How best to shoot rockpools/reefs/tanks?

[reeferside]

Hey guys..

New to photography. New to the hobby. This is something I'm venturing into. Now.. I know in my past hobbies that the forum is where the gigantic wreathe (did i spell that right?) of knowledge lays and this is what I need. I need sound advice I can trust to assist me in the right direction.

Now. I currently rocking a FujiFilm x100S as my daily and only camera (much like my car) .. Love the camera but not suited for the options I'm looking into now. I want to take pictures of my reef tank + corals to be exact.

Lots of blue light that floods the picture.. so there is need for white balancing, though I can buy a gel filter or I can use the camera's settings. Haven't quite got that down either..

Pictures I want to achieve..



Most of these corals are about the diameter of my pinky.. if that. There are sometimes the diameter of an eraser tip. I need to achieve clarification and quality as superior (or more) as these examples I'm showing.



Each "head" of those are around the size of an eraser tip.. This is just to show you pros the size/scale of what I'm trying to achieve

A lot people use macro lenses w/ their iphone and can pretty much (~almost) replicate these shots. but I want quality better than that.

Now I'm a complete noob. I've see the experienced (note I didn't say pro), use overhead lighting (as if you were right under a light fixture), a blacked out box (~3.5"x3.5"x3.5") with some water (so the coral is not exposed to air), as well as a tripod with the DSLR lens pointed very close to the water. the total depth of the water in this case would only be around 3"

What do you guys think.. What are my options in terms of getting a camera. I'm not all about the brands and stuff, mainly looking for something more on the fancier side of the bread and butters..

For example, when I purchased my 2008 preown/cert. BMW, I chose to get the regular 328i model.. but I really regret (at the time) not shelling out the extra $3,500 for the 335i model (option) that has twin turbo engine but a little higher shutter count.. or mileage some would say. I don't want this to be the case but please note, lets make this price relative to a camera.. the car costed me $17,000... and an entry level DSLR can begin as low as $300...

What lenses do I need. What camera do you guys suggest..

As for budget.. I guess if you guys told me:

- "You don't need anything other than this $350 camera with this lense.. it won't be any better than this $1,500 camera.." ----- I would opt for that option.

BUT - : If you guys said:

"Now, look $350 is plenty enough, but you can achieve far more superior pictures with this camera that is $650.. and though there is a slight learning curve (OR its much easier to use + the screen is a lot better - these are theoretical.. lol) than I would be willing to shell out that extra $300.

As for top down boxes.. I have one of these :



That will allow for the lens to sort of be "submerged." can also but an underwater bag if necessary. This is for when I take picures in my display tank that is 24" tall.

Looking forward to the sound tips! Thanks in advance.

NOTE:!!!: Please don't hold back.. I would appreciate if you took the extra 20 seconds to tell me everything as if you were just saying it.. I will definitely read what you have to say and give it the time of day to think and consider/weigh my options. Thank you very much.

[Kris V]

I really have no advice for you, but your first picture just mesmerizes me.....

[Geoff F]

I do shoot a lot of macro stuff of insects and botanical subjects but all above water.

If you are looking at semi pro equipment you are in the region of $1,000 for a lens and at least that amount for the camera body if you buy new. But it will last so possibly worth it in the long run. And you can add other equally expensive lenses for other subjects.

Just tell us how much money you have and we will spend it for you!

Whether you want to seriously get into the more expensive end of photography or just get better with what you currently have will be up to you.

Either way, some form of tripod and controlled subject lighting will be useful. Shooting Raw and processing with suitable software will certainly help to achieve true colours.

Maybe start by trying those ideas with your present camera then move up to something better if you find you really need extra quality.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi,

Firstly; a warm welcome to the CiC forums from me.

I have changed the thread title to attract the attention of the UW shooter members I know we have here.
(So I hope you manage to find it again!)

It sounds like your subjects are approx. 5-10mm, or say 1/4 to 1/2 inch diameter, but also that you may want to capture several in one shot.

I would guess you'll need a macro lens of a fairly long focal length; e.g. over 100mm - to give a decent shooting distance.

Hopefully we'll attract replies from people with practical experience to assist you than my guessing.


Could you do me a favour please?
Could you click Settings (right at the top),
then Edit Profile (on left)
and put your first name in the Real Name field
and where you are (roughly) in the Location field,
then click the Save Changes button below and to right,
this helps everyone give you more personal and relevant answers - thanks in advance.

All the best, Dave

[chauncey]

Can't help with the gear suggestions in your price range, but...how about taking me to school
and talking about your subject matter. How where to buy the tanks and coral matter?

[rpcrowe]

I would suggest buying a used Canon 40D or 50D camera along with a used macro lens. Where you reside is critical in that the prices of photo equipment varies drastically.

