HM3105 Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Most of the really good stuff has been shown now between here and my old 40 thread. I will continue to slowly move stuff up tho and get pics where they are now and when they are in the DT as I get time. I've got a couple pieces I am hoping pull through after the latest round of 400w heater failures that I don't think I've shown yet, but they aren't anything worth showing right now unfortunately Dude suck fest, sorry to hear about the run of bad luck man..I hope things improve.. 1 Quote Link to comment
Chris! Posted January 12, 2015 Author Share Posted January 12, 2015 Dude suck fest, sorry to hear about the run of bad luck man..I hope things improve.. Yeah I'm pretty used to it at this point, I'm just glad it wasn't a complete loss this time. Quote Link to comment
creefer Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Nice pieces, Chris. Looks great! 1 Quote Link to comment
Chris! Posted January 13, 2015 Author Share Posted January 13, 2015 Nice pieces, Chris. Looks great! Thanks man, its starting to get there. Still waiting a little bit before I add any acros.... starting to get a little algae now where the diatoms were (and likely from my excessive food tossing in time to get the cycle roaring lol), although the kole and mollies are enjoying cleaning it up quite easily. Also, lastnight I spotted 8 babies mollies cruising around. Going to probably try to catch the yellow tang and add him in sometime this week to see if he can help limit their numbers as I don't want the molly population to get out of control. If he doesn't then I will start looking into some smaller omnivore/carnivore fish to do the job lol Quote Link to comment
Chris! Posted January 15, 2015 Author Share Posted January 15, 2015 I'm trying to get better with this darn camera so Im trying to shoot more often so here goes: Polyps are definitely my hardest pics to get, they never come out as clear as they look initially/ on the camera 4 Quote Link to comment
jedimasterben Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 What camera do you have? For shooting corals, if they aren't large and you want as sharp as possible, use aperture priority mode (Av), set aperture as low as it can go, and set ISO to around 800 (1600 if your DSLR is newer, the higher the ISO, the more grain, but newer cameras have less grain). For fish or anything moving, set it to shutter priority mode (Tv) and set it to 1/125, same ISO. Manual focus is your friend 1 Quote Link to comment
gena Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Looks great, Chris!!! What camera are you using? And lens? That bowerbanki, or however you spell it, is awesome! 1 Quote Link to comment
Chris! Posted January 15, 2015 Author Share Posted January 15, 2015 What camera do you have? For shooting corals, if they aren't large and you want as sharp as possible, use aperture priority mode (Av), set aperture as low as it can go, and set ISO to around 800 (1600 if your DSLR is newer, the higher the ISO, the more grain, but newer cameras have less grain). For fish or anything moving, set it to shutter priority mode (Tv) and set it to 1/125, same ISO. Manual focus is your friend I have the Nikon D3100... the manual modes are M A S P lol I do shoot at 800 ISO tho... and something is set at 1/60 if I change that number it sucks in more blue or goes super white.... but 1/60 has been working great for color. Looks great, Chris!!! What camera are you using? And lens? That bowerbanki, or however you spell it, is awesome! Thanks, I shoot with a Nikon D3100 and a Tamron 60mm macro lens mostly (which on my camera is a 90mm equivalent.) The camera itself is more of a beginners camera from my understanding and not the greatest but I am glad its not overly complicated lol And yes, the Bowerbanki is awesome for sure I even enjoy shooting it! Quote Link to comment
jedimasterben Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 I have the Nikon D3100... the manual modes are M A S P lol I do shoot at 800 ISO tho... and something is set at 1/60 if I change that number it sucks in more blue or goes super white.... but 1/60 has been working great for color. 1/60 is the shutter speed. S is shutter priority and A is aperture priority on yours (mine is a Canon, but same difference, just different names lol). Are you shooting in RAW? Do you have Adobe Lightroom? Quote Link to comment
