# Early attempts at aquatic photography - new pics added 5-11-13



## rozdaboff (Nov 27, 2006)

Taking pictures of aquatic organisms is definitely a different experience than terrestrial animals. I have had a bit of practice taking macro shots of amphibians, reptiles and inverts - but this was the first time I pulled out my SLR and macro lens (105mm f/2.8 Nikkor) to try and get shots of my new hobby.

*Update*

Had a chance the past week to try some more shots and settings. I upped the shutter speed as recommended (1/200) and decreased the f/stop to 10. And I definitely see better results. Still need quite a lot more practice though. I am also more seriously considering a lens upgrade in the future - as autofocus on this lens is not really a viable option. I still get nice shots with manual focus, but I think I would really "miss" fewer shots with an AF option.

Anyway - here are the more recent shots:

Brevibora dorsiocellata

















Danio margaritatus
















And a typical shot with these flighty fish...









Petruichthys sp. "Rosy"









Trigonopoma pauciperforatum









2/10/13

I definitely need practice with flash placement, and tweaking of settings (I was surprised the DOF was still shallow even though I had really upped the F stop) - but here are a few of the nicest shots of the short session.

Boraras brigittae

















Neocardina cf. zhangjiajiensis "Blue Pearl" (are these not Neocaridina heteropoda? I thought they were a selected variant - but a little web reading suggested otherwise)


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Those look pretty good, I think they all could be a little sharper, but color and lighting looks good. What settings did you use?


----------



## rozdaboff (Nov 27, 2006)

Thanks - the settings for all pics were:

Aperture f/18
Shutter 1/60
ISO 100

For the flash, I used a SBR-200 aimed down into the tank and fired from my SU-800 controller.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

I would definitely try to increase shutter speed especially if your using a flash. For shrimp you might not have to since they're easier to catch standing still.


----------



## rozdaboff (Nov 27, 2006)

Thanks - will give that a go on the next photo session. I would really like to capture my CPDs - as they are gorgeous fish.


----------



## zdnet (Aug 13, 2010)

houseofcards said:


> Those look pretty good, I think they all could be a little sharper


The Nikon 105mm is a very soft lens for macros. For the sharpest macro exposure, consider the AF-S DX Micro Nikkor 85mm f/3.5G ED VR (lens performance comparison - 105, 85, and 40mm).


----------



## rozdaboff (Nov 27, 2006)

Thanks zdnet. A new lens isn't in the budget right now - but I will definitely keep it in mind - as a shorter working distance would be nice. I also had the Sigma 180mm Macro for field shots for a while, but it wasn't getting enough use to justify it's place in my bag.

I hadn't heard about the softness and the 105mm VR, but I am actually shooting the older D version (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=66). It has been several years since I bought the lens and did my research, but I don't remember softness being a problem with this particular lens.


----------



## zdnet (Aug 13, 2010)

rozdaboff said:


> Thanks zdnet. A new lens isn't in the budget right now - but I will definitely keep it in mind - as a shorter working distance would be nice. I also had the Sigma 180mm Macro for field shots for a while, but it wasn't getting enough use to justify it's place in my bag.
> 
> I hadn't heard about the softness and the 105mm VR, but I am actually shooting the older D version (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=66). It has been several years since I bought the lens and did my research, but I don't remember softness being a problem with this particular lens.



I also have the 105mm D lens. It produces sharper macros than the 105mm VR. The issue is with chromatic aberrations (CA). 


Here is a CA chart of the 105mm VR (from http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/224-micro-nikkor-af-s-105mm-f28g-if-ed-vr-review--test-report):










As shown in the above chart, when stopping down the lens to increase DOF as is typically done in shooting macros, chromatic aberrations get worse. Thus, even though the lens was designed as a macro, it is not well suited for the task.


For comparison, here is the CA chart of 105mm D (from http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/223-micro-nikkor-af-105mm-f28-d-review--lab-test-report):











The 85mm VR is the one with the least chromatic aberrations (from http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/523-nikkorafsdx85vr):










Take shooting at F/16 as an example. The 85mm VR is twice as good as the 105mm D which is twice as good as the 105mm VR.


