# Why are my macros so grainy?



## Kai808

What kind of camera, flash, and settings were used? Was it at ISO 1600 or higher?


----------



## xenxes

T4i, Yongnuo speedlite yn560 with a remote trigger.

The grainy shot was ISO6400, f/9, 1/200 exposure. I was messing on manual with different f/ and exposures but they all came out grainy.


----------



## Kai808

The higher the ISO value the higher the noise in the picture. What output was flash set at and which tank was this for? I would keep the ISO at 100-400 and let the flash do the work by increasing the light and maybe zooming it in (the flash should have a zoom button).

Good luck!


----------



## sushant

you have not mentioned about the camera that you are using, but this type of grainy pic can be because of high ISO try keeping it below 400), can compensate the light but decreasing aparture to 5.6(try experimenting with lower too), lower exposure (i gfuess with shrimps 1/80-1/100 would be fine and increasing the amount of light.


----------



## kman

I agree, the results look more like high ISO (6400 certainly qualifies) than lens-related noise. Check the settings from the other shot you posted. Also compare lighting in the two shots.

Low(-ish) ISO and plenty of light are key to sharp, clear, and noise-free shots. I try to keep my ISO at 800 max, preferably lower, but it depends on the capabilities of the camera. Some don't look good even at 800, others can be surprisingly clean considerably higher. But you're going to see graininess on cameras at 6400 ISO.


----------



## someoldguy

Sure looks like noise from high ISO . Try a series of shots of some stationary object at increasing ISO's and see what is the highest you can get away with .
Different cameras have different limits . With my Canon 5D Mk2 I regularly go to 2500 , sometimes 3200 while with my M9 I don't like to go much over 800 . 
If you're not already using them , a tripod and remote release are real helpful as is using live view . Your lens is fine , I've got one , it's gold .


----------



## xenxes

Ah I see. I didn't realize manual had ISO on auto on default, and it doesn't account for lighting from the remote flash. Also I did mention above it's an entry T4i (Canon), so probably does not have that of a high ISO limit. Thanks all, haven't taken macros for a while and completely forgot how to do it.

So I'm going to try just adjust the flash brightness to max, ISO to 100, and then play around with f/ and exposure settings.

Also, please refresh my memory, was it f/ or exposure that affected DoF? 

For increased DoF I want smallest aperture (but that means largest f# right?)

To account for motion blur I want faster shutter speed (lower exposure)?

Also, has anyone tried using a real macro lens in combination with a diopter to further enhance the magnification? I'm finding this canon 100 to give less magnification than the reversing ring.


----------



## kman

DOF is controlled by aperture (f stop). Smaller numbers mean you're opening the aperture larger. This gives you shallow DOF and more light reaching the sensor, so you can use a higher shutter speed. If you need more DOF, stop down the aperture by increasing the F stop number number, but that cuts out a lot more light so you'll need to slow the shutter or add more light. (or raise ISO but as you've learned there are limits to that)

To reduce motion blur increase shutter speed (again, which reduces the amount of light hitting the sensor, so open the aperture by lowering the aperture number).

Shooting tiny moving objects requires decent shutter speed (1/60-1/200, in general), and enough aperture to get the DOF you want to have the whole critter in focus (unless you want it super shallow), that f stop will vary widely.

You can probably feel safe bumping ISO at least to 400 without too much grain. But once you find the right focal point, shutter speed that adequately stops the motion, and f-stop that gives you the right DOF, you usually need a lot more than ambient light unless you're shooting in bright sunlight, thus the need for strobes.

I started shooting seriously underwater, where adequate light is ALWAYS a big issue (unless you're in 10' of water in the Caribbean), so powerful strobes (usually two) and a modeling light (to assist focus) are used to help compensate, especially shooting macro critters the size of most dwarf shrimp.


----------



## Chlorophile

xenxes said:


> Ah I see. I didn't realize manual had ISO on auto on default, and it doesn't account for lighting from the remote flash. Also I did mention above it's an entry T4i (Canon), so probably does not have that of a high ISO limit. Thanks all, haven't taken macros for a while and completely forgot how to do it.
> 
> So I'm going to try just adjust the flash brightness to max, ISO to 100, and then play around with f/ and exposure settings.
> 
> Also, please refresh my memory, was it f/ or exposure that affected DoF?
> 
> For increased DoF I want smallest aperture (but that means largest f# right?)
> 
> To account for motion blur I want faster shutter speed (lower exposure)?
> 
> Also, has anyone tried using a real macro lens in combination with a diopter to further enhance the magnification? I'm finding this canon 100 to give less magnification than the reversing ring.


Increased DoF means largest aperture, aka smallest F stop (lowest number)


----------



## someoldguy

Here's a link to the owners manual for your lens :

http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/7/0300003507/02/ef100f28macrousm-im2-eng.pdf

f-stop affects depth of field ….. the higher the numerical value the greater the depth of field . 

Higher (faster ) shutter speed is more effective for stopping motion . 

A more detailed explanation here: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lenses.htm

Your lens will focus up to life size , but you'll be pretty close to your subject.Maybe 12" . I've never used a diopter with any lens , but have used both extension tubes and a 2X Kenko extender ( not at the same time ) on my 100mm macro for outside bug photography and it worked pretty well . 

The big issue is that the combination of high f-stop and fast shutter just ain't gonna happen without flash . On the higher end Canon's there's a custom function that'll set the default shutter speed to 1/250 when using flash and 
aperture priority mode ( AV) . Don't know if you've got that , or if your flash is an ETTL enabled one . 

Assuming that your flash is pretty generic , why not try this ….

Set your ISO to 400 . Set the top control dial to M , so you're shooting in full manual mode . Set your shutter speed to as close to 200 as you can without going over ( probably 180 ) Use the front dial , by the shutter button , to do this . You're doing this because Canon shutters will synch with non Canon flashes at speeds of 1/200 or lower . Set your f-stop to f11 , it's a good starting point that will get you reasonable depth of field . Use the back dial to do this . 
Set your flash output to maximum and try a few tank shots . See what happens . If its' overexposed , cut the flash output down some . If underexposed , either go down to f8 or up the ISO to 800 . 
Alternatively , you could just start with f11 and 1/180 and set the camera to bracket exposures +/- 1 stop , there's probably a custom function that'll let you do this . And set the drive to continuous .This way you can hold down the shutter until it shoots 3 continuous shots , one underexposed , one on your setting , and one overexposed. Gotta check your manual . T4i ' s are somewhat different than the bigger Canons . Shoot RAW plus JPEG if you can , this way if the jpeg doesn't work out , you can tweak the RAW image some to compensate for white balance , color , exposure &c.
You've just gotta play around . Hopefully this'll give you a starting point.


