# Photo help



## Leeatl (Aug 8, 2015)

To preface I am not in any way shape or form a camera pro or even a novice....lol I have a older good digital cam...about 13 MP , and my phone @ 13 mp . I can take great shots of a vacation , birthday , whatever , but when I try to take pics of my tanks they are only so so at best . Usually blurry fish , too bright plants and decor, etc . I understand the fish move and cause the blurriness . What do you guys do to take decent pics of your tanks and livestock ? Maybe it just takes better , read more expensive equipment , lol . I appreciate any tips . Thanks .


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

The biggest difference between taking a pic outside for example and one in the aquarium is the availability of light. Outside the light is endless and even phones take good pictures. Inside an aquarium the light is limited and the sensor on many cameras aren't good enough to create a good exposure.

If you taking a pic of the whole tank just use a tripod. That will allow you to slow the shutter speed and force more light in to get a good exposure. If your taking a pic of moving fish then the easiest way to do it is to force more light on the tank so you can increase the shutter speed. Moving fish usually need a shutter to be around 1/100 for a clear image. If your camera allows it you can increase ISO speed and reduce aperture (F Stop). Both of these will allow more light in as well.

Note. These are ways to help with your existing equipment. If getting new equipment. Things like off-camera flash and fast lenses (small F number) help alot.


----------



## Leeatl (Aug 8, 2015)

Thanks Asteroid ,
I printed your advice and will try it . I just need to look into my digital cams settings and see . I know I can't set things on my phone to help....lol I am not a tech dummy as I build , setup ,and maintain pcs for me and my family and several clients , I just don't know crap about these cameras...lol Guess I need to learn because I would like to take pics of my tanks like I see posted on here .


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

I use a Galaxy Note 9 to take pics. Most all of the better phones are very capable. I actually have a very good DSLR, but I get better pictures more easily from the Note 9. 

Now I am no photographer, but here is what I do.

First clean the glass inside and out. Best shots come at night with no ambient light (no reflections). The darker the room the better. 

Turn up lights in the aquarium. More light = better pictures.

Most phone cameras have a Pro Mode. You can adjust things there to get the most natural looking image.

Taking full tank shots and fish shots need different settings. Always have flash off.

For full tank shots I use ISO 200, WB 4800, shutter speed auto, light compensation -2.0. You really need to mess around with these a bit to see what looks most like what you see in person. Just changing one item like white balance can make things look much different. 

For taking fish pics I use same as above, except ISO 400 and light compensation -0.5. You need more light to get good pics of fish. Now here is the thing with fish pics. You need to take LOTS of pictures. I might take 100 pictures and post 5 good ones. Some of it is sheer luck. So just keep clicking away and sort through them later.

For post processing I just use windows photos. I only use two features, cropping and adjusting light. 

Now you can get a lot more fancy, but this is keeping it relatively simple. Once you determine your best settings, it's really not that involved.

And of course, most importantly............start with good subject matter!:wink2:


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

As you can see from both my post and Greggz the light is the biggest factor. Just throwing more light on your tank will allow your camera to take pictures with a faster shutter speed.
@Greggz, what kind of lens do you have for your SLR? Most SLRs have very capable sensors, but it's the glass that can make a big difference in bringing out the detail. A fast macro lens with an aperture of 2.8 or less usually would do this.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Asteroid said:


> As you can see from both my post and Greggz the light is the biggest factor. Just throwing more light on your tank will allow your camera to take pictures with a faster shutter speed.
> 
> @Greggz, what kind of lens do you have for your SLR? Most SLRs have very capable sensors, but it's the glass that can make a big difference in bringing out the detail. A fast macro lens with an aperture of 2.8 or less usually would do this.


Yep more light in the tank and none in the rest of the room.

Lens is 16mm F2.8. I tried and tried and compared the phone pics with the DSLR and honestly could not get any better pics with it. But I admit I no photographer, and in the right hands it might have more value. 

And all in all I just find the phone camera easier to deal with, at least for my purposes.


----------



## Leeatl (Aug 8, 2015)

Thanks Greggz , 
I printed your instrucs and will look at better tomorrow as I am about 3 adult drinks in right now...lol I appreciate the help , but I don't know what the photog lingo is . I will try to decipher tomorrow . But I do try to take pics with the room lights off and tank lights on full .


