Early attempts at aquatic photography - new pics added 5-11-13 - Page 2
Planted Tank Forums
Your Tanks Image Hosting *Tank Tracker * Plant Profiles Fish Profiles Planted Tank Guide Photo Gallery Articles

Go Back   The Planted Tank Forum > General Planted Tank Forums > Photography


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-13-2013, 02:07 PM   #16
houseofcards
Planted Tank Guru
 
houseofcards's Avatar
 
PTrader: (55/100%)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 2,612
Default

Why do you keep harping on the CA Levels and other technical aspects. Even if some of that is technically true, the lens is still very capable of taking sharp images. One just has to go to flickr and type in the lens.

Anyway how many pictures do you have of moving animals at 1/60 are tack sharp? That seems to be more important then the amount of CA, etc.
houseofcards is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 02-14-2013, 01:39 AM   #17
zdnet
Planted Tank Enthusiast
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 532
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houseofcards View Post
Why do you keep harping on the CA Levels and other technical aspects. Even if some of that is technically true, the lens is still very capable of taking sharp images. One just has to go to flickr and type in the lens.
I guess you are not interested in getting a sharper exposure.


Quote:
Originally Posted by houseofcards View Post
Anyway how many pictures do you have of moving animals at 1/60 are tack sharp?
Plenty! With a good understanding on the technical aspects involved, it is not difficult.

One important factor is the speed of the lens' focusing mechanism. Take for example, the Micro-Nikkor AF-S 60mm f/2.8 G ED N. It is a short lens and I had to get very close to have a good magnification. And yet I kept getting sharp exposures at 1/60. Why? The focusing of that lens is very very fast. I just pointed at an object and pressed the shutter. Very little time, if any, was spent on focusing.

In contrast, rozdaboff's lens (Nikon 105mm D micro) spends a lot of time hunting. Therefore, by the time the camera decided that it was in focus, precious time had already been wasted and the object had moved on. Even though TickleMyElmo said such a lens was "perfectly fine", I say it is NOT suited for the task. Of course, there are people who insist on doing manual focus.


Quote:
Originally Posted by houseofcards View Post
That seems to be more important then the amount of CA, etc.
Not all CA can be removed by post-processing. It therefore poses an upper bound on the degree of sharpness. In contrast, one can easily raise the shutter speed. From that perspective, CA is much more important than shutter speed.
zdnet is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-14-2013, 02:40 AM   #18
houseofcards
Planted Tank Guru
 
houseofcards's Avatar
 
PTrader: (55/100%)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 2,612
Default

Not to say you can't get sharp images at 1/60, but your keeper rate goes up as you increase shutter speed, especially for someone one new to this as the thread title is "Early Attempts at Aquatic Photography" Also not everyone has a fast lens, so your information might be correct, but will not help many.
houseofcards is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-14-2013, 02:56 AM   #19
zdnet
Planted Tank Enthusiast
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 532
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houseofcards View Post
Not to say you can't get sharp images at 1/60, but your keeper rate goes up as you increase shutter speed, especially for someone one new to this as the thread title is "Early Attempts at Aquatic Photography" Also not everyone has a fast lens, so your information might be correct, but will not help many.
Really?

The OP's lens is in fact among the fastest Nikon micro (at f/2.8).

If by fast, you meant the focusing mechanism, then all of today's Nikon micro 40mm, 85mm, and 105mm have that fast focusing mechanism.
zdnet is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-14-2013, 05:50 AM   #20
houseofcards
Planted Tank Guru
 
houseofcards's Avatar
 
PTrader: (55/100%)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 2,612
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zdnet View Post
Really?

The OP's lens is in fact among the fastest Nikon micro (at f/2.8).