----------



## xenxes

TY for all the tips, think I'm getting a better feel for manually setting ISO, aperture, exposure. As you said the ISO 100 shots came out the best.









ISO 100 f/11 1/160









ISO 100 f/16 1/160

Even stepping up to 200 something just looks off.. or maybe my hand shook, it's definitely less detail.








ISO 200 f/18 1/160









ISO 400 f/18 1/160


----------



## kman

Your camera (which IIRC is a low end DSLR?) should be good to at _least_ 400 if not 800 before grain starts to become objectionable. The lowest ISO is always best, however, as long as there is enough light. Nice shots! That first shot is especially good.


----------



## xenxes

Thx  yes the cheap flash provides plenty of light. With the cheap flash however I also can't do continuous shots like someoldguy recommended with +/-1 exposure range, so I usually just do some post effects editing for shadow/highlights/brightness.

If ISO 100 to 400 doesn't make a big difference even on an entry, another thought is maybe cause shots 3 and 4 were of shrimp farther back in the tank, and water is causing some distortion (it's very tannic water). I find I can only get good shots of things closer to the glass.


----------



## n25philly

Are you shooting with the light off camera? If so lower your shutter speed, start with say 125th of a second. Since you are using a speedlight it will free the motion and will let more light in so your photos are either brighter or you can go for more depth of field.

ISO can be raised to allow more light as well, but with a rebel I would go up to ISO 800 at max


----------



## xenxes

Yeah camera light is off, I have the remote trigger thingy inserted there, speedlite right above subject (this is hard in densely planted tanks to get a good angle)

I'm actually in the market for a step up from the rebel series. Do you guys think a full-frame justifies the cost? 7d is ~900 right now, 5d mark III is what, $3k? mark II I think fell to ~2k. I don't know much about Nikons and have only ever used Canons or Panasonics.


----------



## n25philly

xenxes said:


> Yeah camera light is off, I have the remote trigger thingy inserted there, speedlite right above subject (this is hard in densely planted tanks to get a good angle)
> 
> I'm actually in the market for a step up from the rebel series. Do you guys think a full-frame justifies the cost? 7d is ~900 right now, 5d mark III is what, $3k? mark II I think fell to ~2k. I don't know much about Nikons and have only ever used Canons or Panasonics.












unedited shot with my nikon d750 just using a bounce flash on camera. Yeah, nice equipment can make a difference.

I don't know about pointing the light down on the tank. I honestly haven't tried it myself, but I've had good luck pointing lighting down on an angle into the tank. It's especially good if you can use something black as a background on the tank as it will eat up the light so there is no reflection back and the main focus is the light hitting your subject.


----------



## kman

For macro photography, no, I don't think full frame justifies the cost. Higher priced EVERYTHING for the rest of your life. And in macro, there are advantages to smaller sensors.


----------



## GraphicGr8s

Chlorophile said:


> Increased DoF means largest aperture, aka smallest F stop (lowest number)


Uhm. Yeah. No. An f:2 lens at f:2 is wide open letting in the maximum light possible. It is also the shallowest DOF. F:22 is the smallest opening on many lenses. It is not letting much light in. It is also the maximum DOF the lens is capable of. 
Now here's another thing. All lenses have a "sweet" spot. It's that certain f/stop where DOF is perfect and the lens yields its sharpest image. Every lens, even among the same model, has a different sweet spot.

To the OP Start out at 200 ISO. F/8 and work from there. Find the sweet spot of the camera, lens and flash.

Bump:


n25philly said:


> unedited shot with my nikon d750 just using a bounce flash on camera. Y*eah, nice equipment can make a difference.*
> 
> I don't know about pointing the light down on the tank. I honestly haven't tried it myself, but I've had good luck pointing lighting down on an angle into the tank. It's especially good if you can use something black as a background on the tank as it will eat up the light so there is no reflection back and the main focus is the light hitting your subject.


Guess if you have super pots and pans then you can cook better than Bobby Flay, Mario Battali, insert favorite cook here. 
Talent, and an eye, and knowledge don't have a thing to do with great food or pictures I guess.
I've got nice, expensive systems. I've also got a 5MP P&S. I can take great pictures with either. I can also take crap with my expensive stuff. 

I can tell you from experience the equipment makes things easier. It's not a substitute for talent, eye, knowledge, familiarity with equipment, or experience.


----------



## GraphicGr8s

kman said:


> For macro photography, no, I don't think full frame justifies the cost. Higher priced EVERYTHING for the rest of your life. *And in macro, there are advantages to smaller sensors.*


Not really. Remember it is a crop not an enlargement. The disadvantage to a cropped sensor becomes highly apparent when shooting wide angle, there is no disadvantage to FF. Except the cost of the body.
The actual image size hitting a cropped sensor is exactly the same size image that hits a FF.

Bump:


xenxes said:


> Yeah camera light is off, I have the remote trigger thingy inserted there, speedlite right above subject (this is hard in densely planted tanks to get a good angle)
> 
> I'm actually in the market for a step up from the rebel series. Do you guys think a full-frame justifies the cost? 7d is ~900 right now, 5d mark III is what, $3k? mark II I think fell to ~2k. I don't know much about Nikons and have only ever used Canons or Panasonics.


Pentax is coming out with a FF camera this year IIRC. The cropped sensor cameras get great reviews, and you can use any lens ever made with the K mount. And any lens ever made for any camera with the M42 screw mount. Image stabilization is in body so even my 45 year old M42 450mm lens gets IS. Can't say that about any other manufacturer. Pentax has had some awesome glass over the years that are useable. Just stay away from the radioactive lenses. (actually all manufacturers made radioactive lenses at one point)


----------



## kman

GraphicGr8s said:


> Not really. Remember it is a crop not an enlargement. The disadvantage to a cropped sensor becomes highly apparent when shooting wide angle, there is no disadvantage to FF. Except the cost of the body.
> The actual image size hitting a cropped sensor is exactly the same size image that hits a FF.