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

@Greggz

Your pics of the bows are very good and I would not have thought they were taking with a phone camera if you didn't say anything.

With that being said any fairly modern SLR with a fast macro lens should bring out even more detail in those nice fish. The 16mm 2.8 is fast but it sounds to wide to be a macro. The SLR usually lets you bump ISO up to 1600 without issue to get a good shot.


----------



## GraphicGr8s (Apr 4, 2011)

The important things to note about exposure. 
Aperture aka f/stop is how much light is hitting the sensor. The shutter speed says for how long that amount of light will hit the sensor.
Both are compromises.
At a "wide open" aperture your depth of focus/field can be very shallow. One of my lenses at wide open the DOF is about 1". 
So you can see the compromise between allowing more light into the camera versus how much you can get in focus font to back.
Shutter speed is also a compromise. At a very fast shutter speed you can stop action. But the light you are letting in via aperture is also not allowed to hit the sensor for a very long time. 
At a slow shutter speed sure that light can pound that sensor with light but a moving object will be blurry.
ISO is also a compromise. A nice, low ISO will give you a pretty grainless photo. But the sensor is not as receptive to the amount of light that is allowed to enter for the time period you set via shutter speed. Increasing ISO does increase sensitivity but grain/noise can start to be a problem as you get higher.

To find out what you need to do with your particular camera start with some base settings. You want to stop a fish moving? Then set the shutter at 1/250. Set the ISO at 400. Those are starting points. See what your results are. Then change ONE THING AND ONLY ONE THING! Leave your shutter speed as it is. You want a sharp in focus not blurry fish right? First change the f/stop. Open or close it depending on what you see in the first photo. Still can't get what you want? Then reset the f/stop to the initial setting and play with ISO to get there. If either of those two trials get what you want right down the numbers. Anytime you take photos of that tank star there. 
But those settings didn't work you say? Then set everything back to the beginning and move the shutter speed in the direction you need to go. Leave it there and again trial and error until you get the results you want.

I know. I know. It sounds like a lot of work. But once you start using this method you develop a sense of what needs to be done and generally you can nail it in one or two moves. 
Hell we are digital. How do you think it was when I learned it with film? We couldn't see our results for days. Now I can go into PS and tinker with it until I get exactly what I want. But I still try to nail it in camera over PS. And I do PS for a living.

One other thing. Lenses are not all equal. I have three identical lenses. Each one has its own parameters it likes. So while certain settings may work for your buddy they may not work exactly the same for you even with the same camera and lens.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

@GraphicGr8s

Would it be possible for you to share some fish pics of yours with exif data? I'd love to see them, especially with your experience. Thanks!


----------



## ipkiss (Aug 9, 2011)

Greggz said:


> Yep more light in the tank and none in the rest of the room.
> 
> Lens is 16mm F2.8. I tried and tried and compared the phone pics with the DSLR and honestly could not get any better pics with it. But I admit I no photographer, and in the right hands it might have more value.
> 
> And all in all I just find the phone camera easier to deal with, at least for my purposes.


So it was @Greggz that turned me onto using my phone for pics too and for the longest time, I couldn't really correlate either why it was easier to get some shots (read: most shots) of fish when compared to my m4/3. It went against everything that I learned and understood. 

This thread had got me searching for the past couple days to figure it out, because, well, it bugged me. So, I don't claim to know a lot about photography and people who know more, feel free to correct my possibly improper assessment. 

So, as I searched the interwebs, I came across this quote that cleared it all for me!
It was referenced via a post on stackexchange
https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/27058/is-small-sensor-always-a-bad-thing/27114#27114
that referenced Bryan Peterson's Understanding Exposure (p54-55 in the 3rd edition) 

*"Your fixed-lens camera is hopelessly plagued with an uncanny ability to render a tremendous amount of depth of field ... if your lens goes to f/11, you're at a whopping f/64! Those of us who use SLRs can only dream of the vast depth of field ..."
*
found the google books link: 
https://books.google.com/books?id=drQOfkvxSd8C&pg=PT93&lpg=PT93#v=onepage&q&f=false

It then goes on further to explain that because of that, on our smaller cameras (here, a smartphone), we can shoot at lower apertures than large cameras due to the small sensor size/lens combo while still roughly getting the same photo composition abilities. The lower aperture, then allows us as a side effect, to shoot at a higher shutter speed!

