# Photography how to?



## karatekid14 (Jan 16, 2011)

Today I set up my first planted tank! I am having trouble taking photos of it. I own a Canon Rebel XS and for the last couple of years macro photography has been one of my hobbies, which pretty much means I know how to use it fairly well. But every time I tried to take a picture of my tank it came out too dark or too bright. How do you guys get those stunning photos?


----------



## NyteBlade (Aug 19, 2006)

What mode are you shooting on (Aperture priority, shutter priority?) Are you using a tripod?


----------



## karatekid14 (Jan 16, 2011)

Never mind I slowed the shutter down to 6 sec and it finally worked. I tried Av Tv M but it doesn't seem right that the shutter speed should be that long


----------



## NyteBlade (Aug 19, 2006)

karatekid14 said:


> Never mind I slowed the shutter down to 6 sec and it finally worked. I tried Av Tv M but it doesn't seem right that the shutter speed should be that long


With typical aquarium lighting, my camera usually goes up to 1+ second, unless I I open the aperture up to f/5.6 or so which is practically unusuable handholding the camera. Without some extra lighting, it's nearly impossible to capture fast-moving fish.


----------



## Landau (Mar 24, 2010)

My two keys to aquarium photography - lots of light and really clean glass.

Put a few more lights above the tank when taking shots and do a really good job of cleaning the insude and outside of your tank. Lots of little algae spots that you never notice with your eyes show right up in a photo.

A camera that can shoot at a higher ISO helps too - assuming it can still keep the noise low.


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

The professionals use extra lights or a remote flash above the tank. 

Even with a tripod you'll get blurry fish because the f-stop is so long with our normal tank lighting.


----------



## TickleMyElmo (Aug 13, 2009)

Remote flash is really the only way you'll get sharp, non-blurry pictures...

Take a look at the last few pages of my tank journal (click the picture below V) to see if that's the kind of thing you're after...


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

You want "stunning" photos, yes remote flash is the way to go. Or like most folks have already stated, just add a ton of light from above (more than just your grow lights). That way you can shoot at a smaller aperture and lower ISO for better IQ and achieve a wider DOF so more of the fish/plant/shrimp is in focus. 

However if you don't have a flash to work with or extra lights, you can still achieve nice photographs with a faster lens and higher ISO. Of course you'll sacrifice IQ and run a more shallow DOF but that's OK because you're working with what you have. 

Here's an example of shooting without flash:
Set your ISO to the highest you can set without sacrificing too much noise degradation. On my cam it's at ISO 800-1600, anything higher would be way too noisy. For the XS it's threshold may be a bit lower, maybe 800-1000. Now grab your fastest lens, anything f/2.8 would be preferred. f/2.8 usually yields very shallow DOF so try shooting at f/4 as well. You can do this all freehand without tripod. 

Here's a few examples of mine using the technique above. Not professional pictures by and large, but they are what they are.... zero flash. 

This one is shot at f/4, ISO 800









f/2.8, ISO 1250









One of my favs: f/4, ISO 1250, 1/125 second (shutter speed)


----------



## Zareth (Dec 13, 2010)

I'm a photography major, actually, so I can give you a few pointers...

First I guarantee the flash on your camera is only going to make your pictures worse, especially without a circular polarizer. a circular polarizer is a good investment if you dont want glare from the glass in your shots, but at any rate, the more zoomed in you are in a lens, or if you are using a telephoto lens, say at 100-300, this will give a better sense of perspective, objects in the rear and front will appear to be the same size.
In a wide angle lens things start to curve and foreground objects start to appear much larger than background objects. 

As for exposure settings. 
Learn to set up your camera on manual, there is no reason not to; if you know what settings you used that made your pictures overexposed, its easy to compensate, and the same with underexposure. 

If you do choose a semi auto setting there are different things to consider.
Shutter Focus will be your best bet in low light to prevent blurring. 
Aperture focus is your best bet if you are attempting to create a very specific depth of field. 
Remember that the lower the aperture the smaller your field of focus, this means you will have more blur infront and behind the focal point(the distance your camera is focused at).
And that brings me to another thing, manually focus your camera, and use the viewfinder, NEVER use the LCD screen. 

In case you have no idea what I'm talking about, the aperture is going to be measured in F stops, they should appear in your viewfinder as something like F2.8 or f/2.8, a lower number is a more wide open aperture, this creates narrower depth of field. 
If you want to ensure you have the entire tank in focus, using a higher aperture will accomplish this. 
To compensate for the reduced light that a higher aperture causes, either increase your ISO, or decrease shutter speed. 

If you are holding your camera by hand, I do not reccomend a shutter speed below 1/30th of a second. 
Although many people can keep a camera steady down to 1/15, most cannot keep it steady below 1/60. 

The higher your ISO the more noise you'll have in the picture. 

Lighting that is aimed at the tank is only going to cause glare, this is why flash is bad, above tank lighting that is aimed at the water is your best bet.

If you dont care about your fish and you dont have enough flow to make your plants wiggle all over, you can get interesting shots with a long exposure on a tripod. 

As for white balance, most camera's do a fine job on auto, but if you have special bulbs like flora glo or life glo, you might want to experiment. 

Even though speedie posted his aperture settings it is very very easy to tell it is the lowest his camera goes, in the one where it is f/4 he likely had it set to the lowest setting but zoomed in, and as a variable zoom lens zooms in the aperture increases and this isn't controllable. 
If you want a narrow depth of field where you are only focused on the fish, then set your aperture low, you'll get photographs like his. Keep in mind you will have to set your ISO up, his is 1000+, and I typically oppose anything over 400 for noise and grain reasons, but if you are uploading to facebook or photobucket the compression should make that irrelevant. Good luck and happy shooting!!