U.S. eBay Prices

Used Canon 40D camera bodies run around $150-$200 U.S. Dollars
Used Canon 50D camera bodies run around $300-$500 U.S. Dollars

Used Macro lenses compatible with the 40D or 50D run anywhere from less than $100 (Sigma 50mm) to around $200 (Canon 100mm f/2.8).

OTOH: A used Canon SX50-HS Bridge Camera has some very effective close up and macro capabilities with its built in lens and runs around $200 or so on the used market.

I might light my tank from the top using either a flash or a continuous light source. I would shoot in RAW (all cameras recommended have RAW capability). I would include a white balance target (like the WhiBal) in my shot and use that to balance my color in Adobe Camera Raw.

I would have no other lights in the area I am shooting to avoid reflections and I would use that Avast pictured above to avoid reflections...

[inkista]

Just my opinion, and I shoot neither aquariums nor macros that often, but probably just about any four-thirds or APS-C system camera (dSLR or mirrorless) with a good macro lens is what you're after. You can do this with a small-sensored compact, but you'll have a narrower window of opportunity and you'll almost definitely be forced to use off-camera lighting, given the limitations on high ISO settings and wider apertures, and the facts that most aquariums are shot in relatively low light, fish move fast, and it's all about controlling reflections and having very limited camera angles to work with.

You probably want to avoid full frame because of a) the added cost and b) the greater difficulty with getting a deeper DoF when macro shooting.

Expect to budget at US$1000+, though. You can probably get a decent macro lens for around $400, a body can be found in the $300-$500 range if you're willing to go used and aren't too picky about new features. And then you'll probably want to add on a tripod, a cable release or remote, and possibly some lighting gear and additional macro add-ons (close-up filters, extension tubes, etc). So, if you really want the image quality upgrade, it's not going to come cheap.

You can certainly hold off for a while and try to rock the X100S you've got, at least for shots of the whole tank, rather than the tiny denizens thereof. The X100 series more or less sees in the dark . And you will definitely want to master using manual exposure, white balance settings (or shooting RAW and post-processing), as well as possibly using off-camera lighting (or at least finding a way to block reflections from the glass and to shoot perfectly perpendicular to it), and the X100S is certainly capable of all those things, and as a bonus can sync with flash up to 1/1000s (most dSLRs can only sync up to 1/200s, unless using high-speed sync).

[Stagecoach]

Hi Reeferside and welcome to CiC

Pictures I want to achieve..

I need to achieve clarification and quality as superior (or more) as these examples I'm showing.

My first question would then be, do you have an idea/target of what physical size and on what medium you want to view the finished results?

Regarding Macro and following on from Daves post if you were to consider an APS-C DSLR with a 100mm 1:1 macro lens you can achieve filling the frame (sensor) with a subject that is 24mm in width with the lens front at its closest working distance which will be 6 inches from the subject. A greater distance away from the subject will of course give you a wider field of view.

The catch here is that the closer you are to the subject the less the DoF will be.

Other camera sensor types (sizes) and lens focal lengths will give you different working parameters.

I would suggest that having a clear understanding of your shooting parameters, re distance from subject and magnification requirements is the first stage before camera type.

[William W]

. . . I currently rocking a FujiFilm x100S as my daily and only camera (much like my car) .. Love the camera but not suited for the options I'm looking into now. I want to take pictures of my reef tank + corals to be exact.

AND

. . . You can certainly hold off for a while and try to rock the X100S you've got . . . you will definitely want to master using manual exposure, white balance settings (or shooting RAW and post-processing), as well as possibly using off-camera lighting . . . and the X100S is certainly capable of all those things, and as a bonus can sync with flash up to 1/1000s . . .

I haven’t a glass fish tank but I have a glass fish and a Fuji X100s and in my coffee break I whipped these two images up as an example for you. Both are JPEGS, SOOC just resized for in-line display:



*



You should see that the typical WD for the Fuji to get 1:3 Macro is within the data you have provided. The Camera being very small would be an advantage, I would expect. The APS-C sensor leverages the DoF (compared to a 135 Format DSLR). As Kathy mentioned, the Fuji provides a good learning tool for all the other stuff at which you’ll need to gain experience.

If I were you, I’d use Flash as the lighting for your task, whether you buy another camera or use the Fuji X100s. One major reason is that Flash can be used for many other tasks too.

The DEDICATED Fuji Flash (i.e. EF 42) is quite smart and the system’s FEC and E-TTL Metering are both consistent and quite accurate. As already mentioned, Flash Sync to very fast shutter speeds with the X100s.

Fuji don’t make an Off Camera Cord for the Flash, but the pins are EXACTLY in the same places as the Canon EF Series, (except one contact is not used, but that doesn’t matter). You could easily build a black box snoot (as you describe others have used) for the Fuji and the underwater attachment thingy that you have already bought (shown on a Nikon DSLR) would probably be adaptable.