Differences come into play when shooting 1:1 or more, and using a diopter. And I specified Macro. Wide angle there is definitely an advantage for FF cameras.


----------



## xenxes

I caught a (0.5") fish!



















Boraras are fast little buggers. Also looks like it's snowing in my dirty water, microscopic organisms? I want a microscopic lens...


----------



## someoldguy

xenxes said:


> Yeah camera light is off, I have the remote trigger thingy inserted there, speedlite right above subject (this is hard in densely planted tanks to get a good angle)
> 
> I'm actually in the market for a step up from the rebel series. Do you guys think a full-frame justifies the cost? 7d is ~900 right now, 5d mark III is what, $3k? mark II I think fell to ~2k. I don't know much about Nikons and have only ever used Canons or Panasonics.


If you're considering going full frame purely for macro shooting , I don't think there's going to be a whole lot of difference between crop and full frame . If you're going to use the camera for general photography , landscapes and such , there will be … full frame picks up a lot more detail , but you'll need some good lenses ( 24-105L , 24-70L ) which are 1K and up . Canon crop lenses (EF-S)won't work on full frame . Won't even fit so you'll have to replace anything EF-s with the EF equivalent . If you make big prints , 17x22 , 22x34 and up , full frame wins , Walmart prints , 8x10's , just showing on a laptop , tablet,or phone sensor size is pretty much irrelevant .
7D's are being replaced with the 7D Mk2 ( $1700 +/- ) The closest full frame Canon is the 6D , about the same price .
If your agonizing as to which is better for you , find a camera shop that has both ( a REAL camera shop , not Best Buy) and hold them both and see which feels better in your hands . Or , better yet , rent a copy of each for a weekend , the 7D with a 15-85 , and a 6D with 24-105L and see which works for you . 
It'll cost you something for the rentals , but you're looking at a 2K purchase and you want to get something you can live with for at least 5 years .


----------



## n25philly

GraphicGr8s said:


> Uhm. Yeah. No. An f:2 lens at f:2 is wide open letting in the maximum light possible. It is also the shallowest DOF. F:22 is the smallest opening on many lenses. It is not letting much light in. It is also the maximum DOF the lens is capable of.
> Now here's another thing. All lenses have a "sweet" spot. It's that certain f/stop where DOF is perfect and the lens yields its sharpest image. Every lens, even among the same model, has a different sweet spot.
> 
> To the OP Start out at 200 ISO. F/8 and work from there. Find the sweet spot of the camera, lens and flash.
> 
> Bump:
> Guess if you have super pots and pans then you can cook better than Bobby Flay, Mario Battali, insert favorite cook here.
> Talent, and an eye, and knowledge don't have a thing to do with great food or pictures I guess.
> I've got nice, expensive systems. I've also got a 5MP P&S. I can take great pictures with either. I can also take crap with my expensive stuff.
> 
> I can tell you from experience the equipment makes things easier. It's not a substitute for talent, eye, knowledge, familiarity with equipment, or experience.


lol, where did I say a good camera makes you the best there is? All I said is that it can help. The point was a got a decent shot without really putting much effort into it. If I had time to put together a good lighting set up I'm sure I could put together something spectacular. Better equipment does makes things easier and in some cases let you take things you couldn't otherwise.


----------



## photofish

Remember also that a macro has to be focused perfectly.If the little critter moves just a bit it could be out of focus. I have tried macro on my aquariums and found that is it very hard to control the focus. If you have a zoom lens that came with the camera and it zooms out to 135 or so try that. It won't fill the frame but it might be a lot easier to control focus.


----------



## xenxes

someoldguy said:


> If you're considering going full frame purely for macro shooting , I don't think there's going to be a whole lot of difference between crop and full frame . If you're going to use the camera for general photography , landscapes and such , there will be … full frame picks up a lot more detail , but you'll need some good lenses ( 24-105L , 24-70L ) which are 1K and up . Canon crop lenses (EF-S)won't work on full frame . Won't even fit so you'll have to replace anything EF-s with the EF equivalent . If you make big prints , 17x22 , 22x34 and up , full frame wins , Walmart prints , 8x10's , just showing on a laptop , tablet,or phone sensor size is pretty much irrelevant .
> 7D's are being replaced with the 7D Mk2 ( $1700 +/- ) The closest full frame Canon is the 6D , about the same price .
> If your agonizing as to which is better for you , find a camera shop that has both ( a REAL camera shop , not Best Buy) and hold them both and see which feels better in your hands . Or , better yet , rent a copy of each for a weekend , the 7D with a 15-85 , and a 6D with 24-105L and see which works for you .
> It'll cost you something for the rentals , but you're looking at a 2K purchase and you want to get something you can live with for at least 5 years .


Thanks again for the insight. I'm seeing there isn't much difference b/w the 6D and 5d Mark III (http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/6d/vs-5d-mark-iii.htm) in terms of shooting quality but a big price premium. As for larger prints, that is something I'd like to do eventually. The 6D body is only $1.2k right now. But I do need to swap out my lenses (with the 6D I'll have enough left to invest in a red ring). I have 2x STM lenses (18-135 EFS, 40mm EF never used) for T4i (the "silent" but not really video focus sold me, but I never use it, hah). You're right, need to do more research and get some hands on before buying.


