All Wet........

Osprey Whisperer

Somethings a bit fishy.

BMP


1) Frozen Skates





2) Lion Around




3) Cardinal Sin




4) Rebel Yell (grouper)




5) Black Grouper




6) Blacktip Shark




7) Prince Charming





8) Puffer





9) Kiss Me




10) Don't get CRABY....last one.

photocat

Bird Man Photographer wrote:

Somethings a bit fishy.

BMP




Nice fish, splendid colors, I am wondering if you sharpenend them just a tad too much... (white speckles?)
No worry though: great colors, pleasant water feeling, and interesting to look at. (Which should be one of the main parameters for liking pics I think)

ginger_55

I really do like Prince Charming. However, I do find it difficult to believe that you have a shark in your backyard.

I just went out and took a photo of the sky: ominous. However, no vistas here to set it off, just wanted to take a photo, so I did.

Now a shark would have been good, don't know what for, but it would have been interesting in this suburban neighborhood of townhouses and other houses.

ginger

Osprey Whisperer

photocat wrote:

Bird Man Photographer wrote:

Somethings a bit fishy.

BMP




Nice fish, splendid colors, I am wondering if you sharpenend them just a tad too much... (white speckles?)
No worry though: great colors, pleasant water feeling, and interesting to look at. (Which should be one of the main parameters for liking pics I think)

Thanks. Could be over sharpened?? These were very difficult shooting situations. Very low low light....fast moving fish...and a PS digi with max ISO of 400. Did a lot of panning. Boosted all exposure parameters..and pulled out all the tricks I know to get something usable. THe other follks I went with DID NOT get a single usable shot. I did really push the limits of the camera...and photoshop to bring out details. I'm sure some of that "white spots/speckles" are due to the high ISO...poor lighting..and heavy brightness/sharpening in PS. I took a 35mm with 400 ISO film..and a 50mm f/1.4 lens..and COULD NOT GET A SHOT. IIRC I had the digi set at f/2.0-2.8 (wide open on the Canon G2)..and a shutter speed of about 1/60. Braced arms tight against body..and panned at the waist. Can't wait to try this ISO 1600 on the Canon 20D.

Cheers

BMP

Osprey Whisperer

ginger_55 wrote:

However, I do find it difficult to believe that you have a shark in your backyard.

ginger

Though I've never seen one...I suppose technically it IS POSSIBLE. It is saltwater out back. Direct from the Gulf of Mexico...and not too far from the jetty (opening from back waters to Gulf). I have mostly snook and sheephead out back. Some catfish....and once there was a (lost) manatee.

These shots were taken in my swimsuit with a dive mask and snorkel. :uhoh O.K..not really. Most were taken at the Florida (Tampa) aquarium. The other favorite place are my own aquariums...or the local pet store.

I don't dive.....yet. So maybe someday I'll run into JAWS?? I do see them in the boat while fishing. Tons of blacktip shark off our beaches.

BMP

pathfinder

Bird Man Photographer wrote:

Thanks. Could be over sharpened?? These were very difficult shooting situations. Very low low light....fast moving fish...and a PS digi with max ISO of 400. Did a lot of panning. Boosted all exposure parameters..and pulled out all the tricks I know to get something usable. THe other follks I went with DID NOT get a single usable shot. I did really push the limits of the camera...and photoshop to bring out details. I'm sure some of that "white spots/speckles" are due to the high ISO...poor lighting..and heavy brightness/sharpening in PS. I took a 35mm with 400 ISO film..and a 50mm f/1.4 lens..and COULD NOT GET A SHOT. IIRC I had the digi set at f/2.0-2.8 (wide open on the Canon G2)..and a shutter speed of about 1/60. Braced arms tight against body..and panned at the waist. Can't wait to try this ISO 1600 on the Canon 20D.

Cheers

BMP

Birdman, I think you are correct that much of your difficulty is the small sensor/inherent noise of the point&shoot digicam and the subsequent processing in PS. The lighting in some public aquariums is extremely low, even to the human eye. I have posted a number of images over the last two years shot at the Aquarium in Chattanooga shot with either a 10D, a 20D, or a 1DMkll, and they do not suffer from as much noise, but do demonstrate the very low light levels present.

This image was shot with a 10D at ISO 800 at f1.4 1/20th. Lit by a dim tungsten bulb over the top of the tank - It was dim to the human eye also.


This image was shot with a 20D at ISO 1600 f3.2 1/60. There may be some cropping in the processing of these images so do not use them to compare noise levels between the various camera bodies used.


This frog was lit dimly by a single overhead tungsten bulb and captured with a 1DMkll at ISO 1600 f2.8 1/100


This blind reef fish was captured with a 10D at ISO 800 f2.5 1/125



I think this will give you an idea of the kind of results you can expect with a 20D or similar DSLR at ISO 800 or 1600.

Owen

pathfinder wrote:

AMAZING! Send that to a magazine! FAMA and TFH come to mind.

bfjr

Pretty Fishy couldn't resist :lol
very nicely done

Treehugger

The first they say is always the best - Frozen Skates is my favourite. Great depth and composition.

Osprey Whisperer

Thanks. Nice shots and I have been going nuts to shoot some fish/inverts with the new camera. I like the dragon of yours. I snapped one also. Very dark tank and as the others.....everything pushed to it's limits.

