signde on Feb 11, 2012 8:53:12 GMT -6
seems to be a pretty universal and fundamental concept that as you reduce the size of something the detail is lost. grain in the grande scheme of things is extremely fine in relation to the entire photo. it's not like the noise goes away, it just gets smaller and therefore harder to see. i can't comprehend the opposite viewpoint of that, so yes, agreement on disagreement is in order.
i had a few years of photography in college but i am an amateur at best, so maybe i don't know what i am talking about. wouldn't be the first time.
|
|
|
|
Post by signde on Mar 12, 2012 13:43:53 GMT -6
i came across this article today about a new canon camera that offers crazy high iso settings. it seemed relevant to our discussion here, and confirms my statements that reducing an image below 1:1 pixel ratio will decrease the visibility of noise www.engadget.com/2012/03/12/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-high-iso-sample-images/look at the difference in noise at the 1:1 view compared to the 9.6% view. |
|
|
|
Post by ree123 on Mar 12, 2012 15:18:38 GMT -6
Excellent find.
|
|
|
|
Post by tpindell on Mar 12, 2012 19:48:02 GMT -6
That is a lot of coin! Maybe one day.
If you don't have a 35mm prime yet, pick one up. I couldn't shoot anything indoors at the zoo, or some of the snapshots indoors (hate using the flash) I have gotten without mine.
|
|
