Hi all
This will be my first thread on this forum and I'm hoping that I can be some help answering some general questions being asked over and over again on this forum. I have read a lot of great answers and information given by other photographers but I would like to add to some of it (please don't feel insulted or discouraged if I sound like I don't totally agree with some of the advice or opinions given on this forum).
A little bit about my experience in photography: I was (past tense) certified pro by the PPA (past tense cause I am no longer a member of PPA, stopped paying the membership and certification renewal). I'm an Adobe Certified Expert in Photoshop CC. I'm a NPS (Nikon professional Services) member. I currently assist and teach in workshops, classes, and continuing ed courses in relation to portraiture/fashion photography in 2 colleges in NYC. I do not take pictures of my reef tank (I only enjoy it looking at it in my living room) but, I think on a technical standpoint of photography, I can still help many of you. I will try to clear up some of the misconceptions and confusion that I see a lot on this forum.
White Balance & Raw vs Jpeg:
I think this is the number one question or concern that I see. To clear up RAW vs Jpeg (when concerning white balance) is: firstly, if you can shoot and process a RAW file (meaning, you have the software to process it), then don't worry about it and just shoot RAW. The only difference between the 2 is that a JPEG is a "finished" file. If you're shooting JPEG in camera, that means that your camera is processing your image for you cause if your camera had a brain, it's assuming that you are not looking to post process the image yourself, so, it'll do you a favor by finishing it off for you. A RAW image is just that "RAW". The image is not processed or compressed. All of the information that the camera is capable of capturing is still in the file. Being that it is not compressed or information is not thrown out, you will have a lot more room to fine tune the white balance and everything else you want to perform during the post processing stage. If you want to just shoot it and forget it, shoot JPEG then. Don't get me wrong, it's not like you can't fix the white balance or post process a Jpeg image, it's just that a lot of the info or file has been thrown away in-camera.
As far as white balance in camera: firstly, I would say don't worry about it. Shoot it and fix it in post. It only takes a second to fix it in post and then batch process everything (cause I'm assuming the rest of your files are shot under the same lighting conditions). If you're looking to complicate things for yourself by getting the WB in camera correct, I understand why and I'll try to explain it to you. In the Kelvin scale, there are numbers that you are dealing with. In reality, the higher the number, for example 10,000 kelvin, the bluer it is. The further down, such as in comparison, 3200 kelvin, it is more yellow it is. In your camera, it'll be opposite cause your camera is trying to counteract against the specific lighting condition. For example, if the kelvin temp of the environment is 3200 K, that means that the light source is very yellow. If you set your camera to 3200 or incandescent, then your camera will add blue (which is complimentary to yellow) in the attempt to neutralize the yellow in the scene. Confused yet? see why I said to fix it in post? it's a lot easier.
Canon vs. Nikon:
There is absolutely no significant difference between the 2 brands!!! There is a very small difference in sensor size though. So small of a difference that it's not even worth factoring in to a decision of which to buy. Nikon sensors are ever so slightly larger than Canon sensors. On the crop sensor or APS-C sensors (in which many on this forum owns) the Nikon has a 1.5 crop factor and the Canon has a 1.6 crop factor. If you don't know what this means, don't worry about it, but if you're that curious, the way this affects you (besides the actual size of the sensor) is that you get the "field of view" of either 1.5x or 1.6x of the lens you're using. There is a huge misconception out there where photographers think that makes their 50mm lens into a 75mm. This is absolutely UNTRUE. You get the field of view of a 75mm, but your 50mm lens is still a 50mm lens, cropped! Some of the other insignificant differences are the fact that the Canons tend to add a bit more magenta to the file and the Nikons tend to add a bit more Blue. Doesn't make a difference at all if you're doing any type of post processing. There are some other insignificant technological advantages in either one such as CLS, AF sensor technology, etc. but the reason why it's insignificant, technology changes, catches up with each other, and changes so fast that as soon as one brand comes up with something amazing, the other one will match it or beat it. Moral of the story is, "don't worry about it, buy what you want, one is not better than the other".
