# Ultra-wide angle (UWA) and aquascaping



## George Farmer

After being genuinely inspired by Ben's, Mark's and Stu's superb recent displays of ultra-wide angle (UWA) images, I thought I'd try myself (skip to the end of this post if you're not really interested in the blurb!)

UWA relies on short focal lengths to provide a wider perspective, so you can 'compress' a relatively wide scene into an image.

With cropped DSLR cameras, less than 15mm focal length is considered UWA.  Full-frame is less than 24mm.

The results can be stunning, and many landscape photographers use this to their advantage, getting lots of scenery in one shot, whilst perhaps utilising strong foreground interest.  This is a good example using a 10mm focal length on a cropped sensor.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hknivers/s ... 448525797/





When using UWA for photographing aquascapes the results can be very interesting.  Recently I've noticed a lot of IAPLC entries relying on UWA for their full-tank shots.  UWA basically makes an aquarium look a lot deeper, front to rear, than it really is.  This suits some aquascapes and tank sizes more than others.

In my 60cm iwagumi a full-tank shot looks rather silly using UWA - but a close-up portrait shot looks quite effective.  The foreground is exaggerated significantly, and the background appears very distant.

I borrowed a friend's Tamron 10-24mm for these.  It's one of the least expensive UWA lenses available (£350), but I'm quite impressed with the results.









With more aquascapers taking photography more seriously I wonder if any will ever deliberately utilise the UWA-effect when planning and executing their aquascape...?

I hope that provides some food for thought for some of you that may have a DSLR but weren't yet aware of UWA photography and how it can go nicely with aquascaping.


----------



## Garuf

Another reason to add to my list of reasons I don't like tank photography, I always feel lied to, the competitions really should be called photography competitions with aquariums as the subject, they're not really about the scapes when people are using techniques like this to create views impossible to experience without a lens.


----------



## Ian Holdich

looks great George, can i ask a silly question?

Do tamron lenses fit all SLR's? are they universal fits? 

I have seen some cheap Tamrons in the 'London camera exchange', i'm not going to get one yet, but need to start saving for one.


----------



## Tom

A photo is the final stage of producing an aquascape, and is a judged category in many aquascaping competitions. It's just part of the art.


----------



## Garuf

It might be considered part of the art but to me it's wholly misleading because it's not a true reflection of reality. As some one who appreciates the actual art of an aquarium rather than some contrived photograph I just don't agree with this sort of manipulation of the truth. Especially as it's a punishment to people like me who have absolutely no interest in photography at all, I'm here to grow plants and create a beautiful aquarium not take beautiful photographs.

Edited for careless spelling.


----------



## Ian Holdich

the image isn't altered that much though has it? It's still what you'd see. I always find that most aquariums actually look better in the flesh than in the pics anyway, even if they have been shot with various lenses. For me, these kind of pics have just pushed me further into photography. It gives a different aspect on the planted tank, which for me looks great.


----------



## George Farmer

Garuf said:
			
		

> Another reason to add to my list of reasons I don't like tank photography, I always feel lied to, the competitions really should be called photography competitions with aquariums as the subject, they're not really about the scapes when people are using techniques like this to create views impossible to experience without a lens.


Interesting perspective, Gareth.  If you'll excuse the pun.

Photography in aquascaping contests will always be controversial.  Judges will deliberately try not to be influenced by the photography, but I guess it's hard not to be, when the medium being assessed is a photograph and not a live aquascape (with a few exceptions).

From my perspective it is still about the 'scape, first and foremost. It just so happens that most serious 'scapers who like to compete are also serious photographers.  They go hand-in-hand very nicely and generally speaking if an aquascaper has the motivation, skills and dedication to create an awesome aquascape, they also have the props to take a good photo of it, or at least know someone that can...

Personally I really appreciate good aquarium photography, however it's achieved, UWA or not.


----------



## Garuf

The fact you'd have to spend £350 to see that view is change enough for me, you're creating the "illusion" that there's more depth, this in itself is enough of a cheat because it means you'll never achieve similar depth without using their camera trickery, why strive to force prospective through plant choice, hardscape shape and clever use of tank sizes when you can just use any old hardscape and force views that just don't exist by using a lens?
A shot with a standard 50mm lens, what I seem to remember being the closest analogue to the human eye, to compare would be a nice touch to illustrate my point.


----------



## Tom

Do you ever even slope your gravel? Then you create the illusion of more depth. Pretty much every rule of aquascaping promotes the 'illusion' of depth. You don't have to spend £350 to get the illusion - even the cheapest point and shoot has a pretty wide angle lens.


----------



## Garuf

Of course I do, I studied art for 4 years, I understand depth and perceptual depth. But, my point is that one is a physical manifestation that can always be seen without a lens where as one is something that can only ever be seen through the lens of a camera because it simply doesn't exist in reality where as sloped gravel, finer leaves in the back, lighter stones in the background etc all physically increase perceptual depth.


----------



## George Farmer

ianho said:
			
		

> For me, these kind of pics have just pushed me further into photography.


Me too, Ian.

Aquariums are what really got me into photography in the first place.  I wouldn't shoot weddings, or run my local photography club if aquariums hadn't come into my life and pushed me forward in this direction. 



			
				Garuf said:
			
		

> The fact you'd have to spend £350 to see that view is change enough for me, you're creating the "illusion" that there's more depth, this in itself is enough of a cheat because it means you'll never achieve similar depth without using their camera trickery, why strive to force prospective through plant choice, hardscape shape and clever use of tank sizes when you can just use any old hardscape and force views that just don't exist by using a lens?
> A shot with a standard 50mm lens, what I seem to remember being the closest analogue to the human eye, to compare would be a nice touch to illustrate my point.


If we can use tools (UWA lenses in this instance) to create a nice image, something a bit out of the ordinary, then why not?  It's not cheating.  Sure, it's not physically how you may perceive a view with the human eye, but why should we be limited by that in order to achieve something that's pleasant to look at?

The same principle applies to macro photography.

Photography is fun.  You should try it out sometime!   

All this said, I do agree that deliberately using something like UWA in contests to create a false sense of depth could be perceived as cheating, which I think is the main point you're driving at, and the reason I mentioned it in my OP...


----------



## George Farmer

Garuf said:
			
		

> ... where as sloped gravel, finer leaves in the back, lighter stones in the background etc all physically increase perceptual depth.


How do you feel about exaggerating these aspects, using UWA, if they already exist (like the three examples shown)?

Can you appreciate the increased sense of depth at all, or not?


----------



## Garuf

I've got an A-level in photography at a B, to assume I don't like it because I don't do it is a moot point, I regularly use a dslr, I don't really like using it though, I'm not a photographer, the results from the camera are never what I wish nor posses the qualities I imagine they should regardless of what I think I know about photography, compositionally I don't really struggle, technically I'm flawed. 
My point was in regard to the line: 


> Recently I've noticed a lot of IAPLC entries relying on UWA for their full-tank shots


 and more directly 





> With more aquascapers taking photography more seriously I wonder if any will ever deliberately utilise the UWA-effect when planning and executing their aquascape...?


 It's deliberately misleading, for the purpose of competitions certainly so. I have no issue with creating art through photography but the line between the art of the photographer and the aquascaper is too blurred for my tastes, I think that at a competition level it should be about representing it as it really is not portraying a intangible objet d'art.


----------



## George Farmer

Garuf said:
			
		

> I think that at a competition level it should be about representing it as it really is not portraying a intangible objet d'art.


I think we all can agree on that.  FYI I use 50mm for my contest photos.  

Grade B at A-Level Photography?   You're better qualified than me...



			
				ianho said:
			
		

> looks great George, can i ask a silly question?
> 
> Do tamron lenses fit all SLR's? are they universal fits?
> 
> I have seen some cheap Tamrons in the 'London camera exchange', i'm not going to get one yet, but need to start saving for one.


Sorry, Ian.  I missed the first few posts in all the excitement! 

Tamron, Sigma and Tokina will have lenses in their line-ups that fit most DSLRs.  They're not universal fits, so you'll have to purchase the correct lens with the appropriate mount i.e. Sony fit.


----------



## George Farmer

Garuf said:
			
		

> ... the line between the art of the photographer and the aquascaper is too blurred for my tastes


What do you mean exactly?

