Fish n' Frags Random Reef Shots

[Fish n' Frags]

Just a thread to keep the pics i like. I'll add as time goes by.

Mummy Eye Chalice - Taken July 20th 2008

Nikon D300
Nikkor AS-F 105mm VR Micro Lens
F/22
ISO 400
105mm
.50 sec shutter speed

[barometer]

[Fish n' Frags]

I'm really liking my tripod! Its amazing how much difference it makes when you don't have to touch the camera to take a picture. I'm using Camera Control Pro 2 and doing all the focusing, levels, etc. on my computer, even releasing the shutter. I added +10 to saturation and contrast in photoshop. I guess i really didn't need that much, but i think i like it.

[reefsurf]

great pic! i need to learn how to take a picture. half the time it's out of focus or the colors are messed up

[Fish n' Frags]

I guess i'll stick with the green stuff

Lime in the Sky - Taken July 20th, 2008

Nikon D300
Nikkor AS-F 105mm VR Micro Lens
F/16
ISO 400
105mm
1/40 sec shutter speed

Full shot



Macro crop of same pic

[Dakota]

wow, good steady skills. that's sharp for 1/2 sec!!


Little tip: That lens is best at apertures around 5.6 - 11. sometimes, once past that, images can lose sharpness (although depth of field IS incrased, glass characteristics can get in the way. F/22 is never a good place to be for sure on these lenses. F/16 is usually okay (especially if you need it for high power strobe use).

Edit: just noticed you used a trip-pos.. even nicer.... Tripods are a much for certain close-up photos

[Fish n' Frags]

Thanks, i have a VERY difficult time getting the entire subject in focus usually unless i step up fairly high. Maybe i didn't need to go all the way to f/22? I use my DOF button so much i'm sure i'll where it out. I tend to notice the image gets much softer anywhere above f/11, but i don't get the entire subject in focus at that aperature so i guess its something i have to deal with.

I'm not down with the photography lingo... whats trip-pos? Anyways, do you agree that the exposure is to low on the Lime in the sky pic? It looks ok, but something is wrong.

EDIT: ALSO, could you explain to me what gamma correction is and why i feel like i NEED to adjust it slightly to the negative to get my pics to adjust properly for web use?

wow, good steady skills. that's sharp for 1/2 sec!!


Little tip: That lens is best at apertures around 5.6 - 11. sometimes, once past that, images can lose sharpness (although depth of field IS incrased, glass characteristics can get in the way. F/22 is never a good place to be for sure on these lenses. F/16 is usually okay (especially if you need it for high power strobe use).

Edit: just noticed you used a trip-pos.. even nicer.... Tripods are a much for certain close-up photos

[Retzius]

wow, good steady skills. that's sharp for 1/2 sec!!


Little tip: That lens is best at apertures around 5.6 - 11. sometimes, once past that, images can lose sharpness (although depth of field IS incrased, glass characteristics can get in the way. F/22 is never a good place to be for sure on these lenses. F/16 is usually okay (especially if you need it for high power strobe use).

Edit: just noticed you used a trip-pos.. even nicer.... Tripods are a much for certain close-up photos

Thats the aperture I've been using with my lense too. I find that I dont have trouble with the depth of field at that setting.

Nice shots cartman, your skills are improving. Its making me want to sell my D70 and get a D300.

[Fish n' Frags]

Thats the aperture I've been using with my lense too. I find that I dont have trouble with the depth of field at that setting.

Nice shots cartman, your skills are improving. Its making me want to sell my D70 and get a D300.

LOL, its not the user, its the camera!

[Dakota]

Thanks, i have a VERY difficult time getting the entire subject in focus usually unless i step up fairly high. Maybe i didn't need to go all the way to f/22? I use my DOF button so much i'm sure i'll where it out. I tend to notice the image gets much softer anywhere above f/11, but i don't get the entire subject in focus at that aperature so i guess its something i have to deal with.

I'm not down with the photography lingo... whats trip-pos? Anyways, do you agree that the exposure is to low on the Lime in the sky pic? It looks ok, but something is wrong.

EDIT: ALSO, could you explain to me what gamma correction is and why i feel like i NEED to adjust it slightly to the negative to get my pics to adjust properly for web use?

DOF button is great for landscapes, but when you're shooting something that is tiny, you virtually have NO depth of field... maybe 1/2 inch or so (for the really sharp part). This is why you just stop down to f/16 and have at it, being mindful to compose things relative to the fact you have very little DOF. Image SHOULD still be solid at f/16. I'd reccomend a static background with letters on it and a tripod to verify the sharpness at your various f-stops (maybe 5.6-16 or so).

and I meant to say "tri-pod" so ignore my lingo

As for gamma correction, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Where are you adjusting this, and WHAT exactly is it doing to your images? beinging up the mid-tones? total brightness? As for your second picture, YES, it's about 1 stop under exposed or so. Remember that if you aren't using your in-camera meter, you LOSE LIGHT as you get into the "macro" magnification (focusing at less then lens-length sqaured in inches). So on a 105mm (~4 inch lens) you will start to lose light as you focus closer than 16 inches. At 1/3 magnification, you'll lost 1/2 stop of light. At 1/2 magnification, you lose 1 stop, 1x magnification, 2 stops.

edit: A good idea is to have your histogram displayed on your LCD. Looking at the LCD for exposure is pointless and usually futile. Use it only for composition. Your Histogram will tell you where your highlights and shadows are very accurately.

[RussM]

could you explain to me what gamma correction is and why i feel like i NEED to adjust it slightly to the negative to get my pics to adjust properly for web use?

Resist the urge! Gamma correction is a generic and often poorly implemented mechanism that is supposed to easily help improve the displayed fidelity of an image by modifying the brightness, contrast, and color saturation curves for a given display (i.e. computer) system. Unfortunately, the changes you introduce to an image to make it look better on your particular computer may cause it to be really bad looking on a different computer system. The unique combination of software, graphics card, and monitor all introduce variables, affecting how an image is displayed. Plus, there is little consistency between how gamma correction works from graphics software to the next. Gamma correction is particularly bad to use on images that will be displayed in a web browser, especially PNG format images. (long boring technical explaination omitted)

To make matters even worse, Macs and some graphics workstations like SGI boxes have built-in gamma correction at the hardware level, but standard WIntel systems have none.

I learned all this when I was prepping images for a web site I was building years ago, and made them look great on my system, but initially couldn't figure out why they looked horrible on some other computers.

Most people should stick with making only minor adjustments to brightness and contrast if they feel compelled to tweak an image, IME/O.

[Fish n' Frags]

A few macro shots of the new chalices i got in.

Bluetopia Chalice - Taken July 25th 2008

Nikon D300
Nikkor AS-F 105mm VR Micro Lens
F/9
ISO 200
105mm
1/6 sec shutter speed



Demon Eye Chalice - Taken July 25th 2008

Nikon D300
Nikkor AS-F 105mm VR Micro Lens
F/10
ISO 200
105mm
1/10 sec shutter speed



Calypso Chalice - Taken July 25th 2008

Nikon D300
Nikkor AS-F 105mm VR Micro Lens
F/13
ISO 200
105mm
1/15 sec shutter speed