Chris! Posted January 15, 2015 Author Share Posted January 15, 2015 1/60 is the shutter speed. S is shutter priority and A is aperture priority on yours (mine is a Canon, but same difference, just different names lol). Are you shooting in RAW? Do you have Adobe Lightroom? I shoot in M mode, not sure what that is but its been working best for me so far... I used to shoot in A tho. Yeah I always shoot RAW .... I have photoshop CS5.1, CC2014, and lightroom but have only been using lightroom lately.... its alot easier. Quote Link to comment
jedimasterben Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 I shoot in M mode, not sure what that is but its been working best for me so far... I used to shoot in A tho. Yeah I always shoot RAW .... I have photoshop CS5.1, CC2014, and lightroom but have only been using lightroom lately.... its alot easier. M is manual - you set shutter, aperture, and ISO instead of setting two and it autoing the last. M is more difficult because you have to change all three of the settings depending on what you're shooting. The easiest is to use A or S modes like I mentioned, then import to lightroom, go to 'Develop', and then set the color temperature. Mine needs to be set to 11,500 (10,394 or some crazy shit like that) and everything is spot on. If you're shooting under just blue LEDs it will take some fiddling, but once you figure it out, you can save it as a preset and have it do it all for you. Quote Link to comment
Chris! Posted January 15, 2015 Author Share Posted January 15, 2015 M is manual - you set shutter, aperture, and ISO instead of setting two and it autoing the last. M is more difficult because you have to change all three of the settings depending on what you're shooting. The easiest is to use A or S modes like I mentioned, then import to lightroom, go to 'Develop', and then set the color temperature. Mine needs to be set to 11,500 (10,394 or some crazy shit like that) and everything is spot on. If you're shooting under just blue LEDs it will take some fiddling, but once you figure it out, you can save it as a preset and have it do it all for you. The colors aren't the issue I am having its the quality.... polyp pics especially turn out blurrier or grainy compared to how they look when I actually shoot em. Probably something to do with cropping them, I also just remembered I had one of the extension tubes on tonight so maybe that played a role somehow In the DT I shoot under more balanced lighting, but downstairs I do alot more top down shots with mostly just the blues. I don't change the settings or anything and they still come out pretty accurate after adjusting the temps in lightroom.... and I use their preset temps, like shade and cloudy for the most part. Quote Link to comment
jedimasterben Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 The colors aren't the issue I am having its the quality.... polyp pics especially turn out blurrier or grainy compared to how they look when I actually shoot em. Probably something to do with cropping them, I also just remembered I had one of the extension tubes on tonight so maybe that played a role somehow In the DT I shoot under more balanced lighting, but downstairs I do alot more top down shots with mostly just the blues. I don't change the settings or anything and they still come out pretty accurate after adjusting the temps in lightroom.... and I use their preset temps, like shade and cloudy for the most part. Cropping definitely plays a role - you have to have a rather extreme camera to be able to crop it and still have enough pixel data to look sharp. Having a longer lens will help get you closer to the polyp and then extension tube to let you focus ultra close. 1 Quote Link to comment
farkwar Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Your polyps, etc are blurry because your shutter speed is too slow. Shoot faster than 1/250th of a second. You're in Manual mode so that will darken your photos, the aperture is open for less time. You compensate for this by opening your aperture diameter, you use a smaller number. Eg, 8 to 4, or 4 to 2.8. It may seem counter intuitive that to make the hole bigger, you use a smaller number. That's because the number is a fraction, a fraction of the lens length. So you're shooting with a 50mm lens. An aperture setting of 2 is 1/2 of 50mm, the diameter(of the hole) is 25mm. So the diameter is really open. A setting of 8 is 1/8 of 50mm or (the diameter of the hole)6.5mm. So pretty closed up in comparison, it lets in less light because its smaller. The ISO is the "speed" of the sensor. In film a fast speed introduces "grain"(the light sensitive chemicals need to be larger to become more sensitive to light), in digital it introduces "noise". On consumer DSLRs you're going to see the noise at ISO800, easily. At ISO400, its there, but you need to enlarge the image to see it(and you can filter it out in post processing easier). You really don't want to shoot a faster ISO than 400 with a consumer camera. 1 Quote Link to comment