----------



## Chlorophile

GraphicGr8s said:


> Chlorophile said:
> 
> 
> 
> Increased DoF means largest aperture, aka smallest F stop (lowest number)
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm. Yeah. No. An f:2 lens at f:2 is wide open letting in the maximum light possible. It is also the shallowest DOF. F:22 is the smallest opening on many lenses. It is not letting much light in. It is also the maximum DOF the lens is capable of.
> Now here's another thing. All lenses have a "sweet" spot. It's that certain f/stop where DOF is perfect and the lens yields its sharpest image. Every lens, even among the same model, has a different sweet spot.
> 
> To the OP Start out at 200 ISO. F/8 and work from there. Find the sweet spot of the camera, lens and flash.
> 
> Bump:
> 
> 
> n25philly said:
> 
> 
> 
> unedited shot with my nikon d750 just using a bounce flash on camera. Y*eah, nice equipment can make a difference.*
> 
> I don't know about pointing the light down on the tank. I honestly haven't tried it myself, but I've had good luck pointing lighting down on an angle into the tank. It's especially good if you can use something black as a background on the tank as it will eat up the light so there is no reflection back and the main focus is the light hitting your subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess if you have super pots and pans then you can cook better than Bobby Flay, Mario Battali, insert favorite cook here.
> Talent, and an eye, and knowledge don't have a thing to do with great food or pictures I guess.
> I've got nice, expensive systems. I've also got a 5MP P&S. I can take great pictures with either. I can also take crap with my expensive stuff.
> 
> I can tell you from experience the equipment makes things easier. It's not a substitute for talent, eye, knowledge, familiarity with equipment, or experience.
Click to expand...

Wow sorry I was having a brain fart.
By increased dof I was thinking an increase in bokeh but of course its shallower depth of field, just more of the effect.


----------



## GraphicGr8s

kman said:


> Differences come into play when shooting 1:1 or more, and using a diopter. And I specified Macro. Wide angle there is definitely an advantage for FF cameras.


Once you realize (editorial you is meant here) that a cropped sensor just didn't capture all the info a FF did you understand that all you need to do is enlarge it (FF) a bit more. There is no difference in the actual size of the image actually captured. A 100mm lens is 100mm no matter what sensor it is on. The only "advantage" of a cropped sensor is you don't have to enlarge and crop like you would for a FF. The camera has done it for you. I've got at least 8 FF cameras. But only 2 cropped. 
What do we mean by FF or cropped? 
Say you have a 1" x 1.5" rectangle. A FF will get all of it. A cropped will only see .75" x 1.25" The rectangle hasn't gotten bigger or smaller. You've just captured less of it. Last year in I believe Chlorophile's thread I posted an example of it.

Bump:


Chlorophile said:


> Wow sorry I was having a brain fart.
> By increased dof I was thinking an increase in bokeh but of course its shallower depth of field, just more of the effect.


Not all lenses have good bokeh though. A lot depends on the number of blades in the lens.

Bump:


xenxes said:


> Thanks again for the insight. I'm seeing there isn't much difference b/w the 6D and 5d Mark III (http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/6d/vs-5d-mark-iii.htm) in terms of shooting quality but a big price premium. As for larger prints, that is something I'd like to do eventually. The 6D body is only $1.2k right now. But I do need to swap out my lenses (with the 6D I'll have enough left to invest in a red ring). I have 2x STM lenses (18-135 EFS, 40mm EF never used) for T4i (the "silent" but not really video focus sold me, but I never use it, hah). You're right, need to do more research and get some hands on before buying.


If you're looking at eventually doing large format prints I've seen excellent result from as little as a 6mp IST. At least up to 42"which is the largest I can print in one direction. The other direction is only limited by how long the roll is. Factor to consider is viewing distance. One thing I've never been able to deal with since I look at everything under a loupe.


----------



## GraphicGr8s

n25philly said:


> lol, where did I say a good camera makes you the best there is? All I said is that it can help. The point was a got a decent shot without really putting much effort into it. If I had time to put together a good lighting set up I'm sure I could put together something spectacular. Better equipment does makes things easier and in some cases let you take things you couldn't otherwise.


You said good equipment makes a difference. I just hear that way too often. People see my work and a comment that is usually said is "Wow you must have great equipment" or "I could do that if I had your setup". Like skill, equipment familiarity, knowledge, and a whole lot of luck in some cases, makes no difference. Best part, in some cases, is when I show them the exif data (no. they have no idea what that means but they can read what camera shot it) and it's a 10 year old Kodak 5MP Easy Share. I love watching their jaw drop. Especially when it's a pano.

As for your lighting. Great shots can be done with only one, yes one flash unit. Joe McNally is the man for one light shoots. I've got 4, maybe 6 flash units. Most of the time I revert to either a Vivitar or my Pentax AF400 handle mount. I use multiples mostly for large groups.


----------



## Bloomer

Lots of good advice here; even with the fantastic CCD's in digital cameras now, physics is physics and DSLR's behave essentially the same as film SLR's. The smaller the aperture, the deeper is DOF and the lower the ISO (ASA, argh!) the less grain. For fast moving objects, lots of light is needed for the relatively grain free shots you get with med aperture/ISO and high shutter speed. 

I didn't look into the details of your camera/lens combo, whether the camera/lens CPU's communicate well or not; that can make a difference, too. The fundamentals of good photography are vastly more important than details, though. I can take great fish pix with my Nikon D7000 and an old 50 mm dia f1.8 E lens used manually. Takes some trial and error, but the pix are almost as good as the ones from the vibe reduction 70mm dia zoomer I normally use. 

Take advantage of post processing software, too; software can make good pics spectacular and poor ones good. 

Your pix got much better as the topic progressed!

Here's some AR Variegated I shot a few weeks ago with the Nikon (no flash, 1/200 shutter speed, f4.6, ISO 3200) along with a crop of the upper left portion of the image as it came from the camera. In reverse order of course  . Faststone is the image software used, the pic wasn't set up, no extra lighting, handheld lying prone on the floor in front of the tank. Digital photography is really quite amazing!


----------



## GraphicGr8s

Bloomer said:


> Lots of good advice here; even with the fantastic CCD's in digital cameras now, physics is physics and DSLR's behave essentially the same as film SLR's. The smaller the aperture, the deeper is DOF and the lower the ISO (ASA, argh!) the less grain. For fast moving objects, lots of light is needed for the relatively grain free shots you get with med aperture/ISO and high shutter speed.
> 
> I didn't look into the details of your camera/lens combo, whether the camera/lens CPU's communicate well or not; that can make a difference, too. The fundamentals of good photography are vastly more important than details, though. I can take great fish pix with my Nikon D7000 and an old 50 mm dia f1.8 E lens used manually. Takes some trial and error, but the pix are almost as good as the ones from the vibe reduction 70mm dia zoomer I normally use.
> 
> Take advantage of post processing software, too; software can make good pics spectacular and poor ones good.
> 
> Your pix got much better as the topic progressed!
> 
> Here's some AR Variegated I shot a few weeks ago with the Nikon (no flash, 1/200 shutter speed, f4.6, ISO 3200) along with a crop of the upper left portion of the image as it came from the camera. In reverse order of course  . Faststone is the image software used, the pic wasn't set up, no extra lighting, handheld lying prone on the floor in front of the tank. Digital photography is really quite amazing!


