PARADISE: New pics 01/26/04 All-MACRO!!!

here are some new shots I took last night, Trying for a more natural look, less photoshop more sony 717 (thanks, jay [smilie=laugh.gif]). What do you think? These fish are in 3 diff. tanks, angels, cories and rainbows are in a 29t, the rest (except for the RD which is in the 60) are in the 110.

http://aquatic-photography.com/pics/29/angels/ang012601.jpg
http://aquatic-photography.com/pics/29/cory/cory012601.jpg
http://aquatic-photography.com/pics/29/rb/rb012601.jpg
http://aquatic-photography.com/pics/29/rb/rb012602.jpg
http://aquatic-photography.com/pics/29/rb/rb012603.jpg
http://aquatic-photography.com/pics/110/cons/con012601.jpg
http://aquatic-photography.com/pics/110/fm/fm012601.jpg
http://aquatic-photography.com/pics/110/fm/fm012602.jpg
http://aquatic-photography.com/pics/110/sal/sal012601.jpg
http://aquatic-photography.com/pics/110/tx/tx012601.jpg
http://aquatic-photography.com/pics/110/jb/jb012601.jpg
http://aquatic-photography.com/pics/110/jb/jb012602.jpg
http://aquatic-photography.com/pics/60/rd/rd012601.jpg

[Meganfitz]

Great pics! I can tell the difference, definitely! See, you didn't need all that photoshop! [smilie=lol.gif] The angel is my fave... [smilie=c:

[Molino]

Great photos Paradise! Those photos of the Rainbow look very nice. Are they all pics of the same fish? If yes, its a good example of what the flash can do to the colours.

[CDM]

Great shots. I really like to know the settings on the camera of each photo. Talk about this, as we are focus on photography, can we display the EXIF as the gallery of arofanatics does??

Great shots. I really like to know the settings on the camera of each photo. Talk about this, as we are focus on photography, can we display the EXIF as the gallery of arofanatics does??

Each one was different I was playing around. And re: exif, I cant find a MOD that does that. Looking always, I think that is a great idea.
ed

[Gordeez]

Great Shots Ed!!!! [smilie=kewlpics.gif]

[JerseyJay]

Wow Ed. You posted too many pictures at once to critique [smilie=biggrin.gif]

#1. Great shot. There is nothing more interesting than yellow vs. black contrast. I would like to see bigger DOF --> entire fish in focus.

#2/3. Lay of that front glass flash or at least underexpose the picture or lower the flash setting.

#4. Great shot. A lot better then previous.

#5. Same w/ the flash.

#6. A bit overexposed but overall the picture is awesome. I like the coloration and your Convicts are amazing. We should compare them to Molino's.

Your pictures are great. I'm glad you fine the "natura" way a better way. Try diffusing the flash whichever way you use it w/ at least piece of paper.

[smilie=c:

[Gordeez]

here are some new shots I took last night, Trying for a more natural look, less photoshop more sony 717 (thanks, jay [smilie=laugh.gif]).]

Secrets? Care to share? [smilie=biggrin.gif]

No secrets, We had a discussion in the Before/After about not relying on Photoshop as much for post-production but trying to take better shots, really paying attention to lighting and settings, and chucking the OK shots and only keeping great ones, and thus far. Jay started it and he's right (he's right a lot, that is why he's a MOD [smilie=mf_prop.gif] ). Check it out in the B/A forum.
Ed

[ccplim]

What can I say? Great, it's just too great [smilie=c:

[Redoscar12]

http://aquatic-photography.com/pics/110/fm/fm012602.jpg

Sweet Pic. I love it! [smilie=c: [smilie=kewlpics.gif]

[Verse914]

Great pics Ed. Im glad your laying off the Photoshop. Its nice to see a persons "real" work. I especially like the first pic.

[nimbusv]

Xelent pic job!!! [smilie=kewlpics.gif] [smilie=bowdown.gif]

[Dracofish]

Great pics Ed. Im glad your laying off the Photoshop. Its nice to see a persons "real" work. I especially like the first pic.

I'm curious to see what you guys mean about a person's "real" work. The only thing I use Photoshop for is to resize my pics and once in a while compensate where my camera's white balance was lacking (which does nothing except better represent the subject's true coloration). Also, as far as I know, some of those above pics look like they were done with NeatImage. I'll admit, I use it too, but sometimes photo programs are needed to help out even the best of cameras. It's really tough for cameras to compensate for all the blue and red thrown out by most aquarium lighting (without flash), so subtlety is needed. Using Photoshop to make your fish look more colorful than they really are is bad, but if it is needed, then it can greatly help with compensating for crappy bulbs!