GHill762 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 nice upgrade Chris! 1 Quote Link to comment
Chris! Posted January 15, 2015 Author Share Posted January 15, 2015 Your polyps, etc are blurry because your shutter speed is too slow. Shoot faster than 1/250th of a second. I'm shooting at 1/60 as I stated already, isn't that faster then 1/250? I've played with this number alot and in each of the modes and have found 1/60 to be the clearest so far.... just as I have done with the other numbers as well, I find a setting that seems best, tweek another setting til it "works" then move to the next.... then I slowly play with all three together to try to dial it in a little better. Other then polyps it has seemed to be working decently for me anyway. You're in Manual mode so that will darken your photos, the aperture is open for less time. You compensate for this by opening your aperture diameter, you use a smaller number. Eg, 8 to 4, or 4 to 2.8. It may seem counter intuitive that to make the hole bigger, you use a smaller number. That's because the number is a fraction, a fraction of the lens length. So you're shooting with a 50mm lens. An aperture setting of 2 is 1/2 of 50mm, the diameter(of the hole) is 25mm. So the diameter is really open. A setting of 8 is 1/8 of 50mm or (the diameter of the hole)6.5mm. So pretty closed up in comparison, it lets in less light because its smaller. If I lower the aperture it makes the pics bluer then a smurfs balls, I've tried all the way down to 2.4 or 2.8. I'm also shooting with a 60mm, 90mm equivalent for my camera, not a 50mm not sure if that will make any difference other then slight changes to the numbers but I'd guess the principle would be the same right? The ISO is the "speed" of the sensor. In film a fast speed introduces "grain"(the light sensitive chemicals need to be larger to become more sensitive to light), in digital it introduces "noise". On consumer DSLRs you're going to see the noise at ISO800, easily. At ISO400, its there, but you need to enlarge the image to see it(and you can filter it out in post processing easier). You really don't want to shoot a faster ISO than 400 with a consumer camera. No problem I can try shooting with a lower ISO, should I drop it all the way down to 100 (I think thats the lowest setting...)? I've adjusted it before up and down and found 800 to work the best for me but what the heck... I've also improved a little with my skills so maybe that will make a difference. nice upgrade Chris! Thanks man Quote Link to comment
Chris! Posted January 15, 2015 Author Share Posted January 15, 2015 I've cropped both of these (I think, but I know I cropped the polyps more...), and they were both shot at the same water depth top down on the same rack but about a foot apart. The polyps were more directly under the lights which means the camera itself blocked more light as well I'm sure which helps make the pic a bit darker probably.... but to me the focus is what seems off the most. Quote Link to comment
jedimasterben Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 I'm shooting at 1/60 as I stated already, isn't that faster then 1/250? I've played with this number alot and in each of the modes and have found 1/60 to be the clearest so far.... just as I have done with the other numbers as well, I find a setting that seems best, tweek another setting til it "works" then move to the next.... then I slowly play with all three together to try to dial it in a little better. Other then polyps it has seemed to be working decently for me anyway. No, 1/60 is 1/60th of a second, 1/250 is 1/250th of a second. Honestly the difference between 1/125 and 1/250 is losing a LOT of light and for me the pics weren't that much more clear when taking pics of fish, using 1/125 and manual focus (auto focus is slooowww) can really get some good pics. The longer the shutter speed (so the lower the number), the more light it lets in, but if anything moves, then the picture is blurred. If I lower the aperture it makes the pics bluer then a smurfs balls, I've tried all the way down to 2.4 or 2.8. I'm also shooting with a 60mm, 90mm equivalent for my camera, not a 50mm not sure if that will make any difference other then slight changes to the numbers but I'd guess the principle would be the same right? A lower aperture number means that it needs less light to take the picture (and a shallower depth of field, so less of the coral is in focus). The 60mm/90mm etc just means how close you can get to the subject. No problem I can try shooting with a lower ISO, should I drop it all the way down to 100 (I think thats the lowest setting...)? I've adjusted it before up and down and found 800 to work the best for me but what the heck... I've also improved a little with my skills so maybe that will make a difference. An ISO of 100 will need so much light that it will be next to impossible without being outside in the afternoon. I personally leave ISO at 800 all the time, it's the best compromise between the amount of light necessary and the amount of noise added, so I would leave it there. 1 Quote Link to comment
