# How do you take full tank shots?



## aaronnorth (2 Jan 2009)

What settings do you use/ reccomend to use? Providing I dont have a brilliant camera (Fuji S5700)

I took this shot using the settings: 
f/ 6.3
ISO 200
Exposure Time: 1/6 second






Because i dont have any additional lighting to add over the tank, i was wondering if there was anyway to improve it. WOuld having an ISO 400 and a quicker shutter speed help? Or if you could point out a cheap lighting source  

Thanks


----------



## ceg4048 (2 Jan 2009)

Aaron, i don't get your question. It's too broad. That looks like a full tank shot to me. What is your objective and what is it that you dislike about the shot you have taken?

Cheers,


----------



## Mark Evans (2 Jan 2009)

upping the iso will give you quicker shutter speeds, but wont improve on picture quality, infact the opposite. your looking for 1/ 125 sec to just about "freeze" a fish' movement. fish dependent though.

the higher the f no. the more your subject forground/distance will be in focus. so the higher the better. but then you end up with a light/iso trade off!  :? you need to push your camera to its limits then ease off back to where it looks ok. amano shoots at f32 but is using flasheads.

if you look at the shooting data on my full tank shots there in the region of f5.6 only because im not taking the "properÂ£ shot just yet. definitely will be hiring flash heads for my current scape.

i'm guessing ceg's beat me to this post


----------



## Mark Evans (2 Jan 2009)

saintly said:
			
		

> 'm guessing ceg's beat me to this post



yep!


----------



## ceg4048 (2 Jan 2009)




----------



## aaronnorth (2 Jan 2009)

> Aaron, i don't get your question. It's too broad. That looks like a full tank shot to me. What is your objective and what is it that you dislike about the shot you have taken?



The stems at the back look out of focus to me, and i was wondering if there is anything i could do about rather than using a larger aperture, because when i shoot at f/13.6 (because the camera goes from f/6.8 to f/13.6  ) the tank is always too dark.
I have just found out about aperture priority, so i set it at f/13 but the camera then takes 2.5 seconds which is no good.   

Just looked at a pic of the henge (as i know there is plenty there  ) and for one of the shots you use the same settings, but a 1/125sec shutter speed (plus an extra 48w of lighting!) Something which i dont have lol  


So would you say the only viable option is to put more lighting over the tank?

Thanks


----------



## Mark Evans (2 Jan 2009)

aaronnorth said:
			
		

> So would you say the only viable option is to put more lighting over the tank?



definitely.you have no other option. just watch your white balance when adding another source of light.


----------



## Mark Evans (2 Jan 2009)

btw aaron your p heferi looks fantastic


----------



## aaronnorth (2 Jan 2009)

Thanks, half of it is from you 

I am just searching through 'short courses' and i have read about different Kelvin temperatures etc. This is more confusing than Plants  :?


----------



## aaronnorth (2 Jan 2009)

What about changing the metering mode (spot, multi etc) do any of them affect the final outcome?


----------



## ceg4048 (2 Jan 2009)

Well, the first thing you need to establish is whether this phenomenon of the stems is ooF (out-of-Focus) which would be a result of it being outside the DoF (Depth of Field), or whether it's due to _blurring_ due movement of the stems (I'm assuming you turned the filters off).

If it's a matter of DoF then one option is to move back for the shot. The further away from the subject you are the deeper the DoF will be. You can then crop away the area you didn't want, however the unwanted area around the tank will influence the exposure if set to automatic. It's not clear to me whether you have manual control.

As Mark says, you can hold your position and stop down which also increases DoF but the penalty there will be a higher ISO and therefore noise. I'm appalled that you only have access to f6.3 and f13.6. That's about 2 stops which means to get the same exposure (and same shutter speed) you'll need ISO 800. So, you'll gain DoF but will have more noise and will loose some overall sharpness due to diffraction. It may be a good tradeoff though. What you need to du is to shoot both apertures and view both photos on your monitor at 100% zoom setting in your image program so that you can see the flaws in each.

Remember that any half way decent image program will easily be able to recover data in an underexposed shot. Two stops is not that difficult and I do it intentionally all the time to keep the shutter speeds high and to keep DoF. Your image program is as (or more) important as your camera.

Cheers,


----------



## JamesM (2 Jan 2009)

:? 

This is why I shoot FTS on Auto  The 5700 is a clever little bugger. You can view the pictures properties to see what settings were automatically used, and play about with them from there. Try turning the macro on to sharpen things up a little too. Works well for me.


----------



## Mark Evans (2 Jan 2009)

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Remember that any half way decent image program will easily be able to recover data in an underexposed shot. Two stops is not that difficult and I do it intentionally all the time to keep the shutter speeds high and to keep DoF. Your image program is as (or more) important as your camera.



well said, i always shoot 2 stops under. a little more room for manoeuvre with raw, but it's all the same in the end.