What does this all translate to when taking pics of fish? Bringing back in some stuff that @GraphicGr8s said because it still holds true and is simply good basics, but now I can hack it a little better: 

I can set at "wide open" or near "wide open" without losing sharpness! 
As the depth of field is deeper for my small camera, as the fish swims front and back, there is a wider range for it still be sharp! MORE than 1 inch for sure. I was foiled endlessly on my m4/3 for this. This definitely gives you more chances to catch that fish in a sharp state.

Also, because my aperture is "wide open" and letting in more light, I can now get that higher shutter speed and/or low ISO. So now the fish is no longer blurry AND the picture is not noisy!

Let's not forget the crop factor of a small sensor too. I seemingly have a zoomed in photo already vs my larger camera that just can't seem to give me the right feel of the fish as I'm trying to take it. 

Of course, all these advantages are somewhat tempered by physics. We, get, yet, another compromise, to borrow from @GraphicGr8s 's theme. A smaller sensor along with small lens WILL get less light, so this evens out the playing field a bit. Remember that higher shutter speed/low iso mentioned earlier. It will probably have to be slowed down and iso would probably need to be raised to compensate to allow more light to be captured. But, despite this compromise, in the right situation (like mine and Greggz probably), you can still shoot faster and have a greater depth of field with your phone than your consumer (read: NOT prosumer) level SLR equipment. Yea, we lose that beautiful bokeh of a real low aperture lens, but it's not so important for a fish shot and I think new smartphones fake it back in "good enough"  

Am I saying a smartphone is better? Nay, I'm sure a real SLR with the right low light prime macro lens along with overhead diffused flash can compensate for all this, but the hard truth is, I'm not that deep of a photography hobbyist. The $400 necessary for a m4/3 olympus macro lens went to my regulator, tank, whatever instead. 

All I'm saying is as a casual photographer, a (good) smartphone definitely won in this situation. I say, good, because it has to be modern enough to have good enough post processing to overcome some of the cruddy problems of iso noise and other disadvantages inherent in a disadvantaged small sensor/bad lens situation. And good enough to have a pro mode for you to adjust photo settings. Also, the "situation" is important to consider because, will these photos blow up properly into a poster sized canvas prints? Probably not. BUT, for simply posting on the web and instagrams, these pics are "good enough." 

AND, let's not forget what's practically attached to your hip for most of us. Your smartphone, NOT your camera!

Learn to use it well, apply what @GraphicGr8s and @Greggz said, that is, pro mode so that you can tweak the settings @GraphicGr8s mentioned, then spray and pray, and with a little luck, you'll get some nice shots.


----------



## GraphicGr8s (Apr 4, 2011)

Asteroid said:


> @GraphicGr8s
> 
> Would it be possible for you to share some fish pics of yours with exif data? I'd love to see them, especially with your experience. Thanks!



Sorry but I don't put any photos online. Not even for my clients. They want proofs they come to me. In all honesty I rarely ever take shots of my tanks anymore. I have 4 in the house that are display. They are there. I enjoy looking at them. The family enjoys them. I just never see a need to shoot them. 

Here's the thing. I shoot Pentax. I sometimes (read that as almost always) use old glass lenses. My data won't help you in the least bit. (Plus I remove all exif from anything that a client gets) It won't even give you a starting point. I've got a K10D as my main digital. (Yes, it's only 10MP but with my lenses I can blow up my panos to 10' long and they look damn good. How do I know? I work in a digital print shop. I can print anything I want any size I want up to 36" by the roll's length)

We, you and I, shoot with different outputs in mind. I am pretty much going to print my stuff out in one form or another. I shoot with the end result in mind. And I shoot different if I am going to a billboard versus an 8x10. You are probably looking to go on line. I never look to online as an output for my work. And my clients know that. 