Chris! Posted January 15, 2015 Author Share Posted January 15, 2015 No, 1/60 is 1/60th of a second, 1/250 is 1/250th of a second. Honestly the difference between 1/125 and 1/250 is losing a LOT of light and for me the pics weren't that much more clear when taking pics of fish, using 1/125 and manual focus (auto focus is slooowww) can really get some good pics. It will only let me go to 1/200 I just went down and played around for a bit with it. I'll throw up some untouched pics later with the specs they were shot under... The longer the shutter speed (so the lower the number), the more light it lets in, but if anything moves, then the picture is blurred. Which number is this again? A lower aperture number means that it needs less light to take the picture (and a shallower depth of field, so less of the coral is in focus). The 60mm/90mm etc just means how close you can get to the subject. Weird, when I lower the number it is super bright in comparison to higher number, maybe I am thinking backwards but seems it would be backwards lol An ISO of 100 will need so much light that it will be next to impossible without being outside in the afternoon. I personally leave ISO at 800 all the time, it's the best compromise between the amount of light necessary and the amount of noise added, so I would leave it there. Yeah I did 1 shot at 100.... 400-800 seems best for sure tho, but 400 seemed to be bluer. Not sure if its coincidence or just my lack of skills lol Quote Link to comment
jedimasterben Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 It will only let me go to 1/200 I just went down and played around for a bit with it. I'll throw up some untouched pics later with the specs they were shot under... Yeah, some cameras are able to shoot faster than others, but I wouldn't worry much about anything past 1/125 Which number is this again? Shutter speed lol Weird, when I lower the number it is super bright in comparison to higher number, maybe I am thinking backwards but seems it would be backwards lol Yes, that is aperture, it's COMPLETELY ass backwards! Higher number needs more light and more is in focus, lower number needs less light and less is in focus. Yeah I did 1 shot at 100.... 400-800 seems best for sure tho, but 400 seemed to be bluer. Not sure if its coincidence or just my lack of skills lol It's just adjusting the amount of light, which alters the color a fuzz. For corals, I would set it to A mode, set aperture to low as it can go, and then set ISO at 800, it will auto set shutter. For fish, set it to S mode, 1/125, ISO 800, and then it will adjust the aperture. Then from there, import into Lightroom, go to Develop, and only touch the 'color temperature' slider and let me know the results. Quote Link to comment
Chris! Posted January 15, 2015 Author Share Posted January 15, 2015 f10, 1/40 iso 400: f2.8, 1/60, iso 400: f4, 1/60, iso 400: f5,1/60/ iso 400: Same pic as last one above, but cropped and color adjusted w/ auto tone (but dialed the exposure back they seem to over brighten...): I coulda swore I did some at 1/125 and 1/200 but they must have been complete crap because I didn't even bother to save or upload them apparently Quote Link to comment
farkwar Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 I'm shooting at 1/60 as I stated already, isn't that faster then 1/250? I've played with this number alot and in each of the modes and have found 1/60 to be the clearest so far.... just as I have done with the other numbers as well, I find a setting that seems best, tweek another setting til it "works" then move to the next.... then I slowly play with all three together to try to dial it in a little better. Other then polyps it has seemed to be working decently for me anyway. [/Quote] 1/60 is slower. For example, if you take a photo outside in the full sun, you can take a photo at 1/4000 of a second, easily (even 1/8000 if you camera is that fast). 1/120 is half the light of 1/60. 1/250 is half the light of 1/120 (1/4 the light of 1/60). 