----------



## rozdaboff (Nov 27, 2006)

Thanks for the info. I will have to seriously consider upgrading my lens. Until then, I will try and make the best out of it.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

zdnet said:


> The Nikon 105mm is a very soft lens for macros. For the sharpest macro exposure, consider the AF-S DX Micro Nikkor 85mm f/3.5G ED VR (lens performance comparison - 105, 85, and 40mm).


At f18.0


----------



## zdnet (Aug 13, 2010)

houseofcards said:


> At f18.0


The 105mm VR is very soft across the whole spectrum and it gets softer as you stop down the lens.


----------



## TickleMyElmo (Aug 13, 2009)

:icon_roll

rozdaboff, the lens you have is perfectly fine for macro photography and it is more than capable of giving you the pictures you want. You don't need any other lens. Even if you want to go crazy worrying about chromatic aberration levels, it's easily removed in post, absolutely no need to get another lens when the lens you have is perfectly capable. All lenses "become softer" in the higher f-stops, its a result of diffraction.

The issue with your pictures isn't depth of field, or chromatic aberration, or lens softness, it focus. Those are all just unfocused (more on this later),...at f/18 you have plenty of depth of field and it's actually overkill. 

As a side step, I just want to mention that the lighting is good, but its a little too harsh in my eyes, in other words, the flash aspect is just a bit too strong. Like in the shrimp pictures for instance, notice the harsh highlights and intense shadows? 

There's a few ways to fix this, either use a slower shutter speed (which in your case, don't do, 1/60 is the lowest I would dare to go), increase ISO, or lower your f-stop....all of which will increase the level of ambient light mixing with the flash giving you more natural looking pics. The first thing I would do is maybe up the shutter speed to 1/100 (or up to 1/200 or more is probably better if you can do so with your flash/camera combo, but you probably won't be able to go past 1/200 since your not using a newer Nikon flash with high speed sync), but decrease the f-stop to f/11 or f/13 at most, and f/8 at the minimum. All the fish pictures in my sig were shot no higher than f/13, with most at f/8 to f/11, and thats on a full frame camera, so it'll likely be even more acceptable on a DX(crop sensor) camera if thats what your using (not sure what you have). The last way to increase the ambient and make the flash appear less harsh is to up the ISO. You don't have to go crazy, but even ISO 600 to 800 would help tremendously. But it depends how well your camera does at higher ISO, and for you, lowering your f-stop instead will be much more beneficial as you can still use ISO 100. 

But anyways, besides the lighting, if you want sharp pictures, you'll need to change your focusing habits. It would help if you can tell me what focusing mode you're using and what camera you have, but I usually use AF-S for Nikon (One shot for Canon) with the single center point (you can use AF with 9 point expansion if you want), just make sure you avoid any of the auto settings, they're total crap. You have to be super fast in pressing the shutter after focusing, all the while being careful not to jerk the camera as you do so. You can use AF-C for Nikon (Servo for Canon) with the single center point if you want, and you'll also get good results, but I always had more success with AF-S despite using the same technique with each focusing mode.


----------



## rozdaboff (Nov 27, 2006)

Thanks for the advice TickleMyElmo. I will bring back the aperture next go round. 

My body is a D80. And as for autofocus - I generally don't use it when I shoot macro. One of the drawbacks of the older lens is that the autofocus is very slow - so I try to get a few shots in succession slightly changing the focus. For the shrimp - that wasn't too hard; but for the fish it was not very successful. Most of my macro experience so far is with shooting amphibians - and they would generally (although not always) hold still for short amounts of time allowing me to get shots more in focus. I will try autofocus and see how it goes.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

I'm sure TickeMe gave you some really good advice, but generally speaking I haven't seen to many clear pics of moving animals/fish at 1/60.


----------



## zdnet (Aug 13, 2010)

TickleMyElmo said:


> :icon_roll
> 
> Even if you want to go crazy worrying about chromatic aberration levels, it's easily removed in post,


Not true. For example, post-processing cannot eliminate axial chromatic aberrations.

Since chromatic aberrations affect image sharpness and post-processing cannot eliminate all, it is unwise to ignore that aspect when choosing a lens.




TickleMyElmo said:


> All lenses "become softer" in the higher f-stops, its a result of diffraction.