If by fast, you meant the focusing mechanism, then all of today's Nikon micro 40mm, 85mm, and 105mm have that fast focusing mechanism.
It still doesn't mean he'll be as proficient at taking pics at 1/60 as someone with more experience. Anyway speaking of experience you sound like a real pro, can I see some of your pics of fast moving fish at let's say 1/15th to 1/60th sounds like shutter speed means very little. you definitely taught me something. Look forward to the pics.
houseofcards is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-15-2013, 12:52 AM   #21
zdnet
Planted Tank Enthusiast
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 532
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houseofcards View Post
It still doesn't mean he'll be as proficient at taking pics at 1/60 as someone with more experience.
Well, he can be... if he is wise on choosing and using equipments while the more experienced person is not.

For example, some people insist on doing backward things like always using manual focus even though today's lens are superb in autofocus. Relying on Nikon's silent wave motor to do autofocus is much more likely to have sharp exposure on a live object.


Quote:
Originally Posted by houseofcards View Post
Anyway speaking of experience you sound like a real pro, can I see some of your pics of fast moving fish at let's say 1/15th to 1/60th sounds like shutter speed means very little.
I don't have any images showing that shutter speed means very little. Shutter speed IS important. Just that we are not talking about using 1/60 exposure to freeze motion a fast moving object.

To have a sharp 1/60 exposure on fish, as what rozdaboff was trying to do, is not that difficult.

First, get rid of the Achilles' heel - the lens' slow focusing mechanism. That way there is no need to jack up the shutter speed to compensate for the time wasted by the slow focusing mechanism.

Then use a low CA (chromatic aberrations) lens whose CA can be further improved by stopping down the lens.

With a high CA lens, you are doomed to a much less sharper exposure, regardless of what you do. Therefore, very very important to have a low CA lens.

When the CA can be improved by stopping down the lens, you get the added help from DOF. Thus, further improve the chance of getting a sharp exposure.
zdnet is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-15-2013, 12:43 PM   #22
houseofcards
Planted Tank Guru
 
houseofcards's Avatar
 
PTrader: (55/100%)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 2,612
Default

I don't disagree with some of your technical points, but when I asked you if you had pics of fast moving fish at 1/15th to 1/60th your response was:

Quote:
Originally Posted by zdnet View Post
Plenty! With a good understanding on the technical aspects involved, it is not difficult..
Now you say you don't have any phased in a different way:

Quote:
Originally Posted by zdnet View Post
I don't have any images showing that shutter speed means very little. Shutter speed IS important. Just that we are not talking about using 1/60 exposure to freeze motion a fast moving object.
Point I'm making most don't get that into all the technical aspects and they're dealing with the three basics (Aperture, SS and ISO). They're are many more 'keepers' at 1/200 then there are at 1/60 or less.
houseofcards is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-16-2013, 01:28 AM   #23
zdnet
Planted Tank Enthusiast
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 532
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houseofcards View Post
when I asked you if you had pics of fast moving fish at 1/15th to 1/60th
Not true. When I responded with "Plenty!" it was to the question:

Quote:
Originally Posted by houseofcards View Post
Anyway how many pictures do you have of moving animals at 1/60 are tack sharp?
As you can see from above, the question did not mention the slower speed of 1/15 or the word "fast". Therefore, when you later made the request:

Quote:
Originally Posted by houseofcards View Post
can I see some of your pics of fast moving fish at let's say 1/15th to 1/60th sounds like shutter speed means very little.
and I responded by saying:

Quote:
Originally Posted by zdnet View Post
I don't have any images showing that shutter speed means very little.
I was completely consistent with what I'd said all along.

May be you'd misinterpreted my answer "Plenty!" to mean the claim "shutter speed means very little". Thus, you wanted pictures for proof. I can't give you any because I'd never made that claim. But in response, you complained. That means you were trying to hold me responsible for the claim that you yourself made up. Point one.

Point two, in response to my answer "Plenty!", you wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by houseofcards View Post
Not to say you can't get sharp images at 1/60
That means you were interpreting my answer "Plenty!" to mean plenty of images at the shutter speed of 1/60.