When you get really good you get those great shots in film.


----------



## Bloomer

With a large format film camera, yeah. When digital became viable after many years of pasty low res digital cameras, some of my buddies and I tried to replicate it with very slow film and lots of lighting in 35 mm and eventually we ate crow. But we weren't totally stubborn, we gave up before Kodak did!


----------



## kman

Even medium format is getting replaced with digital these days.

5 years ago, the graphic editors at my then-job (at a large Hollywood ad agency) told our photographers they didn't want 35mm film used anymore. Good DSLR raw was better and easier to work with. They still requested film for medium format. That has changed, by now, with the advent of good digital backs for medium format cameras.

I think large format is still ruled by film, but even there, it's days are likely numbered for all but the most esoteric special-purpose needs.


----------



## Chris Noto

xenxes said:


> I'm actually in the market for a step up from the rebel series. Do you guys think a full-frame justifies the cost? 7d is ~900 right now, 5d mark III is what, $3k? mark II I think fell to ~2k. I don't know much about Nikons and have only ever used Canons or Panasonics.


Work with what you've got for a while. Do planned experiments with your equipment. Change one variable at a time, i.e. flash position, flash setting, ISO, aperture... until you understand what each change actually makes to the image. You'll get more bang for your buck out of any new equipment you might own after you learn exactly what you're doing with the equipment you already have. 

Cheers. You've come a long way already. Keep it up. Keep posting. Keep asking for feedback. Thanks for taking us on the ride with you.


----------



## GraphicGr8s

Bloomer said:


> With a large format film camera, yeah. When digital became viable after many years of pasty low res digital cameras, some of my buddies and I tried to replicate it with very slow film and lots of lighting in 35 mm and eventually we ate crow. But we weren't totally stubborn, we gave up before Kodak did!


Film captures way more data than an equally sized digital sensor. If the film is printed wet process and analog it is better than digital. As soon as film is scanned it becomes a different story however. Film also doesn't get moire like digital. 
In your experiments did you scan the film? You lost tons of the detail in that film shot if you did.
And if you're looking at it on a monitor then it is degraded to the resolution of the monitor. 
All that said I can't recall when I last did a shoot in film. But maybe this spring I'll break out one of the old bodies.

What do you mean by large format? 8 x 10 press camera or do you really mean medium format. Like the old Mamiya 2.25 square? 
The best medium format out right now is the Pentax D645. Unless you want to spend 10s of thousands on a Hasselblad.

Truth is given the same size system megapixels don't really matter for the most part.


----------



## Bloomer

Really?


----------



## GraphicGr8s

Bloomer said:


> Really?


Son, really. Hey I've been doing this for a full 6 months. I know what I am talking about. I know, after a full six months, all about it.

Or maybe it's 38 years in printing/design/photography. I have a hard timer remembering how long. I look at everything through a loupe. I also am a proponent of digital photography. But I also realize its limitations. Just like vinyl has more range than digital film has more gamut and detail. Actual detail.


----------



## kman

GraphicGr8s said:


> Son, really. Hey I've been doing this for a full 6 months. I know what I am talking about. I know, after a full six months, all about it.
> 
> Or maybe it's 38 years in printing/design/photography. I have a hard timer remembering how long. I look at everything through a loupe. I also am a proponent of digital photography. But I also realize its limitations. Just like vinyl has more range than digital film has more gamut and detail. Actual detail.


That depends heavily on which film and which digital. There are plenty of cases where that's not true. 

Ditto vinyl vs. digital. Vinyl may be superior to CD in some ways, but "digital" includes hi bitrate recordings that can blow vinyl out of the water. Vinyl is not without it's limitations.

But we're getting waaaay off topic from the OP's question.


----------



## plantastic37

GraphicGr8s said:


> Uhm. Yeah. No. An f:2 lens at f:2 is wide open letting in the maximum light possible. It is also the shallowest DOF. F:22 is the smallest opening on many lenses. It is not letting much light in. It is also the maximum DOF the lens is capable of.
> Now here's another thing. All lenses have a "sweet" spot. It's that certain f/stop where DOF is perfect and the lens yields its sharpest image. Every lens, even among the same model, has a different sweet spot.
> 
> To the OP Start out at 200 ISO. F/8 and work from there. Find the sweet spot of the camera, lens and flash.
> 
> Bump:
> Guess if you have super pots and pans then you can cook better than Bobby Flay, Mario Battali, insert favorite cook here.
> Talent, and an eye, and knowledge don't have a thing to do with great food or pictures I guess.
> I've got nice, expensive systems. I've also got a 5MP P&S. I can take great pictures with either. I can also take crap with my expensive stuff.
> 
> I can tell you from experience the equipment makes things easier. It's not a substitute for talent, eye, knowledge, familiarity with equipment, or experience.


My Man! :hihi: roud: roud: Bravo!


----------



## Chris Noto

For some examples of fine aquarium photo work, look up Hristo Hristov on Facebook. He shows his work there, but it is also published in "dead tree editions" in many aquarist magazines. 

For example: 










Bump: Also, there is plenty of good information at The Aquatic Photography Forum, even though it isn't as active as it once was. 

Here's a great thread on setting up, inexpensively, for aquarium flash photography. 

Bump:


----------



## Bloomer

That's a great pic! Gary Lange takes excellent Rainbow shots.


----------



## plantastic37

I rather like this cat and this photography style is more creative to my eye:

http://www.hraquascape.org/articles.php?article_id=8

https://www.flickr.com/photos/georgefarmer/


----------



## Bloomer

The shot in q 7 in the first link is excellent, nice use of repetitive complimentary shapes with the (I think) Ras' positioned perfectly in front of the anubias leaves; it looks alive. 

Mine are just whatever they are, some are good, some not so good, none are great.


