Fish in aquariums help....

[Turn7]

Im struggling to think of a harder to capture subject than tropical fish in an aquarium....

Any advice, general or specific ?

Kitbag contains :
D200
18-70 kit lens
50/1.8

On camera flash only.

Some examples of mine below, but Ive seen much much better.
What am I missing ? Kit or skills ? If kit, then recomendations please...

Toying with buying either SB600 flash or a set of AF extension tubes.



Perspocax in foreground, Joanjonsonae to rear by mark_p99, on Flickr


c3 by mark_p99, on Flickr


b4 by mark_p99, on Flickr


Female Joanjonsonae by mark_p99, on Flickr

[Turn7]

Anyone?

[Simpo Two]

I was taking photos at the big aquarium in La Corunna earlier this year and my results are mixed. Some like yours, others much clearer and sharper (ambient light though). Ultimately I think it's what you're faced with. If it's a small, well lit tank with thin, clean glass and an attractive background you'll get good results. If it's a large, dim tank with thick glass you'll get bad results. The camera can only record what it sees, so don't get too concerned if your results aren't fantastic.

[LongQ]

Hmm.

Somewhat specialised and a number of variables to consider.

Have you read this from Nikon?

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Learn-And-Explore/Artic...

I think it is probably more large aquarium than home fish tank but the problems will be similar.

Beyond that there are going to be special interest web sites and groups on Flickr that would surely be willing to help unless they are a bunch of miserable bds - it would surely be rare to find an entire group with that attitude.

No idea what settings you are using but if light is in short supply, as it probably is, then a fairly wide open lens and longish shutter speed are probably required - maybe off camera low power and diffused/bounced flash(es) to freeze things and help perceived sharpness. That said the article, talking about large aquaria I think at that point, suggests that flash is a bad idea. But if there is no othr way to get decent light on the subject you may need to seek out a different means of retaining correct colours. Maybe some messing around with white balance - or shoot RAW and gain some control later.

I would guess manual focus would be the most consistent option. Perhaps the only option that will really work. The Depth of Field is likely to be small but could be made more practical by careful use of distance and aperture.

It's a bit like taking anything really. If all the elements come together you get a great looking result. If that does't quite happen they probably look sort of OK. If they all miss the mark or one of them fails big time they look awful.

[GetCarter]

I have NO idea whether this would work.... but I have one of these which is great for taking pics up close. Cheap too: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B006T4UUN8/ref=...

Edited by GetCarter on Sunday 16th June 13:59

[Turn7]

Thanks all.

Steve, I think that would give me the same issues I have with on camera flash ?

LQ - manual focus and long exposure isnt going to work as the blighters dont actually stop moving at all.

Simpo - I agree, it is a case of WYSIWYG,but I know its possible to improve.

Im a keen fish keeper and togger, so it would be nice to get some some good shots of my fish.

Im really torn between a set of AF tubes or a used SB600....

I do think off camera flash above the subject could be the way to go though.
I could hire one for £28, or buy for around the ton.....

[tenohfive]

LongQ said:

Beyond that there are going to be special interest web sites and groups on Flickr that would surely be willing to help unless they are a bunch of miserable bds - it would surely be rare to find an entire group with that attitude.

I can't comment on the Flickr side - that'd be a good shout - but as a keen tog and a (immediately prior) keen fishkeeper you'd be surprised. Whilst I wouldn't say the two hobbies are mutually exclusive both are expensive and time consuming, and I know I couldn't make the overlap work.

I've not tried with my own tank but I'd say flash is off the cards - it'll just bounce off the glass most of the time. Strong lighting (T5's overheard perhaps, or some way of evenly lighting the tank) might work - or better still lots of natural light.

The second would be (for single subjects) wide aperture, high ISO. Given the background is inherently noisy I'd say you'll get away with quite high ISO. If it's several subjects with more DOF needed then rely on ISO and as low shutter speed as you can manage - if you spam out shots you'll catch a brief moment of slower movement.

I do wonder if a long exposure (2-3 seconds) followed by a normal exposure and then layered might create quite a cool effect too. Tempted to try on my own tank.

This is all speculation by the way - the last time I took fish photo's was with a P&S in manual with mixed results. Natural light worked best for me then.

[LongQ]

Turn7 said:

Thanks all.

Steve, I think that would give me the same issues I have with on camera flash ?

LQ - manual focus and long exposure isnt going to work as the blighters dont actually stop moving at all.

Simpo - I agree, it is a case of WYSIWYG,but I know its possible to improve.

Im a keen fish keeper and togger, so it would be nice to get some some good shots of my fish.

Im really torn between a set of AF tubes or a used SB600....

I do think off camera flash above the subject could be the way to go though.
I could hire one for £28, or buy for around the ton.....

Well by "longish" I was thinking of what ever is required to deal with the amount of light available. Maybe as slow as 1/60th with flash for example rather than thinking in terms of 1/320th to try and freeze any movement. The Nikon article seems to be discussing relatively well lit large public aquaria and proposes 1/120th at f5 or so and rely on auto ISO to deal with available light.