How do you propose the line is sharpened?  This is a very interesting discussion.


----------



## Garuf

> Grade B at A-Level Photography?   You're better qualified than me...


2 years of evening classes, my area was the history of photography, I can't take a good photograph to save my life which really goes to prove qualifications mean little to nothing without a genuine flash of talent.   

incidentally 50mm is what the landscape institute are making their standard measure for when they do visual value assessments because it's the closest to the human perception of depth.


----------



## George Farmer

Garuf said:
			
		

> incidentally 50mm is what the landscape institute are making their standard measure for when they do visual value assessments because it's the closest to the human perception of depth.


That's interesting. 50mm with what size film/sensor?


----------



## Garuf

George Farmer said:
			
		

> How do you propose the line is sharpened?  This is a very interesting discussion.


Again I'm talking from a competition stand point, one way would be to set a standard lens type for photography but this is prohibitive as it would require investment and who's to say the choice is right, visitation of the scapes would be my preference as per the dutch competition but again, logistically it's impossible on a global scale, were these not a consideration it would level the playing field. 

What I meant by the statement is that when the craft of the photographer produces images of a greater aesthetic quality than subject matter, the aquascape, then the line is blurred, or more when an aquascape photographs amazingly but when viewed in reality is aesthetically displeasing and becomes the aquatic equivilent of a Hoogstraaten peepshow.


----------



## Garuf

George Farmer said:
			
		

> Garuf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> incidentally 50mm is what the landscape institute are making their standard measure for when they do visual value assessments because it's the closest to the human perception of depth.
> 
> 
> 
> That's interesting. 50mm with what size film/sensor?
Click to expand...

I'm unsure off hand, it's in my Vis-qual guidebook somewhere, It goes as far as specifying the exact level/height the lens centre line should be from the ground so it'll be in there somewhere.


----------



## ghostsword

The photos are amazing and for me the photography is a valuable side of the aquascaper arsenal. 

I don't think that it is cheating, same as when an artist uses perception and shades to convey a feeling or trick our brain to see slightly more than what it's there, it has been done for centuries.

George, your photos are just amazing, great look. 

Aquascaping is art, same as with photography and painting, so I believe that we should be free to use whatever is at our reach to interpret or convey to others our view of the subject.

Just not sure how that applies to the competitions, but as the photography is also a marked item it is very much on the air what can be done about it.


.


----------



## Stu Worrall

Garuf said:
			
		

> George Farmer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Garuf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> incidentally 50mm is what the landscape institute are making their standard measure for when they do visual value assessments because it's the closest to the human perception of depth.
> 
> 
> 
> That's interesting. 50mm with what size film/sensor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm unsure off hand, it's in my Vis-qual guidebook somewhere, It goes as far as specifying the exact level/height the lens centre line should be from the ground so it'll be in there somewhere.
Click to expand...

its 50mm on a full frame so around 30mm on crop depending on your make of camera.

Im not sure you could limit the use of UWA in competitions when Amano uses it himself in some of this shots by the look of them. (not sure whether its UWA on an SLR or the large format equivalent he uses?)

eg from the 2011 ada calendar - from the angle im assuming this is UWA? (image from here -  http://www.adana.com.sg/)






When you take inspiration from these images you do tend to want to re-create them.

The other thing is having the space to take images of a tank.  Id imagine youd have to be pretty far away from a 120cm tank to take a competition shot at 50mm so it would restrict people with small rooms. UWA comes into its own here as you can be close to the tank.  You can also hold the hairdryer while you take the shot with the camera on a tripod   

There are also some ultrawide compacts coming on the market now although for compact they call anything under 25mm a UWA so not sure if they compare to 10mm on crop or 16mm on full frame?

I dont think UWA should be restricted but I also dont think that taking a comp image at a normal focal lenght like 50mm should be a disadvantage but the problem is that we will never see what goes on behind closed doors when judging (with george being the exception  )

Perhaps the exif data should be entered with the photos so that the judges know what the focal length was when taken but then all judges would need to have an understanding of what focal length actually is as I doubt they are all photographers too?


----------



## Mark Evans

stuworrall said:
			
		

> Perhaps the exif data should be entered with the photos so that the judges know what the focal length was when taken



I've said for a long time, that In my very honest opinion, and quite possibly a rule that would put many entrants 'out' of the comps, that a RAW image should be entered. This way, you know the image you see, is the image that was taken.

Some really interesting, and mystifying comments on this thread   



			
				stuworrall said:
			
		

> When you take inspiration from these images you do tend to want to re-create them



So true Stu. And it's images like those above, that inspire me to better myself at least. My feeble attempt at an 'Aqua journal' collection consistently See's me looking over, and over, at the same images...just to learn and take note. 

Wide angle for me, is like a side arm. using it occasionally, but more recently, on bigger tanks, they work wonders. Whether that be a 'false' sense of perception or not, they work wonders. 









BTW George! carackin shots my friend.  8)


----------



## bigmatt

interesting topic. And for me a couple of issues arise. Firstly, the pics don't make the 'scape any better, but the reality is that aquascaping exists largely online, so the realpolitik is that photography is a necessary evil to show your work to the world. But i also think beautiful photography has become slightly confused with beautiful tanks. For example i don't think Amano would be quite the legend he is if he'd shot his tanks on a camera phone! For me the leveller would be to have a 'full frontal' as the judging shot in contests simply in recognition that this is a pretty expensive hobby anyway, and a further 300+++ quid investment in photography gear, whilst perhaps presenting the scape better, does not make the tank any better. But i also recognise that this is a very difficult distinction to make when the primary reason people get into this is seeing beautiful pictures! Nice shots George, and a great tutorial for those of us hoping to go DSLR in the future! Matt


----------



## Johno2090

I'm with Garuf on this one!


----------



## Mark Evans

Johno2090 said:
			
		

> I'm with Garuf on this one!



can you elaborate John?


----------



## John Starkey

Wow some really interesting points have been mentioned here,i agree that there should be stricter rules on the shots entered for competition,but for personal use and internet use i think the UWA look is great,the one thing i don,t like about digital photography is digital manipulation to the extreme,because it,s not real to me,

thats my opinion on PP,nice shots George,

john.


----------



## Ian Holdich

agree there John, regarding the manipulation side of things. It would be interesting to see how far things can be manipulated though. As a relative newcomer to the slr stuff and experimentation, using photoshop on a tank shot is quite hard to 'actually' manipulate though (colours maybe and blanking out unwanted objects, i obvious)). Making a shot look deeper in my eyes is fine, as the angle you'd see the tank in real life would maybe give you that impression anyways (if you get me?). I personally wouldn't class Mark's and Georges shots a manipulation, it's the same tank, just taken at slight angles, maybe an angle you'd actually see with the human eye at that angle?. It looks great, it looks arty, if done properly.


----------



## Antoni

very interesting topic, guys!

First of all, great shots George!

Regarding the UWA lenses and the photography aspect of the hobby IMO there are two major points here:

First the photography is a tool - an essential part of the aquascaping, as it is the portfolio of the aquascape, a way to share, represent and save the instant condition of our creations. Also as it is impartial/in RAW format/, it helps to adjust details, the depth of field and perspective, as very often, our eyes are missing something or misleading ourself's from specific elements in the whole "picture". This is due to the physical characteristic of the human eye and the conditions and the ability of any each of us. So everyone sees it different, based on his own abilities and limitations. The human eyes works as a video camera, not like a camera. To perceive an image, our eyes go over the subject creating hundreds if not thousands frames of the subject shifting along the whole picture. Then the brain makes the final "image" of the subject.  Also a fact that worth mentioning are the emotions. This could lead to overemphasising details or to missing some. That is why it works very well, if we take photographs and then judge and alter the aquascape. The camera captures everything in still mode and at once, which creates the impartial image.

Regarding the UWA lenses - as a matter of fact the humans' eyes focal length is about 22-24 mm. Therefore what our eyes see can be defined as a wide angle view.

Second: The art aspect of the aquascaping/photography: I believe we all agree that the aquascaping is a form of art. As such it involves recreation of a scene, based on the artists perception of the World and the message he/she wants to send to the observer. It is same with painting: the artist is recreating his own vision for the subject, refracted through his own prism. This is what makes the art so unique. As long as we do not alter the final shots in post production software, no matter what lenses we use and what angle we choose to shoot from, we are recreating our vision of the subject. And this is real, just shown through the authors "eyes" and imagination. 