Macro Lens:
I see a lot of suggestions about purchasing a macro lens as almost "a must" for aquarium photography. I don't mean to offend anybody, but I absolutely DISAGREE!! A Macro lens offer 1 benefit over everything else. At the particular focal length, a macro lens will allow you to get "physically" closer to the subject!! This will accomplish 2 things, it'll allow the photographer to take "in-camera", a 1:1 ratio shot and the depth of field will be so shallow, (in many cases a drawback instead of a benefit) regardless of the aperture that the photographer is using. This is why, personally I am able to tell in most instances that a claimed macro shot is not actually a macro shot. It may have been taken with a macro lens, but it's not a macro shot. The shot is actually a cropped image in post. See, I already gave you a suggestion: take the pic, and as long you have enough MP's to spare, crop it in post.
Lens Focal length:
I see a lot of suggestions on getting a certain focal length for specifically "aquarium shots". Again, I don't mean to offend anyone but I DISAGREE. The reason why I disagree is because there is no "formula" on a correct focal length to shoot corals, fish, or anything else! The only things a lens focal length does is 4 things: (1) The ability to "walk" with the lens rather then your feet (2) compression or exaggerating distance (3) DOF control (4) distortion control. So taking this into account, can someone explain to me why I keep hearing suggestions of using a 90mm -105mm focal length lenses? Even if the suggestion is something else, such as a 60mm,, I'm just saying, shouldn't the decision be made based on the factors mentioned and what he/she wants to create?
Equipment "in a nutshell":
Ok, in a nutshell,,, photography equipment is "you get what you pay for!!". If you're concerned about your budget, results that are equipment based, will be limited. Hope this makes sense. Another way to put it, theoretically, you can accomplish anything a power drill can do with a screwdriver and some elbow grease. You can accomplish the job a lot easier and faster (more efficient) by using a power drill instead of a screwdriver in most cases, but you'll pay a lot more for the power drill!! Make sense?
OK, if there's anything I can help you guys on, questions, concerns, gripes, etc. just ask, I'll do my best to respond.
This will be my first thread on this forum and I'm hoping that I can be some help answering some general questions being asked over and over again on this forum. I have read a lot of great answers and information given by other photographers but I would like to add to some of it (please don't feel insulted or discouraged if I sound like I don't totally agree with some of the advice or opinions given on this forum).
A little bit about my experience in photography: I was (past tense) certified pro by the PPA (past tense cause I am no longer a member of PPA, stopped paying the membership and certification renewal). I'm an Adobe Certified Expert in Photoshop CC. I'm a NPS (Nikon professional Services) member. I currently assist and teach in workshops, classes, and continuing ed courses in relation to portraiture/fashion photography in 2 colleges in NYC. I do not take pictures of my reef tank (I only enjoy it looking at it in my living room) but, I think on a technical standpoint of photography, I can still help many of you. I will try to clear up some of the misconceptions and confusion that I see a lot on this forum.
White Balance & Raw vs Jpeg:
I think this is the number one question or concern that I see. To clear up RAW vs Jpeg (when concerning white balance) is: firstly, if you can shoot and process a RAW file (meaning, you have the software to process it), then don't worry about it and just shoot RAW. The only difference between the 2 is that a JPEG is a "finished" file. If you're shooting JPEG in camera, that means that your camera is processing your image for you cause if your camera had a brain, it's assuming that you are not looking to post process the image yourself, so, it'll do you a favor by finishing it off for you. A RAW image is just that "RAW". The image is not processed or compressed. All of the information that the camera is capable of capturing is still in the file. Being that it is not compressed or information is not thrown out, you will have a lot more room to fine tune the white balance and everything else you want to perform during the post processing stage. If you want to just shoot it and forget it, shoot JPEG then. Don't get me wrong, it's not like you can't fix the white balance or post process a Jpeg image, it's just that a lot of the info or file has been thrown away in-camera.