Not true. Diffraction is not the only lens factor affecting image sharpness. There is also the above mentioned chromatic aberrations (CA) which tends to be minimized with a higher f-stop. Thus, shooting with a higher f-stop often improves sharpness.

However, the Nikon 105mm VR micro lens is an exception. Its CA gets worse with a higher f-stop. Again, it is only wise to check out the CA chart when choosing a lens for that tells you how a lens behaves at various settings.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Why do you keep harping on the CA Levels and other technical aspects. Even if some of that is technically true, the lens is still very capable of taking sharp images. One just has to go to flickr and type in the lens. 

Anyway how many pictures do you have of moving animals at 1/60 are tack sharp? That seems to be more important then the amount of CA, etc.


----------



## zdnet (Aug 13, 2010)

houseofcards said:


> Why do you keep harping on the CA Levels and other technical aspects. Even if some of that is technically true, the lens is still very capable of taking sharp images. One just has to go to flickr and type in the lens.


I guess you are not interested in getting a sharper exposure. :wink:




houseofcards said:


> Anyway how many pictures do you have of moving animals at 1/60 are tack sharp?


Plenty! With a good understanding on the technical aspects involved, it is not difficult.

One important factor is the speed of the lens' focusing mechanism. Take for example, the Micro-Nikkor AF-S 60mm f/2.8 G ED N. It is a short lens and I had to get very close to have a good magnification. And yet I kept getting sharp exposures at 1/60. Why? The focusing of that lens is very very fast. I just pointed at an object and pressed the shutter. Very little time, if any, was spent on focusing.

In contrast, rozdaboff's lens (Nikon 105mm D micro) spends a lot of time hunting. Therefore, by the time the camera decided that it was in focus, precious time had already been wasted and the object had moved on. Even though TickleMyElmo said such a lens was "perfectly fine", I say it is NOT suited for the task. Of course, there are people who insist on doing manual focus.




houseofcards said:


> That seems to be more important then the amount of CA, etc.


Not all CA can be removed by post-processing. It therefore poses an upper bound on the degree of sharpness. In contrast, one can easily raise the shutter speed. From that perspective, CA is much more important than shutter speed.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Not to say you can't get sharp images at 1/60, but your keeper rate goes up as you increase shutter speed, especially for someone one new to this as the thread title is "Early Attempts at Aquatic Photography" Also not everyone has a fast lens, so your information might be correct, but will not help many.


----------



## zdnet (Aug 13, 2010)

houseofcards said:


> Not to say you can't get sharp images at 1/60, but your keeper rate goes up as you increase shutter speed, especially for someone one new to this as the thread title is "Early Attempts at Aquatic Photography" Also not everyone has a fast lens, so your information might be correct, but will not help many.


Really?

The OP's lens is in fact among the fastest Nikon micro (at f/2.8).

If by fast, you meant the focusing mechanism, then all of today's Nikon micro 40mm, 85mm, and 105mm have that fast focusing mechanism.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

zdnet said:


> Really?
> 
> The OP's lens is in fact among the fastest Nikon micro (at f/2.8).
> 
> If by fast, you meant the focusing mechanism, then all of today's Nikon micro 40mm, 85mm, and 105mm have that fast focusing mechanism.


It still doesn't mean he'll be as proficient at taking pics at 1/60 as someone with more experience. Anyway speaking of experience you sound like a real pro, can I see some of your pics of fast moving fish at let's say 1/15th to 1/60th sounds like shutter speed means very little. you definitely taught me something. Look forward to the pics.


----------



## zdnet (Aug 13, 2010)

houseofcards said:


> It still doesn't mean he'll be as proficient at taking pics at 1/60 as someone with more experience.


Well, he can be... if he is wise on choosing and using equipments while the more experienced person is not.

For example, some people insist on doing backward things like always using manual focus even though today's lens are superb in autofocus. Relying on Nikon's silent wave motor to do autofocus is much more likely to have sharp exposure on a live object.




houseofcards said:


> Anyway speaking of experience you sound like a real pro, can I see some of your pics of fast moving fish at let's say 1/15th to 1/60th sounds like shutter speed means very little.


I don't have any images showing that shutter speed means very little. Shutter speed IS important. Just that we are not talking about using 1/60 exposure to freeze motion a fast moving object.