We have all seen pictures of the same subject made from different artists/photographers and sometimes the difference in impression is just enormous. Why is that? I wouldn't say that one of them is cheating.. it is just the way he feels and the way he wants to represent what has seen. And that inspires! Very often absorbed by our daily routine, we do not see things around us, as we are too busy sorting out our problems.Or just we do not have the feeling or the "eyes" for this. Then the art comes in place, as it helps us see those things, to receive the message, to touch our feelings. The art is not an empirical and it has its own rules.  And as a form of art, the aquascaping is following those same rules and this is what makes it so unique, divers and addictive. After all, the aquascaping is recreation: a minimalistic version of the nature, represented between 5 glasses in a 3D model, which to complement our eyes and feelings. A good aquascape is aquascape that represents a fraction of the nature in the most natural and harmonious way, which can be only achieved by following the rules of perspectives and depth of field. Rules that the photography and painting are based on.

Regarding the rules for the pictures for the competitions I strongly support the Marks' idea, that the shots should be in raw format, so no altering or post production is made. But apart of that it does not matter what equipment will be used for taking those final shots. 

Regards


----------



## nayr88

woah!! 

im really trying to get into the photography side of things, mainly inspired by the kind of shots that have been shown in this thread. 

i agree with what Garuf is saying, i havnt seen tanks in the flesh that i have seen shot in uwa so i cant say how 'false' the image you see on your screen is to how you see it with your own eyes, but after reading all the comments i think what 'Stuworrel' said is a good idea

'Perhaps the exif data should be entered with the photos so that the judges know what the focal length was when taken'

and also that a 'standard' picture should be included for full tank shot.

but for cool shots and journals i love seeing this shots there real eye candy  looking at that last picture you posted mark, i actually feel like im standing in a bunch of ankle high hc looking out on an amazing tropical landscape the rock looks as though id have to use some effort to pull myself ontop of it, and i actually really enjoy these types of shots, im sure the judges ect will realise this isnt a 4 foot deep carpet and a 3ft high rock haha 
sorry if this all sounds like pish, i struggle sometimes to put my thoughts down into words that others will understand haha.

cheers


----------



## B7fec

Great topic George.... Without going over what's already been said, I love shooting UWA shots, I think they add to the creative use of the aqua scape and allows the photographer to flex there creative muscle. I think the use of UWA shots in aqua scaping can truly show off a scape and stand it out from the crowd.


----------



## mrjackdempsey

And who said the camera never lies


----------



## a1Matt

A lot of what I would say has been said already, so I won't repeat that.



			
				Antoni said:
			
		

> The human eyes works as a video camera, not like a camera. To perceive an image, our eyes go over the subject creating hundreds if not thousands frames of the subject shifting along the whole picture. Then the brain makes the final "image" of the subject.



I agree with the above statement and feel that it leads into a point that hasn't been made yet in the thread. I find that a candid video of a tank gives the best impression of how a tank actually looks in real life.  Far better than any still image.  If I am judging a tank I want to know how it looks in real life.  Therefore I think competition entries would benefit from having video\s of the tank included.

I also expect that as people get more experience with producing videos they will learn tricks of the trade to enhance the videos, effectively altering how they look from real life.


----------



## bigmatt

that's a really good point matt - never thought about it like that but completely agree with you. M


----------



## B7fec

Good idea Matt......totally agree that a video would portray the tank in a 'Real life' state much better than photos.


----------



## Piece-of-fish

Videos might be the future of contest judging but not yet.
Who said yo cant use wide angle lens on your HD shooting DSLR though.
And further more video editing could take things even farther from the aquascape than the photo.
Unless as some people said strict rules have to be applied such as shoot from 50mm from the front only.

For me aquascaping is art and art accepts all tools of expression. 
Already drooling over canon 10-22mm


----------



## ghostsword

Well said mate, aquascaping is an art and all is fair game.

As long as colours aren't changed, items liquified, or sizes changed, all should be allowed.

You can't afford a good lens? Rent one or borrow. 


.


----------



## NeilW

On my studies I found these photographers where the beauty of their work lies in the pure 'documentary' perspective and the effort taken to capture the subjects objectively.
Bernd and Hilla Becher

I believe this lovely 'flat' aesthetic was achieved through their large format camera and careful choice in where to take the picture from. I think this sort of perspective/camera setup would be great for judging competitions.

Maybe ADA should get entrants to submit both a 'flat on' image and also an 'arty' image that aims to capture the atmosphere of the scape (so this could use an UWA). In his books the layouts are often over a spread and feature this kind of approach to capturing a tank.


----------



## Nick16

i could do a true masterpiece of a tank, but because i have a crap camera i would get ranked lower than someone who does a lesser scape... aquascaping contests are now a joke which is why i will not enter anymore. 

its like the ada competition, unless you use their products, you will not even be considered for the win.


----------



## Mark Evans

Nick16 said:
			
		

> its like the ada competition, unless you use their products, you will not even be considered for the win.



I dont remember reading that in the rules   where did you hear that mate?


----------



## Nick16

goes without saying... one day i might enter and just put down i used all their potions and see where i end up


a low budget, DIY style tank winning the ADA... per-lease!


----------



## George Farmer

Nick16 said:
			
		

> i could do a true masterpiece of a tank, but because i have a crap camera i would get ranked lower than someone who does a lesser scape... aquascaping contests are now a joke which is why i will not enter anymore.
> 
> its like the ada competition, unless you use their products, you will not even be considered for the win.





			
				Nick16 said:
			
		

> goes without saying... one day i might enter and just put down i used all their potions and see where i end up
> 
> a low budget, DIY style tank winning the ADA... per-lease!


Hi Nick

Good to see you on UKAPS again.

Although the use of ADA products in the IAPLC contest is probably beyond the scope of this thread, I think it's worth clarifying matters.

You do not need to use ADA products to 'be considered for the win'.  

I'm not sure where you've heard this rather cynical claim, but it isn't true.  For instance Filipe Oliveira's Top 10 entry did not use _any_ ADA products.

Conversely, in 2008 I used lots of ADA products and what I consider to be a good photo, and I ranked 898th.  My highest ranked 'scape, 169th in 2009, used the _least_ ADA products.  

I think the reason many top IAPLC ranks use a lot of ADA gear is because some of the best 'scapers in the world live in the Far East, where ADA is far more accessible, in terms of price and availability when compared to the UK.

Aquascaping in the Far East is also undertaken as a much larger proportion of the fishkeeping hobby as a whole.  You only have to read the entrants per country in the IAPLC to see this for yourself.  Logic implies that if ADA products are popular in the Far East, then they're going to be present in the top rankers' aquascapes... 

With regards to the actual IAPLC judging process, your 'scape won't even see the international judging panel unless it gets short-listed into the Top 100.  When judging almost 2,000 entries you can imagine that the short-listing process is largely based on first impressions, so the photograph is important, and I'm sure the kit list isn't considered at all.

I agree that aquascaping contests should always rank a good 'scape over a good photograph, and I'm certain all aquascaping judges feel the same way.  From having personal experience of judging an aquascaping contest alongside Amano, I know he concurs...

Cheers,
George


----------



## George Farmer

George Farmer said:
			
		

> From having personal experience of judging an aquascaping contest alongside Amano, I know he concurs...


In fact, I remember him mentioning the use of ultra-wide angle photography in this 'scape, that actually won Best of Show in the AGA 2008.  I also scored this higher than any other 'scape, but not just because it's a great photo...


----------



## plantbrain

I love the UWL zoom canon 16-35mm EF, the Tonkia 12-24mm is not bad either.
I have not used the Sigma 12-24mm, it does not work on my full sized sensors.

I think it's more important than most any other aquarium lens, same for Real Estate pics, interior homes etc, small places, nature pics etc. It makes the aquarium look much larger than it is.

Still, I have seen others add elements to their tanks that make them appear much larger without a UWL......I think there's something to be said there.


----------



## George Farmer

plantbrain said:
			
		

> I have not used the Sigma 12-24mm, it does not work on my full sized sensors.


