Working on my camera settings...

[Jedi1199]

So I kind of took a break from trying to figure out my camera settings for a while... Tonight I decided to get back to work on learning how to get good pictures of my fish.

These are the 2 that came out decent enough to even bother with post editing.... I will post more in this thread as I get them.


Here are the settings from these shots. These are shot in RAW format.

I did a little editing before I posted here to crop the overall photo and enhance the colors to look right. This is what the camera was set at when I took the actual shot:

Cannon EOS Rebel T7 with Stock EF-S lens 18-55mm

42mm, f/5, 1/60 sec, ISO 800, EXP 0. Flash on with slave flash also on.

For this one,

42mm, f/13, 4/5 sec, ISO 400, EXP 1.7. Flash and slave flash on.

 

[DarkReefer]

A lot clearer than I've ever been able to get. Nice work!

 

[Jedi1199]

Here is a FTS of my 180g FOWLR tank...

For an experiment I allowed the camera to do all the settings automatically.

Here are the settings as shot:

28mm, f/4, 1/25 sec, ISO 3200, EXP 0, Flash off.

Here is the un-edited version. All I did was crop out the parts that are not the tank itself. No alterations of the colors or balance. This is what the camera caught.

And here is with some minor adjustments:

 

[maroun.c]

it mentions flas and slave flash on? are you using multiple flashes?
for the second picture
42mm, f/13, 4/5 sec, ISO 400, EXP 1.7. Flash and slave flash on.

I wouldn't be taking fish shots at F13. this simply causes the exposure time to be way to long and its causing the shadow trail you see between the fish and the rock in fornt as your exposure time is 4/5 sec which is way too long for a moving subject.
Flash would help but at that aperture it would be a very heavy flash exposure which most probably would wash out colors and cause reflections.
was the shot too dark and you corrected the exposure in post processing as you shouldn't be gerring this much noise at ISP 400.
is flash the built in camera flash or an on camera flash?

I would suggest the following parameters with external flash with diffusor on the flash that can tilt around 45 degrees up. lens on the glass and perpendicular to glass to avoid flash reflections and glass distortion.
1/60-1/120 shutter speed
your aperture can go down to 5.6 at wide open right ? so either full open or a bit more for more sharpness.
flash on with compensation at 0 or you can go manual flash and experiment with few shots to see what flash power works well for you.
ISO 400-800 or even higher if your camera doens't get much noise with High iso.

 

[maroun.c]

And do check out the stickied articles in the photograhy forum these go a bit more in explaining picture parameters and comparing different parameters end results...

 

[Jedi1199]

it mentions flas and slave flash on? are you using multiple flashes?
for the second picture
42mm, f/13, 4/5 sec, ISO 400, EXP 1.7. Flash and slave flash on.

I wouldn't be taking fish shots at F13. this simply causes the exposure time to be way to long and its causing the shadow trail you see between the fish and the rock in fornt as your exposure time is 4/5 sec which is way too long for a moving subject.
Flash would help but at that aperture it would be a very heavy flash exposure which most probably would wash out colors and cause reflections.
was the shot too dark and you corrected the exposure in post processing as you shouldn't be gerring this much noise at ISP 400.
is flash the built in camera flash or an on camera flash?

I would suggest the following parameters with external flash with diffusor on the flash that can tilt around 45 degrees up. lens on the glass and perpendicular to glass to avoid flash reflections and glass distortion.
1/60-1/120 shutter speed
your aperture can go down to 5.6 at wide open right ? so either full open or a bit more for more sharpness.
flash on with compensation at 0 or you can go manual flash and experiment with few shots to see what flash power works well for you.
ISO 400-800 or even higher if your camera doens't get much noise with High iso.

I totally agree with you. The second shot is not nearly as good as the first for exactly the reasons you mentioned. f/13 and 4/5 is WAYYYY too much. It was where the manual settings were left when I last was tinkering with the camera. The first shot, which is obviously much better, was taken with the auto settings on.

Yes, the original shot was very dark and I did adjust it in post editing. I will post a shot as taken below.

This is what the first shot was set at.

42mm, f/5, 1/60 sec, ISO 800, EXP 0. Flash on with slave flash also on.

Clearly it is a cleaner and more dynamic photo than the 2nd one. Settings are very near what you recommend.

This is what the original shot looked like before editing. Cropped for posting but otherwise unchanged.

 

[gbru316]

Nice progress! Practice makes perfect

And the great thing about digital photography is that practice is free!

 

[Jedi1199]

Nice progress! Practice makes perfect

And the great thing about digital photography is that practice is free!

I was telling my GF earlier.. "Thank God for the digital age.." I took 42 shots to get the two I used.. and I had to edit them to get them to a point that was worthy of posting... Imagine if I had had to buy the film, take the pics get the film developed and find out that none of them are usable..

 

[gbru316]

I was telling my GF earlier.. "Thank God for the digital age.." I took 42 shots to get the two I used.. and I had to edit them to get them to a point that was worthy of posting... Imagine if I had had to buy the film, take the pics get the film developed and find out that none of them are usable..

I ran a child photography studio out of my home for a few years. I'd routinely take 100 pictures only to actually deliver 10.

Partly because there's no associated cost with doing so, and partly because it was a bank of photos from which I could access if I needed it. For instance, if the pose in one photo was perfect, but the face wasn't, I could combine the two and end up with a better photo than either of them on their own.