But when you asked to see images to prove your made-up claim of "shutter speed means very little", you imposed additional stringent conditions (the slower shutter speed of 1/15 and the qualification of "fast"). In my response, I did not call attention to your added conditions. I just let them passed, focusing on the original shutter speed of 1/60. Now you insist by repeating those additional conditions which were not in the original discussion. What games are you trying to play?


Anyway, two suggestions for you:

First, when you complain about people's response to what you had written, remember to quote your original text. Do not try to rewrite your past as you have tried to do here. If you are going to hold others responsible for their action, hold yourself responsible for your own action first!

Second, learn to take responsibility for your own interpretation. I've never said that "shutter speed means very little". It is your own interpretation. Rather than taking your interpretation as the reality out there, seek confirmation that the interpretation (in your own mind) is in fact a truthful representation of the reality (outside of your mind). You can ask, for example, "Are you saying that shutter speed means very little?" But that is assuming you are not playing games. What game?

There is the game that some people play by intentionally misinterpreting what others had said and then try to hold them responsible for the misinterpretation. I give you the benefit of a doubt and won't speculate on your intent. I hope you have enough integrity to stay away from such game of deceit. Reach your hand over to your back and see whether you can find yourself a spine.


Quote:
Originally Posted by houseofcards View Post
Point I'm making most don't get that into all the technical aspects and they're dealing with the three basics (Aperture, SS and ISO). They're are many more 'keepers' at 1/200 then there are at 1/60 or less.
No one disputed the general observation that a higher shutter speed tends to yield more keepers.
zdnet is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-17-2013, 09:42 PM   #24
houseofcards
Planted Tank Guru
 
houseofcards's Avatar
 
PTrader: (55/100%)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 2,612
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zdnet View Post
Not true. When I responded with "Plenty!" it was to the question:



As you can see from above, the question did not mention the slower speed of 1/15 or the word "fast". Therefore, when you later made the request:



and I responded by saying:



I was completely consistent with what I'd said all along.

May be you'd misinterpreted my answer "Plenty!" to mean the claim "shutter speed means very little". Thus, you wanted pictures for proof. I can't give you any because I'd never made that claim. But in response, you complained. That means you were trying to hold me responsible for the claim that you yourself made up. Point one.

Point two, in response to my answer "Plenty!", you wrote:

That means you were interpreting my answer "Plenty!" to mean plenty of images at the shutter speed of 1/60.

But when you asked to see images to prove your made-up claim of "shutter speed means very little", you imposed additional stringent conditions (the slower shutter speed of 1/15 and the qualification of "fast"). In my response, I did not call attention to your added conditions. I just let them passed, focusing on the original shutter speed of 1/60. Now you insist by repeating those additional conditions which were not in the original discussion. What games are you trying to play?


Anyway, two suggestions for you:

First, when you complain about people's response to what you had written, remember to quote your original text. Do not try to rewrite your past as you have tried to do here. If you are going to hold others responsible for their action, hold yourself responsible for your own action first!

Second, learn to take responsibility for your own interpretation. I've never said that "shutter speed means very little". It is your own interpretation. Rather than taking your interpretation as the reality out there, seek confirmation that the interpretation (in your own mind) is in fact a truthful representation of the reality (outside of your mind). You can ask, for example, "Are you saying that shutter speed means very little?" But that is assuming you are not playing games. What game?

There is the game that some people play by intentionally misinterpreting what others had said and then try to hold them responsible for the misinterpretation. I give you the benefit of a doubt and won't speculate on your intent. I hope you have enough integrity to stay away from such game of deceit. Reach your hand over to your back and see whether you can find yourself a spine.

No one disputed the general observation that a higher shutter speed tends to yield more keepers.
I'll take that as a no. LOL You don't have any pics of tack sharp moving fish at 1/60 or slower.
houseofcards is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-11-2013, 03:57 PM   #25
rozdaboff
Planted Tank Obsessed
 
rozdaboff's Avatar
 
PTrader: (24/100%)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Yonkers, NY
Posts: 328
Default

New pics added in original post
rozdaboff is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the The Planted Tank Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Planted Tank LLC 2012