Should do, Tom.  You're probably thinking of the Sigma 10-20mm.



			
				plantbrain said:
			
		

> Still, I have seen others add elements to their tanks that make them appear much larger without a UWL......I think there's something to be said there.


Definitely!


----------



## Ian Holdich

George Farmer said:
			
		

>




see, when i look at this pic, the first thing i see is the hardscape, the last thing i looked at was the actual tank. Now, i probably wouldn't have bothered looking at the actual glass tank in we weren't talking about UWA. The tank looks like a shallow cube doesn't it? it's a pity there's not a pic of this with a normal kit lens to compare with.


----------



## tyrophagus

Mark you can't use raw as a standard for entries as it produces a very flat low contrast, unsaturated, unsharpened image. This might be the pure unadulterated image data but it is not what your eyes are seeing. Your eyes see more contrast and saturation and better dynamic range. 

Even with film the camera produces an altered image dependent on film choice and printing.  A photograph can never be anything but an attempt to reflect reality rather than a true representation of reality.


----------



## JEK

Nick16 said:
			
		

> i could do a true masterpiece of a tank, but because i have a crap camera i would get ranked lower than someone who does a lesser scape...



I know this isn't really relevant to the topic of the thread, but I hope it's okay I answer Nick16...
Look at world ranking 3 in the 2008 IAPLC contest. That's actually a rather unsharp and blurry picture. At least it is in PFK 12/2008 - I don't have the IAPLC booklet so I can't tell if it's better there. Can anyone confirm or invalidate that?


----------



## Ian Holdich

this came third, and this is the largest pic i have found





courtesy of http://my-aquatic-world.blogspot.com/20 ... ayout.html

having a look through some pics, there is some bad photography that got ranked high.


----------



## plantbrain

Since these ARE photo contest and photos are art, another layer on which to promote and support the hobby........like being a good plumber.........also makes you a good aquarist..........a good photo shoot can recoup the $$$, make you look better than you are

But it is art............it is not reality.
Most judges know this and are fairly experienced with photography and post processing trickery........

Photo skills are judged as well in most cases..........but more weight is given to the conceptual landscaping, hardscaping I think in general.

Video gets around a lot this but........it is also another level of art, Youtube contest for the best scape?
Might promote the hobby more than an outdated media like pics. Most high end cameras and even cell phones have HD video these days.

There are many aspects one can master related to aquariums, and the types of critters and systems that can be kept.......reefs for examples, or macro algae, or breed rift cichlids, or or or.........we learn as we go and decide to pursue another side of things.

I still think the UWA is among the best lens to have in my bag when I'm out and about or want to make the tank look really big, like my face planted up close.

You also should consider looking at the tank styles and dimensions if scaping and pics are important to you, most are larger tanks and have a lot of front to back depth. I've used the 60cmx60cm X 60-240cm length for some time, and am switching most of my tanks to shallower and deeper front to back depths, 45cm high by 60 or 75cm front to back depth.
The other nice thing is these tanks have more surface area for O2 and fish loading. The schooling fish are compressed in the field of view also.


----------



## Stu Worrall

old thread I know but Ive just ordered a 16-35mm F2.8 which should be here Monday  so my old canon 10-22mm will be up for sale to pay towards it!  After seeing Marks images with the lens it pushed me to get the full frame version for my 5d as the old 10-22 I have only works with my backup camera.  

As well as doing this years IAPLC shot Ill also be using it with a rogue grid and flash to shoot first dances at weddings plus the venue and church shots.  Looking forward to trying it out


----------



## leonroy

Ah, you show off! Looking forward to seeing your tank shots with it, it's a fab lens. (Almost as good as the Nikon 14-24mm! j/k!)


----------



## Aqua sobriquet

The Tokina AT-X Pro 12-24 takes some beating if you have deep pockets ...


----------



## Aeropars

I've been looking for a wide angle lens for me beginners Nikon d3100 but the cheap ones I looked at seem to bold on to the standard 55mm lens. What's the deal there?!


----------



## Aquadream

Interesting topic indeed.
I agree with Garuf from one end to the other as I am also an artist and as such I value true art, not computer or camera generated.

There is one more aspect that I have not seen anyone to mention.

When aquarium is empty (no water) the full optical depth is present, but when it is filled with water the optical illusion is that the aquarium depth is less than what is in reality.
The optically reduced visual depth can be compensated with wide angle photography up to a point where the perceptual depth is somewhat equal to the real tank depth, so the picture can actually represent the real aquascape dimensions as accurate as possible.

Beyond that  I would consider any aquascape just a nice photography, but not honest contest material.

As for all of the art gibberish I think that all contest aquariums should above all represent high level of care for the life that they are filled with, not to serve some selfish small desire to shine with great pictures and big prizes on the contests.

For his majesty Amano. 
Great photographer indeed. And great aquascaper.
His aquariums however in reality look just as ordinary as any other I have seen and his photographs does not represent one bit of reality, but makes all those nice aquascapes to look as extraterrestrial worlds.
I have talked to number of  aqua hobbyists that were in turmoil for not been ever capable to achieve those fantastic super clean aquariums (from the pictures), because they do not know that between their eyes and many great aquascapes there is one expensive photo camera and skilled photographer.


----------



## plantbrain

Well, you need to be good at photography and aquascaping both.

I like the Canon 16-35 lens. It's pretty good but perhaps a fix fL lens might do well in that 12-20mm range.


----------



## Mark Evans

As nice as it is to have UwA lens. It's still takes knowledge when to use it. Uwa does not work on every aquarium. I can still take a great full tank shot of a 60cm with a focal length of 135mm

Yes amanos tank look like everyone else's in reality, but his skill lies in plant placement.... Something most of us have not figured out. There lies the difference between him and us. As for expensive gear... Im confident in getting a good shot with a compact. 

For the record, I hardly use my 16-35 and still rely on the 135mm f2


----------



## Antipofish

Mark Evans said:
			
		

> As nice as it is to have UwA lens. It's still takes knowledge when to use it. Uwa does not work on every aquarium. I can still take a great full tank shot of a 60cm with a focal length of 135mm
> 
> Yes amanos tank look like everyone else's in reality, but his skill lies in plant placement.... Something most of us have not figured out. There lies the difference between him and us. As for expensive gear... Im confident in getting a good shot with a compact.
> 
> For the record, I hardly use my 16-35 and still rely on the 135mm f2



Mark, do you think its fair to say that you cannot achieve that wrap around look that a UWA gives at a focal length of 135mm ?  My tank is only 80cm wide and one thing I would love to achieve is to make it look more panoramic.  Currently I feel my FTS images are very two dimensional and flat.  I can get 135mm using my zoom.  Would this give the same image as a 135mm fixed focal length but with distance adjusted to maintain the full image width ?  I have read a little bit about photographers preferring the fixed focal length lens to finding a given focal length using a zoom as it does not give the same image.  But am I missing the point, or are they ? Surely if you want to match the image you just alter your distance ? Or does that then mean although you get the width you dont get the feeling of BEING there in the image as its evident it was taken from further away ?   (I think I am beginning to think this through for myself but would welcome your comment to tell me I am correct or talking rollock   )


----------



## Aquadream

Mark Evans said:
			
		

> Yes amanos tank look like everyone else's in reality, but his skill lies in plant placement.... Something most of us have not figured out. There lies the difference between him and us.


The difference between him and us is first cultural considering the Japanese traditions in flowers and plants placement.
The other difference is that the guy have made hundreds of aquariums in his life time and had the choice to show his best. Skill or no skill I can promice you not all of his attempts were best of the best.
Surely many other scapers would have just as great show after 30 years or so.


----------



## Mark Evans

Aquadream said:
			
		

> is aquariums however in reality look just as ordinary as any other I have seen and his photographs does not represent one bit of reality, but makes all those nice aquascapes to look as extraterrestrial worlds.
> I have talked to number of aqua hobbyists that were in turmoil for not been ever capable to achieve those fantastic super clean aquariums (from the pictures), because they do not know that between their eyes and many great aquascapes there is one expensive photo camera and skilled photographer.



This is interesting. You do realise that Amano uses film and a large format camera?...not that expensive.you can pick up a Mamiya Medium format camera for next to nothing. 