My 2 digital cameras are different also. My istD requires different settings even though I just used that same exact lens on my K10D. I just know what settings are a good start so I can get the shot in one, sometimes 2 exposures. Sometimes that is ALL I can get. 


You need to sit in front of your tank and watch. Take pictures. Note the settings. Change them as needed. My flash units are all remote fired. I've got several different ones. Most are older but they don't make them like they did. I use them since they are safe with digital cameras. But I still try to fire remote whenever I can. And I doubt you have a flash as powerful as the one I use most of the time. So none of my information would help you in the least. 
I think my next shoot with my son needs to be some film. You guys talking about this stuff is making me want to go to the beach and shoot. Just so damn hot here. But I really do want to shoot some of my film cameras. Maybe even a shoot of one of the tanks.


I've given you some good information for a starting point. It is the same information wannabe shooters have paid me for and you are getting it for free. Take it. Use it. Learn your camera. Write stuff down. Keep a little notebook so you have a reference. Every shot will not be an Ansel Adams. But they will get better as you shoot. Coming here for advice should only be a starting point. But unless you burn some electrons you won't get the shots you want. 

Something to consider. Ansel Adams had to get into some pretty odd places for his shots. Some he had to wait months for just the right conditions. But he got the shot.
Me? The longest I've ever waited, back in film days, was three months going to a location every day at different times of the day keeping detailed notes just to get the photo. But it paid off.


----------



## GraphicGr8s (Apr 4, 2011)

ipkiss said:


> S
> 
> Of course, all these advantages are somewhat tempered by physics. We, get, yet, another compromise, to borrow from @GraphicGr8s 's theme. A smaller sensor along with small lens WILL get less light, so this evens out the playing field a bit. Remember that higher shutter speed/low iso mentioned earlier. It will probably have to be slowed down and iso would probably need to be raised to compensate to allow more light to be captured. But, despite this compromise, in the right situation (like mine and Greggz probably), you can still shoot faster and have a greater depth of field with your phone than your consumer (read: NOT prosumer) level SLR equipment. Yea, we lose that beautiful bokeh of a real low aperture lens, but it's not so important for a fish shot and I think new smartphones fake it back in "good enough"
> 
> ...


Here's the thing with smart phones and cameras. Megapixels, to a point, don't matter. Glass matters. Final output matters. And yes to a degree sensor size matters. If it didn't I wouldn't want the full frame Pentax. I put my glass on both my K10 and a FF the FF will be better Again, I have a 6mp and a 10 mp, depending on where I go with the output many times the difference is so slight it's not worth mentioning. The important thing is you have SOMETHING to take the photo. 

What also matters is where you want to go with your end result. I look at always going to print. If I was just going to post on the web I wouldn't shoot jpeg + raw all the time. I'd let the camera do all the processing and not waste my time. Hell I wouldn't even bother taking a camera. I'd get a smart phone too. Just for the record. I have never owned a "smartphone". I have computers at my disposal all the time. I have Kindles and laptops and desktops. I am sick of how connected I have to be. I don't answer my flip phone unless it's the son's school calling or the wife. And we all sit down to eat together and there are no electronics there. We do this thing called "talk". The 10 year old likes it too. He likes his electronics but he appreciates talking too. When I am off, I am off. 

Another freebie for you. I shoot manual all the time. However, when I am walking from one venue to another I put the camera(s) in full auto. Why? Because if I am tinkering with exposure I might miss what could have been a great shot. Full auto a really nice car comes by, or an animal is doing something that is interesting at the least you got the shot. Fix it in post. (That is the only time I don't worry about trying to get a shot perfect in camera)


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

GraphicGr8s said:


> Sorry but I don't put any photos online. Not even for my clients. They want proofs they come to me. In all honesty I rarely ever take shots of my tanks anymore.


All I asked about was showing a photo. I'm not sure what your clients have to do with you posting a pic of a fish in your home aquarium. If you don't take photos currently show me an older one. There are a gazillon photos online of fish, aquariums, etc. What could possibly happen from you posting a photo of a fish? Throw a big copyright watermark over it.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

ipkiss said:


> So it was @Greggz that turned me onto using my phone for pics too and for the longest time, I couldn't really correlate either why it was easier to get some shots (read: most shots) of fish when compared to my m4/3. It went against everything that I learned and understood.