BMP




Here are some extreme cases that were pushed for their "effect" (grain/contrast...harsh/cold/dark feel). The large grouper tank was only lit by a little overhead sunlight. Very dark tank indeed. I kind of like the feel of these permit shots.










Same tank....different fish (grouper) :uhoh

pathfinder

Bird Man Photographer wrote:

Thanks. Nice shots and I have been going nuts to shoot some fish/inverts with the new camera. I like the dragon of yours. I snapped one also. Very dark tank and as the others.....everything pushed to it's limits.

BMP




Here are some extreme cases that were pushed for their "effect" (grain/contrast...harsh/cold/dark feel). The large grouper tank was only lit by a little overhead sunlight. Very dark tank indeed. I kind of like the feel of these permit shots.

I tried to get some shots of the dragon you posted above and it was 9pm at night and so very dark that I was not satisfied and did not upload it to smuggy. As you say, these tanks are Dark and require high ISOs and fast lenses.

I have caught four tuna, but never with all four in focus:D ...
10D ISO 800 f1.4 1/250


And I do have a puffer fish 1DMkll ISO 1600 f3.2 1/30


Trying to shoot at ISO 400 will be extremely challenging as you said. Most of the shots I posted here were actually shot with -0.67 to -1.0 negative EC as well. So ISO 400 will just not be in the chase.

Osprey Whisperer

Nice shots pathfinder. Those are jacks.....not tuna. Crevalle jacks to be more specific. I was amazed I got anything with ISO 400. That lens on that Canon G2 isn't too shaby though. (f/2.0-2.8). I wish I had the 20D a long time ago.

I have the Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 macro (pseudo). I will upgrade some day...but for the money it seemed like a very versatile lens (double duty). I collect WWII militaria...and figured it would be great for shooting uniforms and details of the medals etc.

Thanks for sharing your photos. Nice job.

BMP

Osprey Whisperer

I had a shot of some Jack Crevalles also...but didn't really turn out. Too fast for a clean capture. (eyes)

BMP

pathfinder

Bird Man Photographer wrote:

Nice shots pathfinder. Those are jacks.....not tuna. Crevalle jacks to be more specific. I was amazed I got anything with ISO 400. That lens on that Canon G2 isn't too shaby though. (f/2.0-2.8). I wish I had the 20D a long time ago.

I have the Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 macro (pseudo). I will upgrade some day...but for the money it seemed like a very versatile lens (double duty). I collect WWII militaria...and figured it would be great for shooting uniforms and details of the medals etc.

Thanks for sharing your photos. Nice job.

BMP

Well, I learned something today then. Thank you. And yes, I found they were fast enough swimmers to be difficult to photograph at the shutter speeds available due to the low light levels. Look at the Canon f1.8 or f1.4 50mm. They are both a bargain for their price.

photocat

I find that digital cameras are far better in low light conditions then any film camera. Perhaps the only good reason to go digital... just for the low light conditions.
When I shoot fish, I feel where the glass wand it of the tank, and then slightly press the camera against the glass to avoid shake. Then on to the small aperture and sloooowww shutterspeed...I love digital sigh.

Phil U.

photocat wrote:

I find that digital cameras are far better in low light conditions then any film camera. Perhaps the only good reason to go digital... just for the low light conditions.
When I shoot fish, I feel where the glass wand it of the tank, and then slightly press the camera against the glass to avoid shake. Then on to the small aperture and sloooowww shutterspeed...I love digital sigh.

That's the same technique I've used with good success. It limits composition and you have to look for fish that sit still but it allows me to use low ISOs to keep the noise gremlins away (I don't have the dslr with the super-clean high ISOs).

See examples in these galleries: http://philu.smugmug.com/Aquariums

photocat

Phil U. wrote:

That's the same technique I've used with good success. It limits composition and you have to look for fish that sit still but it allows me to use low ISOs to keep the noise gremlins away (I don't have the dslr with the super-clean high ISOs).

See examples in these galleries: http://philu.smugmug.com/Aquariums

I took a look in your galleries Phil, and wow, lovely fish shots. Love the crab with the pale colors.
I dug into my archives to find a fish of my own, and found one.
In my previous comment I meant of course the fastest possible shutterspeed.
I took the fish below with the minolta dimage 7I, which started at 100 ASA.
I now have the Nikon D70, who goes to 1600, but the minute you go over 400 the graininess becomes terrible. A true setback of the otherwise splendid Nikon D70 is also that it starts at 200 ASA, which is not enough in some cases.

Osprey Whisperer

Sorry.....but that's one UGLY fish, Cat. Nice shot by the way.

Phil U.

Bird Man Photographer wrote:

Sorry.....but that's one UGLY fish, Cat. Nice shot by the way.

MuskyDude

I really like your aquaria shots bmp, it's quite tought to get great ones and you did very good. Thanks for sharing these.





AJ

ian408

I like shooting in aquariums. But you're both right. Low light makes it a
real challenge. The large tanks keep their subjects far away too.

Nice shots eveyone!

I offer moon jellies:




Ian

Osprey Whisperer

Nice shot Ian. Jellyfish are on my "to shoot" list.....as soon as I get to one of the public aquariums around here. I am also hoping to catch another school of tarpon like I saw last summer cruising the beach. Thousands of these fish...and all in the 40#-80# range. One of the most incredible things I've ever seen. Got skunked that day...as they didn't chase anything in the tackle box. :uhoh


BMP