So in actual fact what you see in his images is exactly what is there in front of you. He doesn't even get to change white balance like we can with digital.


----------



## plantbrain

Mark Evans said:
			
		

> Aquadream said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is aquariums however in reality look just as ordinary as any other I have seen and his photographs does not represent one bit of reality, but makes all those nice aquascapes to look as extraterrestrial worlds.
> I have talked to number of aqua hobbyists that were in turmoil for not been ever capable to achieve those fantastic super clean aquariums (from the pictures), because they do not know that between their eyes and many great aquascapes there is one expensive photo camera and skilled photographer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is interesting. You do realise that Amano uses film and a large format camera?...not that expensive.you can pick up a Mamiya Medium format camera for next to nothing.
> 
> So in actual fact what you see in his images is exactly what is there in front of you. He doesn't even get to change white balance like we can with digital.
Click to expand...


Film is far more true on many levels than digital images which require post processing, I just had this conservation with 2 professional photographers here. Amano, Clive Butcher, Ansel Adam's etc, they are large format old school photographers. You need to do little/no white balance adjustment. This is a very different approach with the limited post processing you can do with film. I still like Film, but no longer use it. 

Amano is very good, has been doing this most of his life and he's not young anymore. 
As far as scaping etc, Amano has been very forthcoming about how and what to do, but most people obsess with nutrients or dosing or some other "trick" and gloss over the good advice on scaping, trimming etc. ADA aqua journal shows this over and over, they get weird with the dosing/ferts, plant physiology............but the how to scape parts are the bulk and his main message.

Not whacko stuff like Penac or toumaline.
Some of his lens choices are UWA, some not.
4x5 and 8x10's also have some really nice lens and the color richness, shadowing is awesome. 
This is why many of the black & white photographers love them. 

Check out Clive Butcher, awesome Everglades pictures with insane sizing.
Good place to stop by if you tour southern Florida ever. Having lived there for a couple of years, I sure did.

http://www.clydebutcher.com/

His photos are unlike any I've seen other than say Ansel's, you feel like you are there in the swamp, or on the mountain. When art does that........that is it's "purpose". Amano does this as well with planted tanks.


----------



## Aquadream

Mark Evans said:
			
		

> Aquadream said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is aquariums however in reality look just as ordinary as any other I have seen and his photographs does not represent one bit of reality, but makes all those nice aquascapes to look as extraterrestrial worlds.
> I have talked to number of aqua hobbyists that were in turmoil for not been ever capable to achieve those fantastic super clean aquariums (from the pictures), because they do not know that between their eyes and many great aquascapes there is one expensive photo camera and skilled photographer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is interesting. You do realise that Amano uses film and a large format camera?...not that expensive.you can pick up a Mamiya Medium format camera for next to nothing.
> 
> So in actual fact what you see in his images is exactly what is there in front of you. He doesn't even get to change white balance like we can with digital.
Click to expand...

Well I see that Amano also uses few big studio flash lights with sinchronizers as well, next to the old school photo cameras.
Can you help me to get some of those flashes for next to nothing?


----------



## Mark Evans

Aquadream said:
			
		

> Can you help me to get some of those flashes for next to nothing?



Sure. Google them. You can pick up some great deals for not a lot of money   

Actually, you dont need them. I've taken some aquatic imges recently that are to feature in a company catalogue. All taken with just tank lighting. 

Here's one with tank lighting...


Half-FTS by saintly's pics, on Flickr

I think your getting lost in the 'all gear, good photos' syndrome.


----------



## Aquadream

Mark Evans said:
			
		

> Aquadream said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you help me to get some of those flashes for next to nothing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Google them. You can pick up some great deals for not a lot of money
> 
> Actually, you dont need them. I've taken some aquatic imges recently that are to feature in a company catalogue. All taken with just tank lighting.
> 
> Here's one with tank lighting...
> 
> 
> Half-FTS by saintly's pics, on Flickr
> 
> I think your getting lost in the 'all gear, good photos' syndrome.
Click to expand...

Well not everyone have Geismann tank light with two MH 150W or so units in it. Those are quite helpful when taking nice pictures.
I assume the one you are showing you have made with a small pocket size camera or perhaps one from a mobile phone with some cheap China made luminary with just enough power for the plants to grow, because they do cost next to nothing, almost. I mean just like the Geismann tank luminary.

I also happen to have Canon EOS 600D with the standard 18/55mm lens kit. You know what? Now even 400Watts of T5 lights on my tank are good enough to take proper high resolution pics with it. I would say that is why Amano uses 5 studio flash lights, besides the tank MH lights. Curious he seem to suffer the same syndrome like me.
'all gear, good photos' syndrome. that is hardly the case here. 
I have tried many cheap small cameras. About quality aquatic photography they are useless.
The Canon I have is ok, but only if it is set up with some extra gear, lights in particular, better lens would be even nicer. And that does not cost next to nothing. Not at all.

Besides if it is all so simple why you guys are all gearing up with the best Canon and Nikon stuff? What for?

It is good to encourage the folks about the hobby, but it is also good to tell them more about how much all of this does really costs.


----------



## Antipofish

Aquadream said:
			
		

> Mark Evans said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aquadream said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you help me to get some of those flashes for next to nothing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Google them. You can pick up some great deals for not a lot of money
> 
> Actually, you dont need them. I've taken some aquatic imges recently that are to feature in a company catalogue. All taken with just tank lighting.
> 
> Here's one with tank lighting...
> 
> 
> Half-FTS by saintly's pics, on Flickr
> 
> I think your getting lost in the 'all gear, good photos' syndrome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well not everyone have Geismann tank light with two MH 150W or so units in it. Those are quite helpful when taking nice pictures.
> I assume the one you are showing you have made with a small pocket size camera or perhaps one from a mobile phone with some cheap China made luminary with just enough power for the plants to grow, because they do cost next to nothing, almost. I mean just like the Geismann tank luminary.
> 
> I also happen to have Canon EOS 600D with the standard 18/55mm lens kit. You know what? Now even 400Watts of T5 lights on my tank are good enough to take proper high resolution pics with it. I would say that is why Amano uses 5 studio flash lights, besides the tank MH lights. Curious he seem to suffer the same syndrome like me.
> 'all gear, good photos' syndrome. that is hardly the case here.
> I have tried many cheap small cameras. About quality aquatic photography they are useless.
> The Canon I have is ok, but only if it is set up with some extra gear, lights in particular, better lens would be even nicer. And that does not cost next to nothing. Not at all.
> 
> Besides if it is all so simple why you guys are all gearing up with the best Canon and Nikon stuff? What for?
> 
> It is good to encourage the folks about the hobby, but it is also good to tell them more about how much all of this does really costs.
Click to expand...


Personally I think it has more to do with how you use the equipment you have.   Are you saying 400w of light over a tank is not enough to light anything as far as taking an aquarium photograph goes?  It should be anyway.  Combine the use of aperture, shutter speed and ISO with that lighting and I cannot believe you could not achieve a correctly exposed image.  

Of course, the likes of Amano, and even our very own local version... Mark Evans..., do have exceptionally good looking tanks to take pics of, and that helps    Like Mark, I would be happy to take a decent aquarium image with a Canon Sureshot.  I have had a picture published in a travel guide, of the Sky Tower in Auckland, and that was taken with a Canon Ixus 400.  So I tend to agree with Mark.  Expensive photographic equipment is not essential, though for those for whom photography is as much a hobby (or professional interest) as the aquascaping, its nice to have.  

If you are adamant that you feel the need for studio lights though, they can often be picked up on photography forums or even ebay for a couple of hundred quid.  Chuck in some home made reflectors and you got your very own studio.  The Canon 600D is a decent enough camera.


----------



## Aquadream

Antipofish said:
			
		

> Personally I think it has more to do with how you use the equipment you have.   Are you saying 400w of light over a tank is not enough to light anything as far as taking an aquarium photograph goes?  It should be anyway.  Combine the use of aperture, shutter speed and ISO with that lighting and I cannot believe you could not achieve a correctly exposed image.


Let me make it more clear.
I am not talking about making just some nice looking picture. Of course 400 Watts of light would be enough to show at least the tank view from global aspect.
What I am saying is that that amount of light is not enough to capture focused still image from the fish and the foreground plants detail is too blurred. When I open the 18Mp size image in full view they look crap in the detail. Only smaller version of the same images that are sharpened looks better, but one can never see any detail in there. it is only illusion of a good image created by pc post processing, not achieved by the camera.