----------



## Chris Noto

plantastic37 said:


> I rather like this cat and this photography style is more creative to my eye:
> 
> http://www.hraquascape.org/articles.php?article_id=8
> 
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/georgefarmer/


George Farmer is definitely very good at what he does!


----------



## tetra73

GraphicGr8s said:


> Son, really. Hey I've been doing this for a full 6 months. I know what I am talking about. I know, after a full six months, all about it.
> 
> Or maybe it's 38 years in printing/design/photography. I have a hard timer remembering how long. I look at everything through a loupe. I also am a proponent of digital photography. But I also realize its limitations. Just like vinyl has more range than digital film has more gamut and detail. Actual detail.


Heheheh...correct. You can not capture the tonal range in BW like in film, period. In fine art photography, you see artists shooting in medium format to large format in film. Also, the biggest format in digital back is still 6x4.5. In film, as large as 8x10, even bigger. Until you get a 6x6 or large digital back (not sure if there is one if there is one and the price is probably into several $10k), current digital sensor technology and format will not replace film, period. The larger the format, the greater change in DOF and perspective would be from your tiny 1.5x crop sensor to 35mm, and to 6x4.5. Besides, most people can't afford a digital medium format system anyway..heheheheh. However, a medium format film system is affordable. That's just the format but there is the film development side of it.


----------



## houseofcards

The 100mm is a very good lens but it's also a big lens and you probably need a faster shutter to eliminate camera shake to take tack sharp images handheld.


----------



## tetra73

houseofcards said:


> The 100mm is a very good lens but it's also a big lens and you probably need a faster shutter to eliminate camera shake to take tack sharp images handheld.


No, just underexposed to the ambient light (freezing actions), using off camera flash. You are all set.  Use a slower shutter speed (dragging the shutter) to control your ambient lighting. I would stick to 1/160s. F5.6 or F8 if shooting closer. ISO 500. Off camera flash and knows where the light is bouncing from.


----------



## houseofcards

tetra73 said:


> No, just underexposed to the ambient light (freezing actions), using off camera flash. You are all set.  Use a slower shutter speed (dragging the shutter) to control your ambient lighting. I would stick to 1/160s. F5.6 or F8 if shooting closer. ISO 500. Off camera flash and knows where the light is bouncing from.


I hear you on the OCF, but most of those pics aren't even close to sharp. The 100mm is a very sharp lens.


----------



## GraphicGr8s

tetra73 said:


> No, just underexposed to the ambient light (freezing actions), using off camera flash. You are all set.  Use a slower shutter speed (dragging the shutter) to control your ambient lighting. I would stick to 1/160s. F5.6 or F8 if shooting closer. ISO 500. Off camera flash and knows where the light is bouncing from.


A slow shutter speed isn't "dragging the shutter". It's a slower shutter speed. Dragging the shutter refers to the synchronization of that shutter and the flash. Dragging the shutter means the shutter will stay open after the flash has fired. A leading shutter opens before the flash fires. And normal of course both open and close at the same time but intensity of flash is varied.

Most digitals have a setting to lead or trail the shutter.

Tack sharp with most macros involves a tripod. Especially if you don't have IS. 
Hell I am finding it hard these days to hold my 400mm. Use to be I could do it with ease.


----------



## houseofcards

GraphicGr8s said:


> Tack sharp with most macros involves a tripod. Especially if you don't have IS.
> Hell I am finding it hard these days to hold my 400mm. Use to be I could do it with ease.


With a 100mm, especially a new user you need probably 1/250, 1/320 to get something 'sharp' or as you mentioned a tripod if the subject stops and goes.


----------



## tetra73

GraphicGr8s said:


> A slow shutter speed isn't "dragging the shutter". It's a slower shutter speed. Dragging the shutter refers to the synchronization of that shutter and the flash. Dragging the shutter means the shutter will stay open after the flash has fired. A leading shutter opens before the flash fires. And normal of course both open and close at the same time but intensity of flash is varied.
> 
> Most digitals have a setting to lead or trail the shutter.
> 
> Tack sharp with most macros involves a tripod. Especially if you don't have IS.
> Hell I am finding it hard these days to hold my 400mm. Use to be I could do it with ease.


 
Sigh...it is.... There are two exposure factors determining the amount of the ambient light fill. ISO and shutter speed. Since the flash is instantaneous and as long as the flash is the main light source, it will freeze all actions regardless you are shooting at 1/60s or 1/200s. The difference is the amount of ambient light fill. The slower the shutter speed or higher the ISO, the more ambient light you are introducing into the shot. This is often used to balance both the main strobe and the ambient light. Of course, you would need to gel the flash to match the ambient light color. What you are referring is called the flash sync, first curtain sync and second curtain sync. They determine when the flash should fire, at the beginning of the shutter opening or at the tail end. They play no role in your ambient light fill. 

Dragging the shutter was often used a lot back in the film day since you can not really increase your film speed to balance both the strobe and the ambient light. If the shutter speed is too low, in combination with the use of a strobe, and your subjects are moving, you will introduce ghosting effect..depending on how fast the subject is moving.

BTW, both first curtain and second curtain sync would play no roles in changing the look of the shot until the shutter speed is really, really low...about 1/15s or slower.


----------



## tetra73

houseofcards said:


> With a 100mm, especially a new user you need probably 1/250, 1/320 to get something 'sharp' or as you mentioned a tripod if the subject stops and goes.


Hm...no. Besides, not all DSLRs can flash sync up to 1/250s. If a little shrimp needs 1/320s to freeze actions, what do you use to freeze a stingray swimming by??? 

Shot at 1/200s. F4.5

stingray2 by vracing, on Flickr

A trigger fish..you know these guys do not stand around 1/160s. 

triggerfish by vracing, on Flickr


----------



## houseofcards

He's a new guy holding a larger lens. It's not the shrimp it's the physical size of the lens. I'm talking camera shake not motion blur.

BTW: You took those pics above with the 50mm. So I think you just proved my point. Your at 3.5 to 4 times shutter to focal length. The OP is only not even at 2 and is a new user of the 100mm. You can take a shrimp picture at 1/15 if you catch it right, but that's not what were talking about.