To have a sharp 1/60 exposure on fish, as what rozdaboff was trying to do, is not that difficult.

First, get rid of the Achilles' heel - the lens' slow focusing mechanism. That way there is no need to jack up the shutter speed to compensate for the time wasted by the slow focusing mechanism.

Then use a low CA (chromatic aberrations) lens whose CA can be further improved by stopping down the lens. 

With a high CA lens, you are doomed to a much less sharper exposure, regardless of what you do. Therefore, very very important to have a low CA lens.

When the CA can be improved by stopping down the lens, you get the added help from DOF. Thus, further improve the chance of getting a sharp exposure.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

I don't disagree with some of your technical points, but when I asked you if you had pics of fast moving fish at 1/15th to 1/60th your response was:



zdnet said:


> *Plenty!* With a good understanding on the technical aspects involved, it is not difficult..


Now you say you don't have any phased in a different way:



zdnet said:


> *I don't have any images* showing that shutter speed means very little. Shutter speed IS important. Just that we are not talking about using 1/60 exposure to freeze motion a fast moving object.


Point I'm making most don't get that into all the technical aspects and they're dealing with the three basics (Aperture, SS and ISO). They're are many more 'keepers' at 1/200 then there are at 1/60 or less.


----------



## zdnet (Aug 13, 2010)

houseofcards said:


> when I asked you if you had pics of fast moving fish at 1/15th to 1/60th


Not true. When I responded with "Plenty!" it was to the question:



houseofcards said:


> Anyway how many pictures do you have of moving animals at 1/60 are tack sharp?


As you can see from above, the question did not mention the slower speed of 1/15 or the word "fast". Therefore, when you later made the request:



houseofcards said:


> can I see some of your pics of fast moving fish at let's say 1/15th to 1/60th sounds like shutter speed means very little.


and I responded by saying:



zdnet said:


> I don't have any images showing that shutter speed means very little.


I was completely consistent with what I'd said all along.

May be you'd misinterpreted my answer "Plenty!" to mean the claim "shutter speed means very little". Thus, you wanted pictures for proof. I can't give you any because I'd never made that claim. But in response, you complained. That means you were trying to hold me responsible for the claim that you yourself made up. Point one.

Point two, in response to my answer "Plenty!", you wrote:



houseofcards said:


> Not to say you can't get sharp images at 1/60


That means you were interpreting my answer "Plenty!" to mean plenty of images at the shutter speed of 1/60.

But when you asked to see images to prove your made-up claim of "shutter speed means very little", you imposed additional stringent conditions (the slower shutter speed of 1/15 and the qualification of "fast"). In my response, I did not call attention to your added conditions. I just let them passed, focusing on the original shutter speed of 1/60. Now you insist by repeating those additional conditions which were not in the original discussion. What games are you trying to play?


Anyway, two suggestions for you:

First, when you complain about people's response to what you had written, remember to quote your original text. Do not try to rewrite your past as you have tried to do here. If you are going to hold others responsible for their action, hold yourself responsible for your own action first!

Second, learn to take responsibility for your own interpretation. I've never said that "shutter speed means very little". It is your own interpretation. Rather than taking your interpretation as the reality out there, seek confirmation that the interpretation (in your own mind) is in fact a truthful representation of the reality (outside of your mind). You can ask, for example, "Are you saying that shutter speed means very little?" But that is assuming you are not playing games. What game?

There is the game that some people play by intentionally misinterpreting what others had said and then try to hold them responsible for the misinterpretation. I give you the benefit of a doubt and won't speculate on your intent. I hope you have enough integrity to stay away from such game of deceit. Reach your hand over to your back and see whether you can find yourself a spine.




houseofcards said:


> Point I'm making most don't get that into all the technical aspects and they're dealing with the three basics (Aperture, SS and ISO). They're are many more 'keepers' at 1/200 then there are at 1/60 or less.


No one disputed the general observation that a higher shutter speed tends to yield more keepers.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

zdnet said:


> Not true. When I responded with "Plenty!" it was to the question:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'll take that as a no. LOL You don't have any pics of tack sharp moving fish at 1/60 or slower.


----------



## rozdaboff (Nov 27, 2006)

New pics added in original post


----------