I want the images in full view to have clear detail, but that happens only if I take pictures out side on day light, not from the aquarium on T5 lights.

This is where the line is between cheap and real photography. The quality of detail. It does not come without extra gear and certainly not with next to nothing costs.


----------



## Antipofish

Aquadream said:
			
		

> Antipofish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I think it has more to do with how you use the equipment you have.   Are you saying 400w of light over a tank is not enough to light anything as far as taking an aquarium photograph goes?  It should be anyway.  Combine the use of aperture, shutter speed and ISO with that lighting and I cannot believe you could not achieve a correctly exposed image.
> 
> 
> 
> Let me make it more clear.
> I am not talking about making just some nice looking picture. Of course 400 Watts of light would be enough to show at least the tank view from global aspect.
> What I am saying is that that amount of light is not enough to capture focused still image from the fish and the foreground plants detail is too blurred. When I open the 18Mp size image in full view they look crap in the detail. Only smaller version of the same images that are sharpened looks better, but one can never see any detail in there. it is only illusion of a good image created by pc post processing, not achieved by the camera.
> 
> I want the images in full view to have clear detail, but that happens only if I take pictures out side on day light, not from the aquarium on T5 lights.
> 
> This is where the line is between cheap and real photography. The quality of detail. It does not come without extra gear and certainly not with next to nothing costs.
Click to expand...


I disagree.  If your foreground is not crisp and clear then you need to adjust your aperture to make it crisper.  That will require a slower shutter speed which you can offset by increasing your ISO.  If you take the shots at night the light will be more directed and look better. Use a tripod and you can gain a good three stops on your shutter speed.  Metering mode will also have an affect.  I find matrix metering works best most of the time.

But we are getting way off topic here as the thread is about Ultra Wide Angle lenses. Perhaps you could start a thread on the topic though, post some of your pics you are not happy with along with image data.


----------



## plantbrain

I'm pretty sure you should be able to make adjustments in pre and in post processing to get real nice tank images with the camera you have. I spend more time just getting the quick pic up and not doing a photo shoot, I'm mildly interested.....but.........a bit lazy/unmotivated there.

My old photos with a single remote flash did great, even the old cheapy Pentax K1000 did excellent with Kodak 64 film.
Digital cameras need more monkeying, but there is a pay off. I do not place a high value on digital images however because I'm not really having to pay for the processing like film. Still, I've sold 5000$ worth of picture over the last 10 years. So while I dabble......I've done pretty good. 

Here's a good forum for specific learning of aquarium photography, it's the entire forum's devotion, you go through some of the threads and do what they tell you, you'll have nice results.

http://www.aquatic-photography.com/

Wise thing to do *if you are really into the art/photography side of this. *
Plenty to learn no matter who you are.......


----------



## Aquadream

Antipofish said:
			
		

> I disagree.  If your foreground is not crisp and clear then you need to adjust your aperture to make it crisper.  That will require a slower shutter speed which you can offset by increasing your ISO.  If you take the shots at night the light will be more directed and look better. Use a tripod and you can gain a good three stops on your shutter speed.  Metering mode will also have an affect.  I find matrix metering works best most of the time.
> 
> But we are getting way off topic here as the thread is about Ultra Wide Angle lenses. Perhaps you could start a thread on the topic though, post some of your pics you are not happy with along with image data.



You sure know it all as it seems.
But all you suggested is limited by the amount of light and the fact that there is fish that also have to get good looking on the picture.


----------



## Antipofish

Aquadream said:
			
		

> Antipofish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  If your foreground is not crisp and clear then you need to adjust your aperture to make it crisper.  That will require a slower shutter speed which you can offset by increasing your ISO.  If you take the shots at night the light will be more directed and look better. Use a tripod and you can gain a good three stops on your shutter speed.  Metering mode will also have an affect.  I find matrix metering works best most of the time.
> 
> But we are getting way off topic here as the thread is about Ultra Wide Angle lenses. Perhaps you could start a thread on the topic though, post some of your pics you are not happy with along with image data.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sure know it all as it seems.
> But all you suggested is limited by the amount of light and the fact that there is fish that also have to get good looking on the picture.
Click to expand...


I dont know it all mate, not by a long shot, but I do know that it is possible to achieve a decent image with the light you have and the equipment you have.  People with a lot of photographic experience on here have tried to help and make suggestions for you, but it seems all you do is put obstacles in your way, so there is little more I can offer.  If you cannot get a decent image using a Canon 600D, and without spending the thousands you seem to think is necessary, you may wish to consider an alternative hobby to photography.  Or take your fish tank to a football ground and use their floodlights    Whatever you decide to do, good luck in search of your perfect image


----------



## Aquadream

Antipofish said:
			
		

> Aquadream said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antipofish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  If your foreground is not crisp and clear then you need to adjust your aperture to make it crisper.  That will require a slower shutter speed which you can offset by increasing your ISO.  If you take the shots at night the light will be more directed and look better. Use a tripod and you can gain a good three stops on your shutter speed.  Metering mode will also have an affect.  I find matrix metering works best most of the time.
> 
> But we are getting way off topic here as the thread is about Ultra Wide Angle lenses. Perhaps you could start a thread on the topic though, post some of your pics you are not happy with along with image data.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sure know it all as it seems.
> But all you suggested is limited by the amount of light and the fact that there is fish that also have to get good looking on the picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont know it all mate, not by a long shot, but I do know that it is possible to achieve a decent image with the light you have and the equipment you have.  People with a lot of photographic experience on here have tried to help and make suggestions for you, but it seems all you do is put obstacles in your way, so there is little more I can offer.  If you cannot get a decent image using a Canon 600D, and without spending the thousands you seem to think is necessary, you may wish to consider an alternative hobby to photography.  Or take your fish tank to a football ground and use their floodlights    Whatever you decide to do, good luck in search of your perfect image
Click to expand...

Oh no my friend.
You see. The guys with the photographic experience have told me how I could use some cheapies and make decent images. But I have been doing this for many years. I am 43 by the way.

All I want is someone to show me how to make images equal in quality to the pictures in ADA printed catalogue with equipment that costs next to nothing, because the Canon I have is far from cheap and it is also far from any picture quality that I have seen in the book of ADA.

I will be very grateful if we cut the illusions advice routine and get down to the real stuff.

Can pictures like the ones in the Book of ADA be made with cheap equipment or not? If yes, how?


----------



## clonitza

It's not all about the gear it's about understanding photography in particular light distribution. You can have the best gear and still get crappy photos.

You can find Neewer strobes really cheap on ebay to practice studio photography.





A test shot, limited a bit by the shutter speed (1/160, need a better wireless transmitter to freeze it but it's 500 quid and I can't afford it atm)

Anyway quality photography doesn't come cheap, deal with it if you want to evolve or stop complaining. 

Mike


----------



## Aquadream

clonitza said:
			
		

> Anyway quality photography doesn't come cheap, deal with it if you want to evolve or stop complaining.
> 
> Mike


Well then. Mark says it comes next to nothing.  :? So which way is going to be?


----------



## viktorlantos

Well i am not sure why Amano is the level you need to achieve. Probably he is the only one nowadays who shoot aquascape photos for large format. If he would do this for the web i bet this would not be captured with these equipment. The main purpose is the aquajournal magazine and his publishing activities and stock photo service.

If you see the IAPLC contest there are weak photos also in the top 100 even in the top 27. And noone shoot with the same equipment like Amano does. It's really not needed so from this point of view picking his equipment not makes sense.  

I do not see a reason why you would not shoot great photos with your current cam. Just need some extra light. DIY some t5 panels and you will be suprised by the result. This would be fine for any aquatic magazines out there or posters etc. 

But as far as i see good qual contest photos they just use some support light or camera flash with remote. Stanchung nr5 IAPLC2011 photo captured with remote camera flash. He told me his halides would not make the same effect.

So then a second hand camera flash or 2 or a DIY LED or T5 unit and you're done with the details.

Sorry for the OFF topic guys. There's nothing to do with UWA here


----------



## niru

What we all seem to forget is that professional quality pictures in books and elsewhere are NOT the result of 1 single click and the end of photo session.