For example, in the below picture, Photoshop was used to help tone down the subject's blue and red hues to get an accurate depiction of the fish's true coloration. The bulbs used on the tank look good to the human eye, but even the best white balance settings find it hard to compensate for it.
http://kingsoftheaquarium.com/cichlids/jag1-1.3.jpg

In this picture, Photoshop was not needed at all:
http://kingsoftheaquarium.com/cichlids/peacockbass1-16.1.jpg
*note*This image really isn't as choppy, but the site displays it that way, don't know why. Here's a link to the full-size image: http://kingsoftheaquarium.com/cichlids/peacockbass1-16.1.jpg

As far as non-fishy subjects go, a camera's true potential can come out because it doesn't have to worry about white balance. It's much easier to get a more natural color without artificial lighting hanging over your head, as done with all the shots shown on my Bearded Dragon website, http://dragoncharm.com.

Nice pics, BTW

[astarteb1]

[smilie=c: [smilie=wave.gif]

I'm speechless.

[arowspace]

Software such as Photoshop and NeatImage are all valid and indespensible tools. However, they should be used with restraint and subtlety. The very best post-processed photos are those that do not look like they were processed at all. [smilie=smile.gif]

... It's really tough for cameras to compensate for all the blue and red thrown out by most aquarium lighting (without flash), so subtlety is needed....

...tone down the subject's blue and red hues to get an accurate depiction of the fish's true coloration. The bulbs used on the tank look good to the human eye, but even the best white balance settings find it hard to compensate for it.
Draco,

I'm glad to see that you understood my explanation for the above information per our discussion on Predatoryfish and that you are taking my advice to heart to improve the quality of your photos.

Paradise,

Good looking shots. Quite an improvement over some of your past photos that were over-sharpened and heavily processed in Photoshop. May I suggest toning down the sharpening even further. Nice job otherwise. For example, the over-sharpening in this photo is still a bit jarring. I would also tone down the contrast and saturation as well.

http://aquatic-photography.com/pics/110/fm/fm012602.jpg

Try to aim for the look that you achieved in this particular photo, which has the right degree of sharpness, contrast and saturation.

http://aquatic-photography.com/pics/29/rb/rb012602.jpg

BTW, that photo (2 FMs) was not sharpened at all. That is a Photo background that looks exactly like that. And the colors are so brown because of a big huge root that is tanning the hell out of the water in that tank. Most of the pics were taken after a big water change, that one was before.

I agree with most of what you said. That is the point of this forum, we are all learning and getting better collectively.
ed

[arowspace]

I see. In that case, the background manufacturer could learn a thing or two from this forum as well. [smilie=smile.gif]

For the shot of the firemouths, do you recall the camera settings for the internal sharpening algorithm, contrast and saturation?

No, my camera does not tell me those settings. I dont really check that deep. It's probably in the EXIF info, isn't it?

[arowspace]

I'm not familiar with your Sony. If it is similiar to my Nikon Coolpix 5700, there should be menu settings that allow you to view and adjust all of those settings manually. The EXIF data written by my camera does show those settings. Again, not sure about the Sony.

Mine DEF. does not do that (as far as I know, and I pretty much looked at everything by now). The 717 is actually pretty limited in high end settings.

[Dracofish]

As far as sharpness goes, I've noticed that the Sony's pics come out better when it is set on fine instead of standard. On standard, things tend to look grainy and over sharp. On fine, things look a lot softer, yet not too soft.

[Dracofish]

Draco,

I'm glad to see that you understood my explanation for the above information per our discussion on Predatoryfish and that you are taking my advice to heart to improve the quality of your photos.

I completely understand what you were trying to get, and now I try to relay that advice to other people. I've also noticed that as my aquarium bulbs age, the color they throw is different. Of course, my eyes do not see it, but the camera lens does. Some of the pictures I take look downright purple, but it has nothing to do with the white-balance settings. I have them adjusted as much as possible. The only thing I can do to make the pictures look accurate is to fix them in Photoshop. I see nothing wrong with using such programs to better display your fish. Using it to make a brown fish look screaming blue is wrong, but using it to tone down too much color is just fine by me. As far as playing with the sharpening tools and whatnot that can be done with the program, I've never needed to do that as of yet. The only thing I mess with is fixing the color to more accurately represent the fish. Most of the time I end up adding more green to the pics to get rid of the red and blue.

As far as the fish we discussed on Pfish, those original photos were a tad too blue and red, but I'm still saying that he has more blue coloration than green and brown... [smilie=lol.gif]