Edit: what speedie said about ISO is good/bad advice.
I would say that you should never start by setting your ISO to the highest you can without seeing noise. 
First select a shutter speed you want that wont cause blur, and then select an aperture that you are comfortable with as far as focus goes. (if you dont have a clear idea in your head a low aperture is fine, and its easy to make a photo look more professional with low aperture, creating narrower focus. Thats a trick everyone learns eventually) 
And then after that, take test shots and slowly raise your ISO untill you feel they are exposed correctly. 
The built in light meter in your camera is a good tool but you should note this: If you are focused on a black object, for it to appear black the camera should be 2 exposures under what it says is a correct exposure, and for a white object you need to be 2 exposures above what it says is correct. 
Once you learn the zone system of photography you can just take one light reading and go from there - if you dont care to learn it then since you're shooting digital you can just experiment. 
I learned on film, and I had to develop my own film and print each photo myself so learning correct exposure was important if you didn't want to waste hours with your hands in chemical baths.


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

Zareth said:


> Even though speedie posted his aperture settings it is very very easy to tell it is the lowest his camera goes, in the one where it is f/4 he likely had it set to the lowest setting but zoomed in, and as a variable zoom lens zooms in the aperture increases and this isn't controllable.


lol you speak as if you know everything just by looking at the picture. I know you didn't check the EXIF data on any of my pics, otherwise you'd know exactly what I was shooting with. 

The last 2 shots were taken with the 100mm f/2.8 macro (prime) and the first betta pic was shot with the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8. The 17-55 can maintain a constant aperture at whatever focal length you want it to be. It will not change like a kit lens that you may be referring to. The 100mm is a moot argument. 

BTW I could go lower if I wanted to (down to ISO 12800). But then that wouldn't be practical would it? :thumbsup:


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

Speedie is cheating by the way. His fish stands still and pose for him. That's why he doesn't need extra light. He taught them well.


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

mistergreen said:


> Speedie is cheating by the way. His fish stands still and pose for him. That's why he doesn't need extra light. He taught them well.


haha smart man. Thanks for revealing my secret. Them blackworm treats go a long way! Here's the key: every time they pose for a picture they receive a treat. :wink: It makes em so fat, they become lazy and move less.


----------



## karatekid14 (Jan 16, 2011)

Zareth said:


> I'm a photography major, actually, so I can give you a few pointers...
> 
> First I guarantee the flash on your camera is only going to make your pictures worse, especially without a circular polarizer. a circular polarizer is a good investment if you dont want glare from the glass in your shots, but at any rate, the more zoomed in you are in a lens, or if you are using a telephoto lens, say at 100-300, this will give a better sense of perspective, objects in the rear and front will appear to be the same size.
> In a wide angle lens things start to curve and foreground objects start to appear much larger than background objects.
> ...


Wow, thanks everyone for the replies. Before I discovered aquascaping I was saving up for a 55mm-200mm lens, that budget was blown a long time ago but my parents might be willing to buy it since I am paying for the setup. I can get video/photography lights from my dad's work, I had forgotten about them. I already own a polarizer and I was planning on buying a remote flash. I usually do use Manual because it has more options. I guess I should start experimenting! Thanks again for all the comments.


----------



## Zareth (Dec 13, 2010)

speedie408 said:


> lol you speak as if you know everything just by looking at the picture. I know you didn't check the EXIF data on any of my pics, otherwise you'd know exactly what I was shooting with.
> 
> The last 2 shots were taken with the 100mm f/2.8 macro (prime) and the first betta pic was shot with the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8. The 17-55 can maintain a constant aperture at whatever focal length you want it to be. It will not change like a kit lens that you may be referring to. The 100mm is a moot argument.
> 
> BTW I could go lower if I wanted to (down to ISO 12800). But then that wouldn't be practical would it? :thumbsup:


... ISO 12800 is higher, is it not? I mean correct me if I'm wrong, but a higher ISO is used in lower light settings, and although your images are slightly underexposed they look very good, I typically favor a slight underexposure in a close up shot like that because it creates a sense of closed in space, where in a full tank shot or a real landscape perfect exposure is ideal, or possibly over exposure with some photo-manipulation to bring the shadows back down.
But yea, 12800 wouldn't be practical at all IMO, but this proves you've got yourself a nice camera.. I'm imagining a d300 or canon equivalent. 
That prime is a nice lens! 

These lenses (not your 100mm, obviously) create an illusion of a fixed aperture by simply not allowing you access to the lowest aperture the lens has available.
The lowest aperture setting is the lowest one that can be maintained at all focal lengths. 
People have modified these lenses to get access to some really low F stops, but the range you can have things in focus is not even as long as a quarter is.


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

Zareth said:


> ... ISO 12800 is higher, is it not? I mean correct me if I'm wrong, but a higher ISO is used in lower light settings, and although your images are slightly underexposed they look very good, I typically favor a slight underexposure in a close up shot like that because it creates a sense of closed in space, where in a full tank shot or a real landscape perfect exposure is ideal, or possibly over exposure with some photo-manipulation to bring the shadows back down.
> But yea, 12800 wouldn't be practical at all IMO, but this proves you've got yourself a nice camera.. I'm imagining a d300 or canon equivalent.
> That prime is a nice lens!
> 
> ...


Well, you were referring to the lowest setting my camera can go so I assumed you meant the highest ISO setting available. The lower the ISO the higher the picture quality. What were you referring to if I misunderstood?


----------



## thelastlife (Feb 14, 2011)

so a tad-bit off topic but what digital camera would be good for taking pictures?


----------