Patience is a key to many good snaps. The artist takes 10s, or literally 100s of snaps, and then chooses prudently the picture that shows exactly what the artist wants to reveal. This could end up as combinations of camera/light settings, pre/post processing images, place, space, speed, orientation of the subject at hand (including fast fish, way the plants are swaying, water ripples, shadows, background, etc). Only practise and practise alone can improve this endevour... 

Thats the major difference between novices and pros. There is no better way to teach this other than brute force repeats. Usual masters have an experience of 1000s of snaps in their bag.. Only then they can reduce the time & efforts spent for their "next" snap.

Plus, this process also elevates the quality assesment criteria of the individual. Show a crappy tank pic (crappy to you) to a complete novice. I bet he/she is mesmerised by the sheer beauty captured in the photo. Not you. Same thing applies to the Masters. I am sure Amano might not be equally impressed by all his snaps the way we all are. Ask him in confidence (thats hard part) & he is sure to confess the shortcomings in his pics.

Pratice is THE only way forward..

.. my 2 cents 

-niru


----------



## George Farmer

I have a few days off work now so will try my best to share some new shots of my shallow tank using a 10-24mm Tamron, 50D and aquarium lighting. It's the cheapest UWA zoom on the market but still produces good results. 

Here's one from an older 'scape.


tamron 10-24mm sample by George Farmer, on Flickr


----------



## viktorlantos

Guys, if you're shooting full tank shot with these lens what is the method you use for lens correction.

Currently i use some auto correction in the 5D body, and add a software lens correction in Canon DPP after that.
What is your experience do you have a better workflow for that? Or just forget to shoot full tank with UWA?


----------



## clonitza

Basically you need correction for distortion, chromatic aberration and vignetting, easy done in Adobe Lightroom and Camera Raw (Lens Corrections -> Profile).


----------



## Aqua sobriquet

Yes, LightRoom is good for lens correction and although not every lens has been profiled the list continues to grow. Not sure if it was done in LR but I've seen rectilinear shots taken with a fisheye that looked pretty good!


----------



## Antipofish

George Farmer said:
			
		

> I have a few days off work now so will try my best to share some new shots of my shallow tank using a 10-24mm Tamron, 50D and aquarium lighting. It's the cheapest UWA zoom on the market but still produces good results.
> 
> Here's one from an older 'scape.
> 
> 
> tamron 10-24mm sample by George Farmer, on Flickr



Stunning George ! I would be more than happy with that any day.  I am even contemplating a DX format UWA lens for my D700 as I cannot afford the full frame ones I want.  The camera will crop down to DX size (and adjust the number of megapixels accordingly) so although I would not get billboard size images, a 6MP image is still big enough for a decent canvas.  I will have to look into the TAMRON 

(Bet these days off are welcome )


----------



## Antipofish

clonitza said:
			
		

> It's not all about the gear it's about understanding photography in particular light distribution. You can have the best gear and still get crappy photos.
> 
> You can find Neewer strobes really cheap on ebay to practice studio photography.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A test shot, limited a bit by the shutter speed (1/160, need a better wireless transmitter to freeze it but it's 500 quid and I can't afford it atm)
> 
> Anyway quality photography doesn't come cheap, deal with it if you want to evolve or stop complaining.
> 
> Mike



Thats a wicked image Mike


----------



## clonitza

Cheers 

This is a nice kinda old article in regard of the dslr vs medium format (actually amano is using large format camera) so he knows what he's saying about detail when shooting with his old school camera.
http://www.markcassino.com/b2evolution/ ... pdated-ima

Anyway if a nice medium format camera may be cheap ~3-400 quid on ebay you need to consider the rest of expenses (film, scanner, time consumed etc.) put them in balance and see if it's really worth it. Although I thought about it, the current dslr resolution is not a limiting factor for me as I'm doing large prints, I'm still a web guy who has to learn more about photography ...

To stick on the subject just got an used 10-22mm canon (~300) .. might share a pic with you guys soon.


----------



## Aqua sobriquet

If you really want high quality you need one of these:

http://stores.ebay.co.uk/FILM-PHOTOGRAP ... 34.c0.m322

And then maybe scan your rather large pieces of film with one of these:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/revie ... cans.shtml

I suspect it will be very many years before DSLR's come anywhere close to film this big


----------



## viktorlantos

OFF

There was an interview with Amano on photography in one if the AJD if i remember correctly. When he heard that the company will not produce films for his special camera he spent a tons of money to buy the remaining stock.

In some ADA shots you can see the fidges in the ADA Gallery. That's packed with films.  
He is worried that he may not be able to scan these films shortly, he said that that will be the end of an era of his large format shooting.

ON

Thanks for the tip on lens distortion. Will try this too. Wondering which gives the better result. DPP or Lightroom.


----------



## clonitza

Viktor you might consider also DxO 
Here's the test shot with the 10-22 and the new 600D





Nothing fancy about light, still lazy to unpack the strobes, so .. 2xt5 24w 880 in the back and 1xT5 24w giessemann midday & 1xt5 28w jbl tropic above.


----------



## Aqua sobriquet

Nice shot, looks really good on my iPad.


----------



## viktorlantos

Lovely shot mate.


----------



## Antipofish

clonitza said:
			
		

> Viktor you might consider also DxO
> Here's the test shot with the 10-22 and the new 600D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing fancy about light, still lazy to unpack the strobes, so .. 2xt5 24w 880 in the back and 1xT5 24w giessemann midday & 1xt5 28w jbl tropic above.



Only 100w of light and a Canon 600D ? No strobes ? No expensive equipment. Surely it can't be done   

Awesome pic Mike.  AND WOW ! What a scape


----------



## Aquadream

Antipofish said:
			
		

> clonitza said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Viktor you might consider also DxO
> Here's the test shot with the 10-22 and the new 600D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing fancy about light, still lazy to unpack the strobes, so .. 2xt5 24w 880 in the back and 1xT5 24w giessemann midday & 1xt5 28w jbl tropic above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only 100w of light and a Canon 600D ? No strobes ? No expensive equipment. Surely it can't be done
> 
> Awesome pic Mike.  AND WOW ! What a scape
Click to expand...

100W on what size aquarium? Also by my standards this aquarium is almost empty. There is nothing around the water surface to reduce the light level.
Any picture in small size can look good espesially with post processing. What happens if the guy publish here let say 18M size in full since he is using 600D. I can promice you when you see that you will be quite dissapointed.


----------



## Antipofish

Aquadream said:
			
		

> Antipofish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> clonitza said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Viktor you might consider also DxO
> Here's the test shot with the 10-22 and the new 600D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing fancy about light, still lazy to unpack the strobes, so .. 2xt5 24w 880 in the back and 1xT5 24w giessemann midday & 1xt5 28w jbl tropic above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only 100w of light and a Canon 600D ? No strobes ? No expensive equipment. Surely it can't be done
> 
> Awesome pic Mike.  AND WOW ! What a scape
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 100W on what size aquarium? Also by my standards this aquarium is almost empty. There is nothing around the water surface to reduce the light level.
> Any picture in small size can look good espesially with post processing. What happens if the guy publish here let say 18M size in full since he is using 600D. I can promice you when you see that you will be quite dissapointed.
Click to expand...


Personally I doubt I would be disappointed at all.  Mike is a professional photographer and I have every confidence that a full size image from him would be every bit as good.  You have stuff around your water surface causing light blockage ?  Move it !  Like I said.  Obstacles Obstacles Obstacles.


----------



## Aquadream

Antipofish said:
			
		

> 100W on what size aquarium? Also by my standards this aquarium is almost empty. There is nothing around the water surface to reduce the light level.
> Any picture in small size can look good espesially with post processing. What happens if the guy publish here let say 18M size in full since he is using 600D. I can promice you when you see that you will be quite dissapointed.



Personally I doubt I would be disappointed at all.  Mike is a professional photographer and I have every confidence that a full size image from him would be every bit as good.  You have stuff around your water surface causing light blockage ?  Move it !  Like I said.  Obstacles Obstacles Obstacles.[/quote]
Let see the full size image then, and please no processing. Then we will talk about it more.
Do not confuse misguided confidence with blind admiration.
Buy one 600D and proove me wrong.