Interesting post @ipkiss.

So what settings are you using on your camera phone for fish vs FTS??

Always willing to try something new if I can get the pics a bit better.

Bump:


Asteroid said:


> All I asked about was showing a photo. I'm not sure what your clients have to do with you posting a pic of a fish in your home aquarium. If you don't take photos currently show me an older one. There are a gazillon photos online of fish, aquariums, etc. What could possibly happen from you posting a photo of a fish? Throw a big copyright watermark over it.


I was wondering the same thing. 

Don't understand the logic of not posting tank or fish pics.

Anyway, at the risk of whatever danger there is in posting, here is a fish pic from my Galaxy Note.

Like @ipkiss said above, good enough for my purposes. And I have no doubt with the right equipment and knowledge could be even better, but I guess it's not worth the trouble to me. And my cell phone is sitting there charged and ready when something catches my eye.

But to each his own.


----------



## ipkiss (Aug 9, 2011)

Greggz said:


> Interesting post @ipkiss.
> 
> So what settings are you using on your camera phone for fish vs FTS??
> 
> Always willing to try something new if I can get the pics a bit better.


Ahh, I ramble too much and the point was lost. Bad habit of mine. *The whole point was that you're right, the smartphone IS easier in our situation* and all that rambling was because neither you nor I originally understood why and I went to figure it out sort of. *At the heart of it, the weakness (as far as picture taking) of a small sensor in the smartphone became it's greatest strength for our purposes due to small sensors having greater depth of fields! * at least I think ... 

As for the settings, like @GraphicGr8s said, different room, different equipment, probably won't matter much what my settings are. I even jump around depending on the time of day and how much light is in the tank! Gotta tweak to meet the situation and it's an ever sliding fiddling based on the points he said. 

Having said that, since there's value in sharing still as it does give some frames of reference like your share your dosing thread. 

My smartphone is a Galaxy S9, 
fish will probably not show good in less than 1/60 shutter speed .. unless they are at the apex of their turn or hovering. I'd push for 1/90 minimum especially for smaller fast moving fish. 1/125 if I have the light for it. This is why I spray and pray a lot too  Something's GOTTA catch! 

The S9 lets me go down to F1.5 with still a marvelous depth of field. my m4/3 with a 20mm f1.7, no way. So then, on that, I have to push up to F5.6 or beyond, up the ISO and slow down the shutter, and negate whatever light capturing advantages the larger sensor camera had. 

The S9 will go up to ISO400 that's eye clean for web use ... maybe even 640 if you pull back to a wide shot. Anything beyond that and you start to see noise.

WB is 3600-4000 is what's most pleasing for my current satellite plus pros at my customized m2 setting of WRGB 25/10/50/85 (shows magenta with a decent amount of white light for everything else), I'd imagine this would be affected greatly by your tank lighting.

So as you and other readers can see, my settings are probably mostly useless to you. What's more useful is understanding why and @GraphicGr8s touched on that with his advice.


I'll bite too. Couple of my better shots with the S9


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

@ipkiss @Greggz

Very nice pics, especially for a phone camera. 



Greggz said:


> ...
> I was wondering the same thing.
> 
> Don't understand the logic of not posting tank or fish pics.
> ...


There is no logic to it. The only logic is, you know... In this day and age the photos online of any kind nature, landscape etc is astronomical. It's all there. There is no market in it, that's why most photographers make their living shooting weddings and other social affairs. 

That's just it, do what's good for your purposes. You would probably gain more detail with the right lens/equipment since you would be able to shoot with a large F number and get closer with a macro lens since the minimum focal distance is shorter on those. Here's a few of mine shot with a Canon slr and macro lens.


----------



## ipkiss (Aug 9, 2011)

Yea. Look at that tack sharp detail! Thats surely the next level of equipment that i didnt want to pay for!

Share some details of the equipment please!


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Those shots are a Canon SLR and the Canon 60mm macro. Really any recent SLR with a macro lens can take these shots. My SLR is probably around 8-10 years old. The macro lens is around $400 new. You can buy other ones for $300 or of course used. 