1/500 is half the light of 1/250 (1/16 the light of 1/60). Etc. If I lower the aperture it makes the pics bluer then a smurfs balls, I've tried all the way down to 2.4 or 2.8. I'm also shooting with a 60mm, 90mm equivalent for my camera, not a 50mm not sure if that will make any difference other then slight changes to the numbers but I'd guess the principle would be the same right? I was just using 50mm as an example, the math is easy. It goes the same for all lenses. F/2 of a 60mm lens is a diameter of 30mm. The "F" is the symbol for the Focal length. Its a function and can stand for function as well. Thats why its called an F stop. The smaller the number the wider the aperture. F/16 would be 60 divided by 16 or 60/16; pretty small. See, just replace the F with length of your lens length. No problem I can try shooting with a lower ISO, should I drop it all the way down to 100 (I think thats the lowest setting...)? I've adjusted it before up and down and found 800 to work the best for me but what the heck... I've also improved a little with my skills so maybe that will make a difference. If 100 works by all means use it, thats considered a slow speed for digital (medium speed for film). You can go up to 400 on a typical new digital and it should be fine. ISO works the same as the F stop function(square rule/Inverse square rule). 100 is 2 times slower than 200, 4 times slower than 400, 16 times slower than 800( not 8 times), and so on. Thanks man Welcome. I tried to omit the confusing photography jargon. Its easier to understand when how all the backwards numbering mean what they mean, then learn the technobabble. 1 Quote Link to comment
Chris! Posted January 15, 2015 Author Share Posted January 15, 2015 1/60 is slower. For example, if you take a photo outside in the full sun, you can take a photo at 1/4000 of a second, easily (even 1/8000 if you camera is that fast). 1/120 is half the light of 1/60. 1/250 is half the light of 1/120 (1/4 the light of 1/60). 1/500 is half the light of 1/250 (1/16 the light of 1/60). Etc. Ok starting to make a little sense to me I think.... 1/120 requires half the light 1/60 does to get the same amount of light... is that correct? I was just using 50mm as an example, the math is easy. It goes the same for all lenses. F/2 of a 60mm lens is a diameter of 30mm. The "F" is the symbol for the Focal length. Its a function and can stand for function as well. Thats why its called an F stop. The smaller the number the wider the aperture. F/16 would be 60 divided by 16 or 60/16; pretty small. See, just replace the F with length of your lens length. Yeah same math just different numbers lol That makes sense tho surprisingly If 100 works by all means use it, thats considered a slow speed for digital (medium speed for film). You can go up to 400 on a typical new digital and it should be fine. ISO works the same as the F stop function(square rule/Inverse square rule). 100 is 2 times slower than 200, 4 times slower than 400, 16 times slower than 800( not 8 times), and so on. ISO 100 definitely didn't work, it wasn't even worth showing that pic LOL 400-800 seem to work pretty good tho. Welcome. I tried to omit the confusing photography jargon. Its easier to understand when how all the backwards numbering mean what they mean, then learn the technobabble. Reef photography for dumbies.... aka Chris! lol Thanks to you and Ben for the help, hopefully I can figure it out..... when I put it in A mode it sets the shutter to 1/60 automatically anyways regardless of the aperture I use. if I adjust that 1/60 to 1/200 manually it isn't as good as it was at 1/60.... this is for shooting corals. Should I not worry about the shutter speed (which I think is what Ben is trying to say) and just screw around with the aperture and iso until I find something I'm happy with. So far this is the best/ most accurate pic I've taken of polyps so far, and it is 100% untouched: f5,1/60/ iso 400: The red skirt is brighter on them slightly, but the "purple" body is a bit darker... which I don't get lol Quote Link to comment
Chris! Posted January 15, 2015 Author Share Posted January 15, 2015 Alright a few more: f5, 1/200 iso 800: f2.8,1/60, iso 800: f2.8, 1/200 iso 800: f2.8 1/200 iso 400: f2.8, 1/60, iso 400: And for fun, highly edited: f2.8, 1/200, iso 400, had to jack the clarity and saturation to pull the colors somewhat close but its a horrible pic IMO: Quote Link to comment
kimberbee Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 I have a DSLR camera and am horrible at remembering what all the settings mean/do. I just tried to read all this thinking maybe it would help... Nope, I just get more confused... Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.