As far as white balance in camera: firstly, I would say don't worry about it. Shoot it and fix it in post. It only takes a second to fix it in post and then batch process everything (cause I'm assuming the rest of your files are shot under the same lighting conditions). If you're looking to complicate things for yourself by getting the WB in camera correct, I understand why and I'll try to explain it to you. In the Kelvin scale, there are numbers that you are dealing with. In reality, the higher the number, for example 10,000 kelvin, the bluer it is. The further down, such as in comparison, 3200 kelvin, it is more yellow it is. In your camera, it'll be opposite cause your camera is trying to counteract against the specific lighting condition. For example, if the kelvin temp of the environment is 3200 K, that means that the light source is very yellow. If you set your camera to 3200 or incandescent, then your camera will add blue (which is complimentary to yellow) in the attempt to neutralize the yellow in the scene. Confused yet? see why I said to fix it in post? it's a lot easier.
Canon vs. Nikon:
There is absolutely no significant difference between the 2 brands!!! There is a very small difference in sensor size though. So small of a difference that it's not even worth factoring in to a decision of which to buy. Nikon sensors are ever so slightly larger than Canon sensors. On the crop sensor or APS-C sensors (in which many on this forum owns) the Nikon has a 1.5 crop factor and the Canon has a 1.6 crop factor. If you don't know what this means, don't worry about it, but if you're that curious, the way this affects you (besides the actual size of the sensor) is that you get the "field of view" of either 1.5x or 1.6x of the lens you're using. There is a huge misconception out there where photographers think that makes their 50mm lens into a 75mm. This is absolutely UNTRUE. You get the field of view of a 75mm, but your 50mm lens is still a 50mm lens, cropped! Some of the other insignificant differences are the fact that the Canons tend to add a bit more magenta to the file and the Nikons tend to add a bit more Blue. Doesn't make a difference at all if you're doing any type of post processing. There are some other insignificant technological advantages in either one such as CLS, AF sensor technology, etc. but the reason why it's insignificant, technology changes, catches up with each other, and changes so fast that as soon as one brand comes up with something amazing, the other one will match it or beat it. Moral of the story is, "don't worry about it, buy what you want, one is not better than the other".
Macro Lens:
I see a lot of suggestions about purchasing a macro lens as almost "a must" for aquarium photography. I don't mean to offend anybody, but I absolutely DISAGREE!! A Macro lens offer 1 benefit over everything else. At the particular focal length, a macro lens will allow you to get "physically" closer to the subject!! This will accomplish 2 things, it'll allow the photographer to take "in-camera", a 1:1 ratio shot and the depth of field will be so shallow, (in many cases a drawback instead of a benefit) regardless of the aperture that the photographer is using. This is why, personally I am able to tell in most instances that a claimed macro shot is not actually a macro shot. It may have been taken with a macro lens, but it's not a macro shot. The shot is actually a cropped image in post. See, I already gave you a suggestion: take the pic, and as long you have enough MP's to spare, crop it in post.
Lens Focal length:
I see a lot of suggestions on getting a certain focal length for specifically "aquarium shots". Again, I don't mean to offend anyone but I DISAGREE. The reason why I disagree is because there is no "formula" on a correct focal length to shoot corals, fish, or anything else! The only things a lens focal length does is 4 things: (1) The ability to "walk" with the lens rather then your feet (2) compression or exaggerating distance (3) DOF control (4) distortion control. So taking this into account, can someone explain to me why I keep hearing suggestions of using a 90mm -105mm focal length lenses? Even if the suggestion is something else, such as a 60mm,, I'm just saying, shouldn't the decision be made based on the factors mentioned and what he/she wants to create?
Equipment "in a nutshell":
Ok, in a nutshell,,, photography equipment is "you get what you pay for!!". If you're concerned about your budget, results that are equipment based, will be limited. Hope this makes sense. Another way to put it, theoretically, you can accomplish anything a power drill can do with a screwdriver and some elbow grease. You can accomplish the job a lot easier and faster (more efficient) by using a power drill instead of a screwdriver in most cases, but you'll pay a lot more for the power drill!! Make sense?
OK, if there's anything I can help you guys on, questions, concerns, gripes, etc. just ask, I'll do my best to respond.