Sometimes I also take another light from a different tank and throw it on top for more light. If the light is too small I put it on a part of the tank and wait for the fish to go under it. As discussed and we all know the more light the faster you can shoot and you are more likely to get a crisp shot. You also will get more depth of field so the whole fish can be in focus. The F1.7 on the phone would make that difficult. Macro lenses are very sharp and are known for showing good detail. 

Above that you would go with off-camera flash that allows even more options and brings in more intense light.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Asteroid said:


>


So let me ask you this. Does every pic come out like that? Or is it still a bit of hit and miss and luck?

For me, I take loads of pics and hope for a few that come out well. Not a real precise methodology, but once in a while you get lucky. Not SLR quality like yours above, but decent enough for very little effort. That being said, might have to break out the SLR and mess with it again.


----------



## ipkiss (Aug 9, 2011)

Asteroid said:


> Those shots are a Canon SLR and the Canon 60mm macro. Really any recent SLR with a macro lens can take these shots. My SLR is probably around 8-10 years old. The macro lens is around $400 new. You can buy other ones for $300 or of course used.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ahh. Light from another tank. A key point! And a good lens. Also a key point! The camera is not the biggest deal. Its the lens thats the magic and its the lens that stay with you for life. 

The part about the F1.7 on the phone, thats what i recently discovered. F1.7 on the phone is much deeper than F1.7 on your lens on a larger camera due to the phones much smaller lens and sensor size setup. Its some mathematical magic that is beyond me. For all i know, im explaining it wrong too. But the point is, it allows us more plebian folks with $400 phones instead to grab that shot. Handheld! Without having to resort to extra lighting other than the tank light. And chasing the fish! Albeit not anywhere as sharp as yours.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Greggz said:


> So let me ask you this. Does every pic come out like that? Or is it still a bit of hit and miss and luck?
> 
> For me, I take loads of pics and hope for a few that come out well. Not a real precise methodology, but once in a while you get lucky. Not SLR quality like yours above, but decent enough for very little effort. That being said, might have to break out the SLR and mess with it again.


Any photographer would be lying to you if they didn't tell you they took a lot of photos to get one or two REALLY good ones. So the SLR is always on continuous shooting. 

With that being said if the light is really good and you have the luxury of a fast shutter speed and the equipment to take advantage of it, most of the shots will be good in terms of exposure and sharpness. The few that are REALLY good is that plus the angle or the way you caught the fish at that moment.

Bump:


ipkiss said:


> Ahh. Light from another tank. A key point! And a good lens. Also a key point! The camera is not the biggest deal. Its the lens thats the magic and its the lens that stay with you for life.
> 
> The part about the F1.7 on the phone, thats what i recently discovered. F1.7 on the phone is much deeper than F1.7 on your lens on a larger camera due to the phones much smaller lens and sensor size setup. Its some mathematical magic that is beyond me. For all i know, im explaining it wrong too. But the point is, it allows us more plebian folks with $400 phones instead to grab that shot. Handheld! Without having to resort to extra lighting other than the tank light. And chasing the fish! Albeit not anywhere as sharp as yours.


That's a good point, didn't realize that. Are you setting the phone camera at 1.7 or is that what it needs to do on auto to get a proper exposure? I haven't tried my iphone 8 plus yet on my aquarium.


----------



## ipkiss (Aug 9, 2011)

Asteroid said:


> That's a good point, didn't realize that. Are you setting the phone camera at 1.7 or is that what it needs to do on auto to get a proper exposure? I haven't tried my iphone 8 plus yet on my aquarium.


1.5 even!! The s9 only has 1.5 or 2.4 in manual mode. I never thought about it too much until recently. But ..

Guess who sets it at 1.5 to squeeze out even faster shutter speeds? 

U should definitely try your iphone and share your thoughts. I think u will get many more candid shots as long as your eyes can accept a less than sharp pic. It's a step down, no lie, but then you're snapping away and your phone seems to be so much smarter at focus locking -especially compared to an older camera- you just might be ok with it.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

ipkiss said:


> ...
> U should definitely try your iphone and share your thoughts. I think u will get many more candid shots as long as your eyes can accept a less than sharp pic. It's a step down, no lie, but then you're snapping away and your phone seems to be so much smarter at focus locking -especially compared to an older camera- you just might be ok with it.