----------



## tetra73

houseofcards said:


> He's a new guy holding a larger lens. It's not the shrimp it's the physical size of the lens. I'm talking camera shake not motion blur.
> 
> BTW: You took those pics above with the 50mm. So I think you just proved my point. Your at 3.5 to 4 times shutter to focal length. The OP is only not even at 2 and is a new user of the 100mm. You can take a shrimp picture at 1/15 if you catch it right, but that's not what were talking about.


Sigh...really??? Hehehe... when you are underexposing to the ambient light by 2 to 3 stops, you will freeze all actions, regardless of the lens size. 

Here is a shot taken with your standard 17-50mm zoom lens at 22mm. But the subject was flying in front of me at 20 mph and I was panning the shot. Shrimp? Do they swim in front of you at 20 mph?? Talking about camera shakes and movements!! LOL... 1/60s. Is not magic. Is the way how flash works...

DSC_2261 by vracing, on Flickr

100mm...is nothing. How about 135mm f2 on a 1dmarkIII. At 1/250s, on a fast swimming trigger fish.

triggerfish by vracing, on Flickr


----------



## houseofcards

I'm very impressed by your picture taking skills. That's what you turned this into, but you really haven't looked at the OPs pictures and can't admit that you might be incorrect so I'm done.


----------



## tetra73

houseofcards said:


> I'm very impressed by your picture taking skills. That's what you turned this into, but you really haven't looked at the OPs pictures and can't admit that you might be incorrect so I'm done.


No, a lot of you don't understand how to stop actions with flash photography and constantly pursuing some higher shutter speed to freeze shrimp. We are talking about shrimps here and they certainly don't move as fast as what I normally shoot. The OP needs to google "underexposing to the ambient light" and he would understand how to stop ALL actions with flash photography regardless of what shutter speed he is using or lens size.

The conventional wisdom is that you need faster shutter speed to freeze actions but when you introduce external strobe or lighting in your shooting environment, that conventional wisdom would no longer work at all.


----------



## kman

^^ Unless you're shooting with only ambient light, of course.


----------



## GraphicGr8s

And leaving the urinating competition behind. 
To the OP trying to get a decent shot with a 100mm. Try getting a tripod. Even a cheapo is better than no tripod. A remote release is also nice. With film I used to use a cable release just to get vibration from me out of the picture.
As has been said shrimp are a fairly slow subject. You're shooting digital. Experiment with different combos. Leave your ISO at 100-400 (whichever you like) and leave it there. Then try a medium f/stop. f8 is always a good starting point. Then vary the shutter speed between a fairly slow one up to your max synch speed. Look at them on a decent computer screen. Not on your camera screen. Not on your iphone. Not on your tablet but on a decent size monitor. Why? Because almost everything looks fairly sharp at 3.5".
See what shutter speed gives you the result you like.
Found it? But now you want a shallower DOF you say? OK Open the lens up. Smaller number. Then do the shots again. And look at them again and make your choice. 
Once you've determined the settings you like you can pretty much use them all the time for that tank. And in all reality many other tanks with the same distance flash to subject. You may need to vary a setting slightly but you have a starting point.

Here's the important thing and it pretty much holds true for just about everything.
The first and foremost rule? CHANGE ONLY ONE THING AT A TIME! If you start screwing with ISO, aperture, and shutter speed you have no idea where you been nor where you are going. You have three variables. Keep two of them, the same two, consistent. 


If you want to get better at general shooting a book I recommend is Bryan Peterson's Understand Exposure. For a new shooter I also highly recommend Scott Kelby's Digital Photographer series books 1 - 4. Even with the experience (pro shooter 1977 - 2000) I have and books I have on the shelf relating to photography and darkroom procedures I still went and bought Kelby's series. Then got them for my nephew to learn and he loves them. 

And after this thread I have this sudden desire to go grab both the Mamiya and the K1000 and go shoot some film. Maybe Saturday at my favorite spot nice and early in the am.


----------



## houseofcards

GraphicGr8s said:


> *To the OP trying to get a decent shot with a 100mm. Try getting a tripod. Even a cheapo is better than no tripod*. A remote release is also nice. With film I used to use a cable release just to get vibration from me out of the picture.
> As has been said shrimp are a fairly slow subject. You're shooting digital. Experiment with different combos. Leave your ISO at 100-400 (whichever you like) and leave it there. Then try a medium f/stop. f8 is always a good starting point. Then vary the shutter speed between a fairly slow one up to your max synch speed..


Pretty much what I'm saying or increase shutter speed if possible by adding more light. The OPs pics aren't sharp in addition to the the noise. I'm well away of the ability for flash to freeze action regardless of shutter speed but that isn't happening with the OP. OP try as graphicsgr8s suggested by using a tripod with your 100mm and see if it makes a difference.


----------



## tetra73

GraphicGr8s said:


> And leaving the urinating competition behind.
> To the OP trying to get a decent shot with a 100mm. Try getting a tripod. Even a cheapo is better than no tripod. A remote release is also nice. With film I used to use a cable release just to get vibration from me out of the picture.
> As has been said shrimp are a fairly slow subject. You're shooting digital. Experiment with different combos. Leave your ISO at 100-400 (whichever you like) and leave it there. Then try a medium f/stop. f8 is always a good starting point. Then vary the shutter speed between a fairly slow one up to your max synch speed. Look at them on a decent computer screen. Not on your camera screen. Not on your iphone. Not on your tablet but on a decent size monitor. Why? Because almost everything looks fairly sharp at 3.5".
> See what shutter speed gives you the result you like.
> Found it? But now you want a shallower DOF you say? OK Open the lens up. Smaller number. Then do the shots again. And look at them again and make your choice.
> Once you've determined the settings you like you can pretty much use them all the time for that tank. And in all reality many other tanks with the same distance flash to subject. You may need to vary a setting slightly but you have a starting point.
> 
> Here's the important thing and it pretty much holds true for just about everything.
> The first and foremost rule? CHANGE ONLY ONE THING AT A TIME! If you start screwing with ISO, aperture, and shutter speed you have no idea where you been nor where you are going. You have three variables. Keep two of them, the same two, consistent.
> 
> 
> If you want to get better at general shooting a book I recommend is Bryan Peterson's Understand Exposure. For a new shooter I also highly recommend Scott Kelby's Digital Photographer series books 1 - 4. Even with the experience (pro shooter 1977 - 2000) I have and books I have on the shelf relating to photography and darkroom procedures I still went and bought Kelby's series. Then got them for my nephew to learn and he loves them.
> 
> And after this thread I have this sudden desire to go grab both the Mamiya and the K1000 and go shoot some film. Maybe Saturday at my favorite spot nice and early in the am.