----------



## aaronnorth (2 Jan 2009)

> Well, the first thing you need to establish is whether this phenomenon of the stems is ooF (out-of-Focus) which would be a result of it being outside the DoF (Depth of Field), or whether it's due to _blurring_ due movement of the stems (I'm assuming you turned the filters off).



Filter was left on  



> If it's a matter of DoF then one option is to move back for the shot. The further away from the subject you are the deeper the DoF will be. You can then crop away the area you didn't want, however the unwanted area around the tank will influence the exposure if set to automatic. It's not clear to me whether you have manual control.



Thanks for the tip, i got as close to the tank as possible, i have manual control and load of other settings:
http://www.cameras.co.uk/reviews/fuji-finepix-s5700.cfm



> As Mark says, you can hold your position and stop down which also increases DoF but the penalty there will be a higher ISO and therefore noise. I'm appalled that you only have access to f6.3 and f13.6. That's about 2 stops which means to get the same exposure (and same shutter speed) you'll need ISO 800. So, you'll gain DoF but will have more noise and will loose some overall sharpness due to diffraction. It may be a good tradeoff though. What you need to du is to shoot both apertures and view both photos on your monitor at 100% zoom setting in your image program so that you can see the flaws in each.



Thanks for the info, i do have other aperture settings, i should of made that clearer (3.5, 4, 4.5, 5, 5.6, 6.3, 6.8, 13.6) It is a shame, f/9 would of been handy 
I will try at ISO 800, like you say, to get the extra DoF the noise may be worth it, plus i dont know how much noise will enter at this stage as i havent tried it yet (although i am assuming a fair amount)


> Remember that any half way decent image program will easily be able to recover data in an underexposed shot. Two stops is not that difficult and I do it intentionally all the time to keep the shutter speeds high and to keep DoF. Your image program is as (or more) important as your camera.



Tell me about it, i am learning new tools everyday on GIMP and all the time my photo editing skills are becoming better  I also have paint.net as it has a few different features that sometimes come in handy.

Thanks again.


----------



## aaronnorth (2 Jan 2009)

JAmesM said:
			
		

> :?
> 
> This is why I shoot FTS on Auto  The 5700 is a clever little bugger. You can view the pictures properties to see what settings were automatically used, and play about with them from there. Try turning the macro on to sharpen things up a little too. Works well for me.



Never thought about seeing what settings automatic would use


----------



## aaronnorth (2 Jan 2009)

Another question...

What about backgrounds? I see most competition entriess have a white coloured background, do you place a piece of cloth behind the tanmk with a light shined onto it? Or is it just the light itself?


----------



## JamesM (2 Jan 2009)

Cloth, paper, whatever really. The light can go behind this, or in front of it. I remember George playing about with this on his first nano way back when.  Doesn't show it here though..


----------



## Mark Evans (2 Jan 2009)

a little crude, but it worked. you can buy high powered lights from ikea and stuff i think....


----------



## Thomas McMillan (2 Jan 2009)

It looks a bit... unnatural or something to me, but I'm not sure what it is. I'm no good with camera settings and stuff but to improve the lighting you could use a couple of desk lamps or something similar if you have them.


----------



## Mark Evans (2 Jan 2009)

here was more experiments. like james says. cardboard will do....





i ended up with pics like this...


----------



## JamesM (2 Jan 2009)

O/T: Mark, what colour is your living room wall paint?  I want something similar for my hallway


----------



## Mark Evans (2 Jan 2009)

JAmesM said:
			
		

> O/T: Mark, what colour is your living room wall paint?  I want something similar for my hallway



not sure, let me ask the wife....shes not sure! dulux was the answer


----------



## JamesM (2 Jan 2009)




----------



## aaronnorth (2 Jan 2009)

Thanks for the pics, i'll be running around the house grabbing every single lamp i can find


----------



## Rob33 (3 Jan 2009)

aaronnorth said:
			
		

> I will try at ISO 800,




I wouldn't - The Fuji's seem to be reknown for being bad (at ISO 400 & above) for image "noise".  Can't comment myself, as Iv'e not yet shot above 200.


----------



## ceg4048 (3 Jan 2009)

Rob,
      Do you mean that you've had this camera and have only ever tried shots at ISO 200 or below, just because of renown? Testing ISO performance is among the first thing one should do with a digital camera. Then you can verify for yourself unequivocally what the machine is capable of. Here are some ISO 800/400 examples with this camera on Flickr, these are just some random searches:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22381429@N ... otostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cil/3095264216/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cryptia/3081692159/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/st-stev/2364710319/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tiredandweary/2600300350/

Certainly, the images are much noisier than if they were taken at lower ISO but generally they look usable to me. Now, the photographers could have cleaned the images up with their image programs, but that's just typical post-processing. The bottom line is that you have to determine for yourself what can be accomplished. ISO 800 might very well turn out to be rubbish in this case but it's easy enough to find out. In some low light cases a noisy image is infinitely better than not getting the image at all.