Well I'll be the novice here. I don't even know if the iphone 8 plus as a manual mode. Probably an app for it.


----------



## ipkiss (Aug 9, 2011)

Asteroid said:


> Well I'll be the novice here. I don't even know if the iphone 8 plus as a manual mode. Probably an app for it.


Sunnava, you're right. the iphones hide it away. I did a quick search and it seems like u have to do all sorts of workarounds to get some simple features. Shame. The cameras on iphones are blazingly fast too -- in terms of pickup and load time. When u gotta get that shot real fast, it's up. My S9 could learn a little of that. 

Portrait mode has a depth setting that touches on the aperture but I don't know if its worth the trouble. there was mention of an app too..

Here's the link(s) I came across and was reading. 
https://iphonephotographyschool.com/iphone-camera/
https://www.cultofmac.com/566763/iphone-camera-manual-controls/


----------



## GraphicGr8s (Apr 4, 2011)

ipkiss said:


> Ahh. Light from another tank. A key point! And a good lens. Also a key point! The camera is not the biggest deal. *Its the lens thats the magic* and its the lens that stay with you for life.
> 
> The part about the F1.7 on the phone, thats what i recently discovered. F1.7 on the phone is much deeper than F1.7 on your lens on a larger camera due to the phones much smaller lens and sensor size setup. Its some mathematical magic that is beyond me. For all i know, im explaining it wrong too. But the point is, it allows us more plebian folks with $400 phones instead to grab that shot. Handheld! Without having to resort to extra lighting other than the tank light. And chasing the fish! Albeit not anywhere as sharp as yours.


Bazinga. The lens is way more important. That is the main thing that sets a camera, or camera system, apart.

F/stop is actually a ratio between the diameter of the iris and the lens' focal length. It is not a specific number that applies to every lens. A good f:1 lens can cost thousands. 
I've gotten lazy with digital. I used to use strictly primes. Now I just spend a lot more money for decent zooms. 
@Asteroid hit it right on the money with this statement: Any photographer would be lying to you if they didn't tell you they took a lot of photos to get one or two REALLY good ones.


----------



## ipkiss (Aug 9, 2011)

GraphicGr8s said:


> I've gotten lazy with digital. I used to use strictly primes. Now I just spend a lot more money for decent zooms.


Based on this post and another one above, I think you have mentioned its better to have the equipment flexible enough to get the shot ( in some fixable or acceptable form ) over having the equipment to get the shot really good but possibly missing it due futzing with said equipment. 

I feel that's a good point that should be highlighted again for @Leeatl and others reading. 


Get some half decent equipment but dont get tied up on what "best equipment" should be. I fell into that trap when i started out and was younger. More importantly, understand how to use it properly, and just keep shooting and practicing. There's a decent amount of basic principles mentioned in the earlier posts to get one started. Until you start, you might mot even know the right questions to ask. 

Spray and pray also falls a little under practicing. As desperate as the phrase sounds, there is real value behind it. The more you shoot, the more you start seeing where all these numbers matter in a practical sense and you'll slowly improve. I guess the caveat is spray, pray, and care to learn? Haha. I suppose some people never even try to learn. Anyway, like the man said, at least its digital in this day and age. No penalty to delete and try again! Film hurt much more for screwups.





Hey, its kinda like our tanks!  Don't need the best equipment to grow pretty plants but if you understand why you made your equipment choices, you'll be able to practice ( frequently! ) within those confines and achieve success. 

Captain obvious quotes the more you work on a hobby, the better you get.

So, @Leeatl, grab either of your cameras, shine a little extra light into the tank like @Asteroid mentioned, set the camera on custom, tweak your shutter speeds, apertures, isos as @GraphicGr8s instructed, and start shooting! Then! Come back, show results, and ask more questions!