For close up action freezing I would think of 1/120th as relatively long.

As for manual focus - the idea would be to pre-focus somewhere that is controllable - ie the subject matter passing though would almost certainly be at as a specific distance - and then wait for the subjects to appear in the right place. If working quite close up with low light levels any AF might be challenged to perform well anyway. In some ways if you follow the advice in the article about rubber lens hoods and having the lens perpendicular to the glass it is almost heading you in that direction anyway even if using AF. The distance from camera to subject will be relatively restricted if the subject is to be captured well so AF functionality will be working in a limited range. But if available light is poor to start with you might struggle to get AF to lock on anyway - so manual focus and persuading the subject to be where ou have focussed might be a better bet some of the time.

[LongQ]

From another quick Google search.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2012/7/photography

[rolex]

My Panasonic lumix bridge camera has a scene mode for shooting through glass.
Anyone know how that would work?

[Turn7]

LongQ said:

Turn7 said:

Thanks all.

Steve, I think that would give me the same issues I have with on camera flash ?

LQ - manual focus and long exposure isnt going to work as the blighters dont actually stop moving at all.

Simpo - I agree, it is a case of WYSIWYG,but I know its possible to improve.

Im a keen fish keeper and togger, so it would be nice to get some some good shots of my fish.

Im really torn between a set of AF tubes or a used SB600....

I do think off camera flash above the subject could be the way to go though.
I could hire one for £28, or buy for around the ton.....

Well by "longish" I was thinking of what ever is required to deal with the amount of light available. Maybe as slow as 1/60th with flash for example rather than thinking in terms of 1/320th to try and freeze any movement. The Nikon article seems to be discussing relatively well lit large public aquaria and proposes 1/120th at f5 or so and rely on auto ISO to deal with available light.

For close up action freezing I would think of 1/120th as relatively long.

As for manual focus - the idea would be to pre-focus somewhere that is controllable - ie the subject matter passing though would almost certainly be at as a specific distance - and then wait for the subjects to appear in the right place. If working quite close up with low light levels any AF might be challenged to perform well anyway. In some ways if you follow the advice in the article about rubber lens hoods and having the lens perpendicular to the glass it is almost heading you in that direction anyway even if using AF. The distance from camera to subject will be relatively restricted if the subject is to be captured well so AF functionality will be working in a limited range. But if available light is poor to start with you might struggle to get AF to lock on anyway - so manual focus and persuading the subject to be where ou have focussed might be a better bet some of the time.

Hmm, some interesting points there.

Ive always used Continuous focus with the body set to not fire if not in focus, so I guess it does fix well enough to fire the shutter.

Im going to have another bash this week if I get chance. Wil update with results...

[gingerpaul]

I'd try getting an external flash, sealing it in something and putting it in the tank I think. I'd also try to make the room as dark as possible. Use the tank light to focus and set the flash for a couple of stops more light than the tank light at least so that it's not part of the picture, unless you want that of course.

[Turn7]

UPDATE:
Getting better! These were taken using the smallest of my new AF the extension tubes,along with the Jessops off camera flash firing down from the top of the tank. Im amazed how clean the tank glass needs to - it looks ok to the eye, but the camera makes it look filthy!
IIRC, only numbers 1&2 needed a crop, the rest are just resized from the RAW.



DSC_7168 by mark_p99, on Flickr


DSC_7162 by mark_p99, on Flickr


DSC_7151 by mark_p99, on Flickr


DSC_7150 by mark_p99, on Flickr


DSC_7149 by mark_p99, on Flickr


DSC_7146 by mark_p99, on Flickr


DSC_7144 by mark_p99, on Flickr

[tenohfive]

Definitely getting there. Personally I'd be tempted to bring a touch out of the shadows and ramp up the contrast a smidge to show off the colours, but they all seem pretty well focused and reasonably exposed.

As for dirt on the tank: clone stamp/spot healing are the lazy photographers best friend

[LongQ]

tenohfive said:

Definitely getting there. Personally I'd be tempted to bring a touch out of the shadows and ramp up the contrast a smidge to show off the colours, but they all seem pretty well focused and reasonably exposed.

As for dirt on the tank: clone stamp/spot healing are the lazy photographers best friend

I would guess that 4 and 7 (if I counted correctly) taken with the camera more square to the plane of the glass than the others. The direction of the subject also suggests less sideways movement which would help.

If your lens is not in the same plane as the glass I would expect the image to suffer from some light diffraction through the two glass surfaces. This would become more noticeable in close up than it would at a distance - taking a shot through a window for example or indeed operating in a large aquarium.

If you have enough in camera resolution available you might be able to move back, shoot longer and crop to your satisfaction. However that could also make the cleanliness of the glass a bigger concern. Ideally, if the glass cannot be immacualtealy clean, you would have a camera to glass to subject distance combination that would allow you to focus on the fish but have the glass surfaces out of focus. You would still have some negative impact on the image but not spots and so more easily adjustable with less effort.

Also shoot when the water is very clean to eliminate any clouding effects from anything floating around in it.

I don't for one minute assume that setting things up for such an approach would be a trivial exercise.