Cheers,


----------



## Rob33 (3 Jan 2009)

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Rob,
> Do you mean that you've had this camera and have only ever tried shots at ISO 200 or below, just because of renown?



No, you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick.  I've not shot above 200 simply because I've not needed to.

 Having said that, this afternoon, I tried a few tank shots at varying settings (even 1600 ISO), including manual & auto focus. Not looked at them yet though.


----------



## Mark Evans (3 Jan 2009)

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> ISO 800 might very well turn out to be rubbish in this case but it's easy enough to find out. In some low light cases a noisy image is infinitely better than not getting the image at all.



very true. 

also it might be worth noting that when shooting at higher iso's 800 and above, you may need to be on the money a bit more than normal with exposure. even with my 5D or any high end camera if you under expose to try a get a "safe" shot that can be manipulated you'll find that when manipulating a j-peg or raw for that matter you'll also start to show the "noise" within the image and for those that know canon that noise can show as faint lines in the image. 
  but on the up side for RAW shooters RAW software ids awesome for removing said noise. i'll try and dig out an image of mine to show the point.....


----------



## aaronnorth (3 Jan 2009)

At the very least i can try  
I will get some pics later, or perhaps tommorrow as the tank is loudy after a lsight rescape


----------



## Mark Evans (3 Jan 2009)

heres a thrown together post about noise, sorry about the RAW heavy side of things but its all i do.  

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4172


----------



## GreenNeedle (3 Jan 2009)

Beige   

AC


----------



## jay (4 Jan 2009)

Good thread, must've been reading my mind.  
I've just got a DSLR, Canon EOS1000D, not a real pro, but great for me to start up photography again.
I'm shooting at  1 /125, iso 800, F5.6. Not bad with 4 T5's glowing.
I'm loving these threads at the minute, really helping out.
Good stuff from you Mark on sorting out noise 8)


----------



## aaronnorth (17 Jan 2009)

i have took another hundred or so pictures tonight, and not 1 of them is a as good as the first picture i posted, even with the same settings  

The best of the worst:


----------



## aaronnorth (18 Jan 2009)

would buying a wide angled lense help at all?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Wide-Conversion-L ... 240%3A1318


----------



## Mark Evans (18 Jan 2009)

aaronnorth said:
			
		

> would buying a wide angled lense help at all?



kind of. it certainly would give a sense of space. i use it for effect. you'll get really bad distortion with wide angle, which if used right can look cool.

wide angle make the interior of a small tank look massive!


----------



## GreenNeedle (19 Jan 2009)

I wish someone would post some info on how to take good pics with a compact. lol

I mess about with mine but rarely get anywhere decent pics. lol

AC


----------



## aaronnorth (19 Jan 2009)

saintly said:
			
		

> aaronnorth said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks, soon i can see myself upgrading to a DSLR, i have found a Nikon D40 for Â£225. Why do i have to pick the 2 most expensive hobbies


----------



## Dave Spencer (19 Jan 2009)

Yeah, I reckon that lens will give a fair bit of barrel distortion. It can be corrected in PS etc.

The D40 is a nice camera. 

Dave.


----------



## aaronnorth (19 Jan 2009)

Dave Spencer said:
			
		

> Yeah, I reckon that lens will give a fair bit of barrel distortion. It can be corrected in PS etc.
> 
> The D40 is a nice camera.
> 
> Dave.



This picture shows distortion well, mainly around the edges, 
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Black-0-42x-Fishe ... 240%3A1318

Andy, as you can see with my previous pictures i found it almost impossible to take a picture with a compact! Not sure if it is down to a number of things but clearly setting a smaller aperture helps with Depth of field which was my main problem before, this camera also has a lot more WB settings so my pictures dont come out in an illuminous green lol


----------



## ceg4048 (19 Jan 2009)

Hey Aaron,
              Check out this ebay auction: This includes D40 body, 18-55mm lens and a 2Gb card: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Nikon-D40-Digital ... 240%3A1318

You don't have to buy it new...

Cheers,


----------



## aaronnorth (20 Jan 2009)

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Hey Aaron,
> Check out this ebay auction: This includes D40 body, 18-55mm lens and a 2Gb card: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Nikon-D40-Digital ... 240%3A1318
> 
> You don't have to buy it new...
> ...



I think my Mum would actually kill me if i bought a camera 2 weeks after getting this one  

I will probably look around closer to my birthday in July, it then gives me a good excuse


----------