Not at all...I may as well pointing out couple of links and websites to demonstrate the techniques in underexposing to the ambient light in order to freeze actions, regardless of the shutter speed and the size of the lens. What is better to demonstrate such a technique than to back it up with photos...hehehehe When your primary light source is the ambient light, yes, go with the conventional wisdom. Since the OP is already using an off camera flash, start thinking in flash photography now. Here you go......heheheh..

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101-balancing-flash-and.html Instead of the solider, visualizing him as a shrimp.

Bump:


houseofcards said:


> Pretty much what I'm saying or increase shutter speed if possible by adding more light. The OPs pics aren't sharp in addition to the the noise. I'm well away of the ability for flash to freeze action regardless of shutter speed but that isn't happening with the OP. OP try as graphicsgr8s suggested by using a tripod with your 100mm and see if it makes a difference.


 Because he isn't underexposing to the ambient light. The flash here is still working as fill, in TTL mode. He needs to kill off the ambient light and to allow the flash to do its work. The OP is already at ISO 6400. I mean, the light here is pretty crappy and low. How much light he has to add??


----------



## houseofcards

tetra73 said:


> Because he isn't underexposing to the ambient light. The flash here is still working as fill, in TTL mode. He needs to kill off the ambient light and to allow the flash to do its work. The OP is already at ISO 6400. I mean, the light here is pretty crappy and low. How much light he has to add??


This was never about me disagreeing with you about the whole flash/ambient light thing it was about what I saw int the OPs pics. The flash obviously wasn't the only light hitting the subject.  There still are several ways to go (tripod) (since it's shrimp), faster shutter, or trying to get rid of ambient light on subject.


----------



## GraphicGr8s

tetra73 said:


> Not at all...I may as well pointing out couple of links and websites to demonstrate the techniques in underexposing to the ambient light in order to freeze actions, regardless of the shutter speed and the size of the lens. What is better to demonstrate such a technique than to back it up with photos...hehehehe When your primary light source is the ambient light, yes, go with the conventional wisdom. Since the OP is already using an off camera flash, start thinking in flash photography now. Here you go......heheheh..
> 
> http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101-balancing-flash-and.html Instead of the solider, visualizing him as a shrimp.
> 
> Bump:
> 
> Because he isn't underexposing to the ambient light. The flash here is still working as fill, in TTL mode. He needs to kill off the ambient light and to allow the flash to do its work. The OP is already at ISO 6400. I mean, the light here is pretty crappy and low. How much light he has to add??


Yeah, I am pretty good with flash. And studio lighting. And portable location lighting. And even the simple reflectors. And I've even had strobist bookmarked since 07. All of that, and most of your post also is pretty meaningless to the OP. He needs to get the basics. Dragging shutter, ambient light doesn't mean a thing right now. He needs to shoot manual. Total manual. Flash included. Start with certain settings and change only one at a time. If he wants to use flash then he starts with an ISO of 100-400. Aperture of f/8-11, shutter about 1/125. Flash at 50%. Depending on what he sees he changes one thing. And ONLY one thing. I'd go with flash output. Dial it up or down to get what I want. Once he's getting decent results play with the shutter and aperture if he wants to putz with DOF. If he closes down the lens he slows the shutter. And the inverse is also true. 

Thing is he needs to be in manual mode.

Let's get him taking shots the lens is capable of and he's happy with. Lets get him the HOW. Then we can kill him with the why.

One thing to note about the flash he is using. According to this site http://speedlights.net/2010/07/14/yongnuo-yn-560-speedlite-review the camera can't control it. It's not a TTL unit. OP as far as I can see never stated what the power level of the flash is set to. Without that info it's all a guess.



> Yongnuo’s YN560 is not designed for digital cameras such as a Canon Rebel or a Nikon Dxxx. It does mount, but you have to set the flash output level for every photo by hand, and there is no auto zoom, and no AF assist light. The flash can’t be controlled from the camera’s menu system either.
> 
> The flash has only 1 single electrical pin on the flash foot, instead of the 4 / 5 pins needed for digital data exchange. When searching for a digital flash that’s working with your DSLR automatically, check the digital flash for Canon and digital flash for Nikon pages to see your options.


----------



## xenxes

Here's another shot.










They seem much clearer when I take pics closer to the glass (all other settings the same, still handheld, typically ISO100, F25, 1/125, flash all the way up directly overhead). Why would that be? Distortion / color of the water?

Downside is the algae specs on the glass are also visible.


----------



## kman

^^ Wow, that's a spectacular shot!

Specs like that are really easy to remove with PS, as long as there aren't too many of them.


----------



## xenxes

kman said:


> ^^ Wow, that's a spectacular shot!
> 
> Specs like that are really easy to remove with PS, as long as there aren't too many of them.


Thanks! Came a long way after just a few helpful tips from all you  

Hadn't thought about that for specs, PS clone tool!

I think the far vs. near effect is mainly due to my crappy acrylic tank (possibly yellow water too), shots at an angle or too far in = more blur more distorted.

Going to continue to lure subjects out to the front, and maybe try using a tripod one of these days.


----------



## Kai808

Great shot! I always clean the glass and shoot very close and parallel to the front of the tank. I also find that my steel manfrotto tripod can be too bulky to move. Try a monopod instead.


----------



## kman

xenxes said:


> Hadn't thought about that for specs, PS clone tool!


The Spot Healing Tool is your best friend, for things like this.


----------



## treyLcham

xenxes said:


> Here's another shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They seem much clearer when I take pics closer to the glass (all other settings the same, still handheld, typically ISO100, F25, 1/125, flash all the way up directly overhead). Why would that be? Distortion / color of the water?
> 
> Downside is the algae specs on the glass are also visible.



Is that a cherry shrimp and what is the blue shrimp? Dream blue or what? Very nice combo 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