I dabbled with film for a little while and I've got to say: if that was the only medium available photography wouldn't be a hobby of mine. Between the cost, and the need to write down settings for every photo in order to learn what I could do better, it just wasn't fun.

 

[d2mini]

My two cents:

I never use flash with my tank. It's just not my thing. I don't like the harsh shadows and highlights. Don't like the color.
Maybe try without? You will need to bump your ISO up much higher, especially if you do what I'm going to suggest next which is increase your shutterspeed. Try for around 1/100 minimum to get sharper pics. Software can help with reducing noise in post, but here is a tip... your image will have less noise at higher iso if you nail the exposure. If you shoot at a lower ISO but underexpose and then bump exposure or shadows in post, you will have more noise than you did at the higher ISO with proper exposure.

For WB i use a whiter setting on my lights and Nikon's wb is set to 10,000k.
I can tweak furter in post if needed, I only shoot raw.

Here's a few examples. And like mentioned above, it takes many shutter clicks to get a keeper!
Gotta have those eyes in focus or it goes in the trash.

I'm sure you know how neurotic clownfish are! Never still, no matter how much you beg and plead.
f/4 , 1/320, ISO 1250

1/160, ISO 2500, (f2 or f4??? I was using a cheap chinese lens with no digital contacts, doesn't transmit info)

In contrast, these guys barely move!
f/6.3, 1/60, ISO 1250

 

[Jedi1199]

Thanks for the tips Dennis... I did as you suggested and set my settings to at or as near as I could to your suggestion...

Here are a few shots from the 135 reef tank...

Like you said, clowns are hard to catch lol

One of my Black Capped Damsels

These next 2 I am going to post both the original and edited shots.

Very little needed in post process with this one. A minor bump to exposure is all I did here

And finally.. Yes these guys hardly move.. lol

A bit of tweaking in post process.. bump to exposure, a bit of white balance and a couple minor touch ups to color.

 

[OrchidMiss]

So I kind of took a break from trying to figure out my camera settings for a while... Tonight I decided to get back to work on learning how to get good pictures of my fish.

These are the 2 that came out decent enough to even bother with post editing.... I will post more in this thread as I get them.


Here are the settings from these shots. These are shot in RAW format.

I did a little editing before I posted here to crop the overall photo and enhance the colors to look right. This is what the camera was set at when I took the actual shot:

Cannon EOS Rebel T7 with Stock EF-S lens 18-55mm

42mm, f/5, 1/60 sec, ISO 800, EXP 0. Flash on with slave flash also on.

For this one,

42mm, f/13, 4/5 sec, ISO 400, EXP 1.7. Flash and slave flash on.

Hi friend! Shots are looking great!

 

[Jedi1199]

Hi friend! Shots are looking great!

Thanks Janice

 

[OrchidMiss]

Thanks Janice

Thanks, Seamus!

 

[Jedi1199]

This one has a bit of graininess to it that I don't like.. I think I went too far with the ISO on this one...

 

[DarkReefer]

I'm envious.
These shots look great.

Do you have your tank lights set to anything in particular for the photos? or a coloured lens that you use to make the blues more tolerable?

I've got a 10yo old Nikkon D5100 I think it is and even bought a tripod for it last year so I could try and take some better pictures but just haven't put any time or effort in because the one or two times I've tried I found the results to be sub par.

 

[Jedi1199]

I'm envious.
These shots look great.

Do you have your tank lights set to anything in particular for the photos? or a coloured lens that you use to make the blues more tolerable?

I've got a 10yo old Nikkon D5100 I think it is and even bought a tripod for it last year so I could try and take some better pictures but just haven't put any time or effort in because the one or two times I've tried I found the results to be sub par.

Actually yes. For the 135g reef tank, I turn the whites up to about 40%.

No special lens or filter used. Whatever blue that is still in the shots is cleaned up in post edit.

 

[d2mini]

Thanks for the tips Dennis... I did as you suggested and set my settings to at or as near as I could to your suggestion...

Here are a few shots from the 135 reef tank...

Like you said, clowns are hard to catch lol

One of my Black Capped Damsels

These next 2 I am going to post both the original and edited shots.

Very little needed in post process with this one. A minor bump to exposure is all I did here

And finally.. Yes these guys hardly move.. lol

A bit of tweaking in post process.. bump to exposure, a bit of white balance and a couple minor touch ups to color.

Yeah dude, these are looking good!

See if you can get your exposure up in camera, probably with ISO and/or f-stop.

What software are you using for editing?

 

[gbru316]

Looking good @Jedi1199!

I don't notice any grain in the photo that I would consider "unacceptable." Part of the hobby is determining what tradeoffs you can accept, when. I have no doubt that it's worse when viewed full-scale, but it doesn't translate to a reduced size. And this is often the case -- "defects" what we can see when we zoom way in during post processing simply aren't noticeable otherwise. I get it -- my first instinct in post is to zoom way in on the eyes (when I'm photographing people) and I'm prone to thinking that if I can't count individual eyelashes than it's a bad photo when often that simply isn't the case. Especially when the photo is only intended for posting online. "Pixel peeping" can be challenging to overcome even for the best photographers.

Also, if you're using something like lightroom for basic post-processing, you can remove some of the noise at the expense of sharpness. But I don't think that's needed here.

 

[Jedi1199]

Got a few good shots tonight...