The Planted Tank Forum banner

Early attempts at aquatic photography - new pics added 5-11-13

3K views 24 replies 4 participants last post by  rozdaboff 
#1 · (Edited)
Taking pictures of aquatic organisms is definitely a different experience than terrestrial animals. I have had a bit of practice taking macro shots of amphibians, reptiles and inverts - but this was the first time I pulled out my SLR and macro lens (105mm f/2.8 Nikkor) to try and get shots of my new hobby.

Update

Had a chance the past week to try some more shots and settings. I upped the shutter speed as recommended (1/200) and decreased the f/stop to 10. And I definitely see better results. Still need quite a lot more practice though. I am also more seriously considering a lens upgrade in the future - as autofocus on this lens is not really a viable option. I still get nice shots with manual focus, but I think I would really "miss" fewer shots with an AF option.

Anyway - here are the more recent shots:

Brevibora dorsiocellata



Danio margaritatus


And a typical shot with these flighty fish...


Petruichthys sp. "Rosy"


Trigonopoma pauciperforatum


2/10/13

I definitely need practice with flash placement, and tweaking of settings (I was surprised the DOF was still shallow even though I had really upped the F stop) - but here are a few of the nicest shots of the short session.

Boraras brigittae



Neocardina cf. zhangjiajiensis "Blue Pearl" (are these not Neocaridina heteropoda? I thought they were a selected variant - but a little web reading suggested otherwise)

 
See less See more
11
#7 ·
Thanks zdnet. A new lens isn't in the budget right now - but I will definitely keep it in mind - as a shorter working distance would be nice. I also had the Sigma 180mm Macro for field shots for a while, but it wasn't getting enough use to justify it's place in my bag.

I hadn't heard about the softness and the 105mm VR, but I am actually shooting the older D version (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=66). It has been several years since I bought the lens and did my research, but I don't remember softness being a problem with this particular lens.
 
#8 ·
Thanks zdnet. A new lens isn't in the budget right now - but I will definitely keep it in mind - as a shorter working distance would be nice. I also had the Sigma 180mm Macro for field shots for a while, but it wasn't getting enough use to justify it's place in my bag.

I hadn't heard about the softness and the 105mm VR, but I am actually shooting the older D version (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=66). It has been several years since I bought the lens and did my research, but I don't remember softness being a problem with this particular lens.

I also have the 105mm D lens. It produces sharper macros than the 105mm VR. The issue is with chromatic aberrations (CA).


Here is a CA chart of the 105mm VR (from http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/224-micro-nikkor-af-s-105mm-f28g-if-ed-vr-review--test-report):



As shown in the above chart, when stopping down the lens to increase DOF as is typically done in shooting macros, chromatic aberrations get worse. Thus, even though the lens was designed as a macro, it is not well suited for the task.


For comparison, here is the CA chart of 105mm D (from http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/223-micro-nikkor-af-105mm-f28-d-review--lab-test-report):




The 85mm VR is the one with the least chromatic aberrations (from http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/523-nikkorafsdx85vr):



Take shooting at F/16 as an example. The 85mm VR is twice as good as the 105mm D which is twice as good as the 105mm VR.
 
#12 ·
:icon_roll

rozdaboff, the lens you have is perfectly fine for macro photography and it is more than capable of giving you the pictures you want. You don't need any other lens. Even if you want to go crazy worrying about chromatic aberration levels, it's easily removed in post, absolutely no need to get another lens when the lens you have is perfectly capable. All lenses "become softer" in the higher f-stops, its a result of diffraction.

The issue with your pictures isn't depth of field, or chromatic aberration, or lens softness, it focus. Those are all just unfocused (more on this later),...at f/18 you have plenty of depth of field and it's actually overkill.

As a side step, I just want to mention that the lighting is good, but its a little too harsh in my eyes, in other words, the flash aspect is just a bit too strong. Like in the shrimp pictures for instance, notice the harsh highlights and intense shadows?

There's a few ways to fix this, either use a slower shutter speed (which in your case, don't do, 1/60 is the lowest I would dare to go), increase ISO, or lower your f-stop....all of which will increase the level of ambient light mixing with the flash giving you more natural looking pics. The first thing I would do is maybe up the shutter speed to 1/100 (or up to 1/200 or more is probably better if you can do so with your flash/camera combo, but you probably won't be able to go past 1/200 since your not using a newer Nikon flash with high speed sync), but decrease the f-stop to f/11 or f/13 at most, and f/8 at the minimum. All the fish pictures in my sig were shot no higher than f/13, with most at f/8 to f/11, and thats on a full frame camera, so it'll likely be even more acceptable on a DX(crop sensor) camera if thats what your using (not sure what you have). The last way to increase the ambient and make the flash appear less harsh is to up the ISO. You don't have to go crazy, but even ISO 600 to 800 would help tremendously. But it depends how well your camera does at higher ISO, and for you, lowering your f-stop instead will be much more beneficial as you can still use ISO 100.

But anyways, besides the lighting, if you want sharp pictures, you'll need to change your focusing habits. It would help if you can tell me what focusing mode you're using and what camera you have, but I usually use AF-S for Nikon (One shot for Canon) with the single center point (you can use AF with 9 point expansion if you want), just make sure you avoid any of the auto settings, they're total crap. You have to be super fast in pressing the shutter after focusing, all the while being careful not to jerk the camera as you do so. You can use AF-C for Nikon (Servo for Canon) with the single center point if you want, and you'll also get good results, but I always had more success with AF-S despite using the same technique with each focusing mode.
 
#15 ·
:icon_roll

Even if you want to go crazy worrying about chromatic aberration levels, it's easily removed in post,
Not true. For example, post-processing cannot eliminate axial chromatic aberrations.

Since chromatic aberrations affect image sharpness and post-processing cannot eliminate all, it is unwise to ignore that aspect when choosing a lens.


All lenses "become softer" in the higher f-stops, its a result of diffraction.
Not true. Diffraction is not the only lens factor affecting image sharpness. There is also the above mentioned chromatic aberrations (CA) which tends to be minimized with a higher f-stop. Thus, shooting with a higher f-stop often improves sharpness.

However, the Nikon 105mm VR micro lens is an exception. Its CA gets worse with a higher f-stop. Again, it is only wise to check out the CA chart when choosing a lens for that tells you how a lens behaves at various settings.
 
#13 ·
Thanks for the advice TickleMyElmo. I will bring back the aperture next go round.

My body is a D80. And as for autofocus - I generally don't use it when I shoot macro. One of the drawbacks of the older lens is that the autofocus is very slow - so I try to get a few shots in succession slightly changing the focus. For the shrimp - that wasn't too hard; but for the fish it was not very successful. Most of my macro experience so far is with shooting amphibians - and they would generally (although not always) hold still for short amounts of time allowing me to get shots more in focus. I will try autofocus and see how it goes.
 
#16 ·
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.
 
#17 ·
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. :wink:


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.


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.
 
#18 ·
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.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top