----------



## Antipofish

Aquadream said:
			
		

> Antipofish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100W on what size aquarium? Also by my standards this aquarium is almost empty. There is nothing around the water surface to reduce the light level.
> Any picture in small size can look good espesially with post processing. What happens if the guy publish here let say 18M size in full since he is using 600D. I can promice you when you see that you will be quite dissapointed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I doubt I would be disappointed at all.  Mike is a professional photographer and I have every confidence that a full size image from him would be every bit as good.  You have stuff around your water surface causing light blockage ?  Move it !  Like I said.  Obstacles Obstacles Obstacles.
Click to expand...

Let see the full size image then, and please no processing. Then we will talk about it more.
Do not confuse misguided confidence with blind admiration.
Buy one 600D and proove me wrong.[/quote]

Cant be bothered mate.


----------



## George Farmer

Please try to keep the thread on-topic and refrain from antagonising one another. It would be a shame to have to lock this thread.


----------



## clonitza

I'm not a professional photographer just got into photography an year ago when I bought my first DSLR.  I like to take it slow and learn from here and there, take courses, go to workshops, spend at least 2-3 hours documenting / day, then when I hit a limitation I upgrade my gear. I really don't care I have a cheap camera and others have a 100k one cause at the end of the day I'm satisfied with what I'm doing because I enjoy it and my friends like the stuff I post online.

Anyway lets go back to the photo above, it was done as a test, no fancy setup, I can repeat it someday in the future with proper gear but I'll show you now the process of post production.

I shot RAW on neutral picture style, after that I adjust WB in lightroom for the blue background (I did set the a warm light above and a cold one in the background for that purpose) and then the usual stuff contrast, graduated filters (I was lazy enough not to use them when shooting, I use the cheap Cokin filters btw) and then apply unsharp mask and sharpen in photoshop.

1. the original
2. LR
3. PS - UM & S

1/100, f/3.5 (I usually shot around f/8 for greater detail), ISO 100

Crop applied to all three images, full resolution otherwise.

I can do all this and shot a JPEG from the camera, but I like the workflow in LR and PS. 

Mike

P.S. Hope you can see them, they are hosted on my server.
P.P.S. Repaired the links


----------



## Antipofish

clonitza said:
			
		

> I'm not a professional photographer just got into photography an year ago when I bought my first DSLR.  I like to take it slow and learn from here and there, take courses, go to workshops, spend at least 2-3 hours documenting / day, then when I hit a limitation I upgrade my gear. I really don't care I have a cheap camera and others have a 100k one cause at the end of the day I'm satisfied with what I'm doing because I enjoy it and my friends like the stuff I post online.
> 
> Anyway lets go back to the photo above, it was done as a test, no fancy setup, I can repeat it someday in the future with proper gear but I'll show you now the process of post production.
> 
> I shot RAW on neutral picture style, after that I adjust WB in lightroom for the blue background (I did set the a warm light above and a cold one in the background for that purpose) and then the usual stuff contrast, graduated filters (I was lazy enough not to use them when shooting, I use the cheap Cokin filters btw) and then apply unsharp mask and sharpen in photoshop.
> 
> 1. the original
> 2. LR
> 3. PS - UM & S
> 
> 1/100, f/3.5 (I usually shot around f/8 for greater detail), ISO 100
> 
> Crop applied to all three images, full resolution otherwise.
> 
> I can do all this and shot a JPEG from the camera, but I like the workflow in LR and PS.
> 
> Mike
> 
> P.S. Hope you can see them, they are hosted on my server.
> P.P.S. Repaired the links



Well your images are as good as many pro's stuff I have seen


----------



## Aqua sobriquet

If you've only been into photography about a year I reckon you're doing pretty good Mike! I look forward to seeing some more of your pics.


----------



## Mark Evans

getting back on track, UWA can add drama to any image. 

I find it important to have distinct fore/mid and rear ground subjects to enhance the effect.


----------



## clonitza

Great photos Mark!

I'll share myself one more with my fav fish (sorry for the landscape, it's under construction)


----------



## George Farmer

Beautiful shots, guys. Really inspirational. The sense of perspective is magnificent!


----------



## Aquadream

George Farmer said:
			
		

> Please try to keep the thread on-topic and refrain from antagonising one another. It would be a shame to have to lock this thread.


We just had a nice morning salad with olive branches with Antipofish.


----------



## Antipofish

Aquadream said:
			
		

> George Farmer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please try to keep the thread on-topic and refrain from antagonising one another. It would be a shame to have to lock this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> We just had a nice morning salad with olive branches with Antipofish.
Click to expand...

Indeed.  Now I know where Georgi is coming from I can understand his posts more.  A good argument never hurts now and again.  Makes the kiss and make up part better   

Now all I need is someone to tell me why the HC I planted yesterday is floating on the surface of my tank ! LOL. It would go well with Olive Branch salad and a bit of Ham and chutney.  But thats another story.


----------



## Dan Crawford

Great discussion folks. Can I chuck this in the mix please?

Just for fun, and to quickly see if using UWA badly can still create an added sense of depth and or scale....

This was taken on a 5DmkII, so a full frame sensor at 15mm. Shooting so wide has made this proportions of my new tank look very strange and it also appears to have dwarfed the whole aquascape, quite the opposite of what I expected.

*can anyone guess the size of the tank?*, the edges of the glass aren't quite in the shot but in real life it's got only 2cm missing off the photo.


----------



## Aqua sobriquet

No guesses on the tank size but isn't 15mm on a full frame normally a fisheye. Or put another way shouldn't the image be round or have you doctored it. I'm aware you can use Lightroom for example to produce rectilinear images from a fisheye lens.


----------



## BigTom

Aqua sobriquet said:
			
		

> No guesses on the tank size but isn't 15mm on a full frame normally a fisheye. Or put another way shouldn't the image be round or have you doctored it. I'm aware you can use Lightroom for example to produce rectilinear images from a fisheye lens.



Depends on the lens design. 15mm fullframe is roughly equivalent to 10mm on a crop sensor, which is normally the limit for ultra wide angle zooms. Think there's a Sigma that gets down to 8mm without being fisheye.

Fisheyes tend to cover the same sort of focal lengths, but have different lens elements to exaggerate, rather than correct the distortion.


----------



## Aqua sobriquet

Don't know about Sigma but Canon list their EF15mm as a Fisheye.


----------



## BigTom

Aqua sobriquet said:
			
		

> Don't know about Sigma but Canon list their EF15mm as a Fisheye.





			
				BigTom said:
			
		

> Fisheyes tend to cover the same sort of focal lengths, but have different lens elements to exaggerate, rather than correct the distortion.



Focal length doesn't define whether or not it's a fisheye (although fisheyes do tend to be quite wide), the internal construction of the lens does.

For example, here is a non-fisheye image which has had no adjustments in Photoshop (other than the B&W treatment), shot at 10mm.





EDIT - just realised you were refering to Mark's lens, I misunderstood you, sorry!

Not sure if Mark is actually using the 15mm fisheye, or if it's a wide angle zoom at 15mm (I suspect the latter).


----------



## Aqua sobriquet

Yes, it can be a bit confusing these days. It never used to be a problem until camera makers started making digital cameras with "crop" sensors!

I remember these, although never used one myself. Picture angle of 220°   

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/co ... 6mmf28.htm


----------



## Antipofish

Dan Crawford said:
			
		

> Great discussion folks. Can I chuck this in the mix please?
> 
> Just for fun, and to quickly see if using UWA badly can still create an added sense of depth and or scale....
> 
> This was taken on a 5DmkII, so a full frame sensor at 15mm. Shooting so wide has made this proportions of my new tank look very strange and it also appears to have dwarfed the whole aquascape, quite the opposite of what I expected.
> 
> *can anyone guess the size of the tank?*, the edges of the glass aren't quite in the shot but in real life it's got only 2cm missing off the photo.




45cm long  ?


----------



## Dan Crawford

Hi Guys, this is shot with a sigma 15-30. The tank is 80cm wide and 55cm front to back! A very strange effect IMO.


----------



## clonitza

I think in this kind of layouts you can use UWA to further improve the depth of the aquascape just because it brings sides closer and pushes the center further away.


----------

