Killifish

[Mike Jacobs]

Ok you guys . . . I haven't been talking much here but I have been working hard at this and you guys have inspired me! I still have a way to go but this is the latest!

http://aquatic-photography.com/gallery/files/1/1/0/8/GARmakurdi.jpg

Over head lighting is a mana from heaven . . . it changes the whole ball game! THANKS! :-D :-D

Have at the suggestions from here!

Mike

[phishphorphun]

Hey Mike. I think we have a major conflict with background distraction here. You did a pretty good job on lighting, but the busy grass is blending too much with the subject. There is virtually no dof. You also may want to tone down the signature a bit.

Now the good news is that you have pretty good exposure and the light is distributed over most of the entire subject. The front and rear of the fish is a little darker than the middle, but overall I think it is fine.

Generally speaking, I like the shot. But I will always find room for improvement :-D

[benny]

I concur with Bobby's views. Nevertheless, definitely a photo that's loads better than the average ones that we commonly see.

Keep them coming.

Cheers,

[Andreas Werth]

Disagree ;-)
I like both the subject and the photo very much. I´m absolutely not disturbed by the java moss.
In my opinion, not every photo must have as little dof as necessary.
BUT: i would prefer either a black paper behind the back side of the tank or a deeper tank where you can´t see the artificial surrounding. The white/brownish background doesn´t fit very good. If you have done these little improvements, i would think, critique corner is not the right place - go for the next contest.

[Mike Jacobs]

Thank guys . . . I listen to ALL that is said. You guys are good and I weigh everything. Like it or not let me explain the DOF issue . . . which is MY issue. Whether it is my eyes when I take pictures (I'm 60 years old) or what I don't know but when I lower the f-stop much the picture happens like below . . . the face and eyes are not in focus and the body is in focus. With the gardberi pic the stop was f-22 . . . on this picture the stop was I think f-8 0r f-11. I MISSED A REALLY GOOD SHOT with the lower f-stop. But I guess that's the life of Photographers . . . :eek:

Here is the f-11 shot of another killifish: Simpsonichthys picturatus . . . South American peat spawner


http://aquatic-photography.com/gallery/files/1/1/0/8/picturatusAPHOT.jpg

Have at this one too! There is never any offense taken when you are trying to help!

Mike

[phishphorphun]

Taking photos of fish requires a lot of patience and numerous efforts to get one good capture. That is the case with most of us. Btw, glad to have someone aboard older than me (56).

Mike, I like this one better. The subject jumps out of the shot better imo. However, it looks like you may have missed the focus on the eye or head of the fish. It is reccommended to always focus on the eye of the fish and let the f/stop create the dof according to the setting. The body appears in better focus than the head area on this one. I don't find the background here distracting at all. It is darker and provides a less conspicuous appearance than in the previous effort.

[Schnauzer]

I agree with Bobby . The head and eye looks out of focus . Your DOF would be fine if you had got the eye in focus as Bobby said . I like this better than the first one other than the focus .
I am glad we are getting some people here that are closer to my age . I'm 62 and I think , I am the old man here . Warning ------ they don't go any easier on us because we are starting to get some age . I don't know about you but I wouldn't have it any other way .

[alanhill]

I agree with Andreas, the first shot is very good indeed; the second isn't as good because (I presume) the fish moved in a way you didn't anticipate.
I think we are coming to an interesting question:- what do we look for in a 'good' photo? We can all agree about good focus, illumination, colour reproduction etc; but how important is the background? Does a typical pose matter? Of course people will give their personal interpretations of these things. I would offer as a comment the thought of the purpose of a photo.
The first shot is excellent for identification of this fish. If you could take a few photos like this one showing similar species, they would be very suitable to illustrate a magazine article about this group of fishes. On the other hand the pale backgound is not as 'natural' as a darker one, and as the second shot shows the colours of the fish are set off better by the darker background. So if you were entering the first photo in a competition such as POTM it would not do as well as an identical shot with a darker background. Finally of course if you wanted to try to take a truly natural photo, use dirty brown water (preferably slightly muddy as well), some dead leaves and possibly a tatty bit of african fern.

Alan

[phishphorphun]

I must say that I agree with Andreas and Alan. Their experience certainly supercedes my rooky year of input. My comments were just my oppinion and it is the responisibility of the author of the shot to decifer what is best for improving their work.

I was going to say the same thing about the fish moving after the shot was initiated as Alan suggested. It has happend to me many times. But I thought it was a good oppurtunity to make the point about focusing on the eye instead.

We are all just trying to help improve each other's efforts. Interpretation may interfere with this process at times.

[Mike Jacobs]

Folks . . . I have never seen you guys say anything malicious to anyone. That is why I decided to send things to you guys. Having noted that I understand that everything you say is an opinion and I promise you there is NO harm taken.

I have changed my techniques and attitude since I have found this site . . . that is good. You guys are doing a wonderful job. It is very difficult to do what you are doing and not anger some people.

Now, having said that, you must learn to treat "elders" with some degree of dignity :-o :badgrin: :-P :confused: . . . those of us that have reached at least the age of 60 tend to get a bit cranky and/or crazy . . . :badgrin: . . . there is at least 2 of us here now!

Keep up the good work . . . it is appreciated. Opinions are a natural part of ART! I am learning about this Nikon camera now whereas I am really an aquarist of 50 years. I have no where else to go to find this type of camera help!

Mike