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

ipkiss said:


> Sunnava, you're right. the iphones hide it away. I did a quick search and it seems like u have to do all sorts of workarounds to get some simple features. Shame. The cameras on iphones are blazingly fast too -- in terms of pickup and load time. When u gotta get that shot real fast, it's up. My S9 could learn a little of that.
> 
> Portrait mode has a depth setting that touches on the aperture but I don't know if its worth the trouble. there was mention of an app too..
> 
> ...


Thanks for those links. I'll have to check them out and see what's applicable to aquarium photography. If there's one hobby thst is visual it's photography. Seeing is believing :grin2:


----------



## Haggai1.5 (Jul 25, 2019)

*Sets for Camera*

I shot this picture with a Tamron 45mm F/1.8 on a Nikon body. The settings are as follows: ISO 800, Aperture Mode, Shutter 1/15 using a tripod.

Bump: I am a BIG fan of the prime lens . . .


----------



## ipkiss (Aug 9, 2011)

1/15. You're lucky your subject fish is a betta!


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Haggai1.5 said:


> I shot this picture with a Tamron 45mm F/1.8 on a Nikon body. The settings are as follows: ISO 800, Aperture Mode, Shutter 1/15 using a tripod.
> 
> Bump: I am a BIG fan of the prime lens . . .


If your taking a FTS that is pretty much a still image and you don't mind somewhat blurry fish than a tripod and/or Image stablization can be very beneficial if you have a light challenged tank. With the tripod you can slow the shutter speed down to anything to get a good exposure.

With individual moving fish a tripod is useless since you are usually shooting at a shutter speed faster than would be affected by your hand shaking. A general rule is usually double the focal length of the lens. So if your shooting with a 50mm lens you can hold the camera staying at 1/100. The smaller the lens the slower you can shoot without worrying about camera shake. But with most moving fish you want 1/100, sometimes less works but the 1/100 is a good general rule.


----------



## Streetwise (May 24, 2019)

This thread made me do some research and try a couple of different iPhone apps. I bought two from the same developer as a bundle.

https://halide.cam
https://spectre.cam

The first is a camera app with a really smooth interface and more options than the default app. The second is long-exposure app with some pretty clever engineering.


----------



## ipkiss (Aug 9, 2011)

@Streetwise, thanks for sharing that. 

Oh! While i was looking at the links that streetwise provided, i was reminded that theres a slew of cute lens add ons for smartphones if one was so inclined to go that route.


----------



## Streetwise (May 24, 2019)

Yeah, I was checking out lenses too. 

I'm tempted by these, with the magnetic attachment:

https://www.hitcase.com

Cheers


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Yep, lots of apps to check out. Some of those add-ons are good, for example some might say there macros, but I just digital not optical and can be accomplished by cropping. So you have to look closely at them.


----------



## GraphicGr8s (Apr 4, 2011)

ipkiss said:


> Based on this post and another one above, I think you have mentioned its better to have the equipment flexible enough to get the shot ( in some fixable or acceptable form ) over having the equipment to get the shot really good but possibly missing it due futzing with said equipment.
> 
> I feel that's a good point that should be highlighted again for @Leeatl and others reading.
> 
> ...


 I always say buy the best equipment you can afford for the times you will use it. Most of the bodies out there are decent. Nikon Canon Sony Pentax. My personal preference is Pentax because I am familiar with it. I've got 10 different bodies but only 2 digital. Heck I have my original K1000 from 1975 or 6. 
What I am really saying is if you have to choose between a so so body and a great lens or a great body but a so so lens ALWAYS go for the lens.

Not a fan of "spray and pray". Yes, take lots of shots. But do it methodically. It's the only way to really grasp what is happening. Write info down.

And a true macro shot is always better than a crop.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Any who, a true macro will of course always beat cropping, since when we crop we usually try to display the image in the original size. Depending on the resolution of the photo, how much we crop and how we display it, the image will lose its sharpness as opposed to a true macro photo.

With that being said since this is a planted tank forum and not a photography one cropping can get you far. The more MP you have to work with the better off. SLRs generally have higher resolution than phone cameras so you can be more aggressive here.

Take this photo for example. Nothing really special










It was cropped to create the shrimp 'head shot' photo I showed above










The photo isn't tack sharp, but still shows you how effective cropping can be if you have enough resolution.


----------