Whilst the Fuji might not be the long term answer, it certainly is capable of producing pictures of three objects in one frame that are as wide as your pinky.

*

. . . I would suggest that having a clear understanding of your shooting parameters, re distance from subject and magnification requirements is the first stage before camera type.

I concur.

However, as a general guide and to set you moving forward with more knowledge to be able to ask more focused questions - if you move to another Camera System, based upon the data already disclosed as being the typical shooting scenarios that you will encounter and also your desire for high quality results, I think that you are looking at a kit comprising something like:

> 1 x Quality APS-C Format Camera (Format size to leverage greater DoF)

> 1 x Macro Lens around FL = 50 ~ 100mm (FL to get a suitable range of Working Distances)

> 1 x Set of Three Extension Tubes with Electronic Connections, notionally 12mm 20mm 36mm (to leverage the Working Distance Range - AND/OR – get greater than 1:1 Magnification)

> 1 x Remote Release

> 1 x (Quality) Tripod ( with removable centre stork capable of horizontal loading)

> 1 x Quality Tripod Head (Quality Ball Head probably will be OK) – AND/OR any Flat Plate Head like a Movie P&T Head and also a Two Way Macro Focusing Rack.

> 1 or 2 x Dedicated Hot Shoe Flash Heads - OR – 2 x Continuous Lights (LED probably be OK)

> 1 or 2 Off Camera Cords (if using Flash)

> Various Light Modifiers

> 1 x quality CPL Filter (quite useful for shooting through glass and water)

> > > MAIN ingredients
Lots of practice;
Lots of patience;
Knowledge of lighting.

Lighting will be the key to great shots.

*

Bottom Line Advice:

Frankly, if you have never shot Macro Photography before you've a lot of learning and even more practice to do.

(most importantly) Nailing down some elegant and efficient:
Lighting;
Shooting Sets (i.e. how the gear is rigged);
Shooting Techniques;
Post Processing Techniques . . .
can all be achieved with a camera that you already have.

Practicing with the Fuji camera will allow you to learn about hurdles which are presently unknown to you, but which you will need to overcome.

Ergo working out how you will overcome those hurdles will better define what Camera gear you will need to purchase.

WW

[reeferside]

Can't help with the gear suggestions in your price range, but...how about taking me to school
and talking about your subject matter. How where to buy the tanks and coral matter?

If you are serious about this, it is a very fun hobby. Feel free to PM me with your # and I can answer any questions you may have. Give me 10 minutes then see if you are still willing to do it.. a very fun hobby but can get expensive

[reeferside]

I would suggest buying a used Canon 40D or 50D camera along with a used macro lens. Where you reside is critical in that the prices of photo equipment varies drastically.

U.S. eBay Prices

Used Canon 40D camera bodies run around $150-$200 U.S. Dollars
Used Canon 50D camera bodies run around $300-$500 U.S. Dollars

Used Macro lenses compatible with the 40D or 50D run anywhere from less than $100 (Sigma 50mm) to around $200 (Canon 100mm f/2.8).

OTOH: A used Canon SX50-HS Bridge Camera has some very effective close up and macro capabilities with its built in lens and runs around $200 or so on the used market.

I might light my tank from the top using either a flash or a continuous light source. I would shoot in RAW (all cameras recommended have RAW capability). I would include a white balance target (like the WhiBal) in my shot and use that to balance my color in Adobe Camera Raw.

I would have no other lights in the area I am shooting to avoid reflections and I would use that Avast pictured above to avoid reflections...

Very nice suggestions. I am located close to you in Los Angeles.

Now, Should I be looking at the D3200 like I have been doing?

So far, I found a pretty decent deal. One deal is $280 USD for "NEW" Nikon D3200 w/ the standard 18/55mm lens, factory reburished + 90 day Nikon warranty.



The second is on eBay and is around $320 Brand new. Not refurbished and is the same package. Comes with the standard 18/55mm lens but is not refurbished and comes with 1 year warranty. What do you guys think of these deals?



Now.. I'm very beginner at all of this ( I have to stress this ). A local Pawn store has a fairly new (not sure on shutter actuations..) but it is the Nikon D3300 w/ 18/55mm. I think I can work them down to around $280-$300.. but no warranty and it is not new. What are your thoughts?

[reeferside]

Just my opinion, and I shoot neither aquariums nor macros that often, but probably just about any four-thirds or APS-C system camera (dSLR or mirrorless) with a good macro lens is what you're after. You can do this with a small-sensored compact, but you'll have a narrower window of opportunity and you'll almost definitely be forced to use off-camera lighting, given the limitations on high ISO settings and wider apertures, and the facts that most aquariums are shot in relatively low light, fish move fast, and it's all about controlling reflections and having very limited camera angels to work with.

You probably want to avoid full frame because of a) the added cost and b) the greater difficulty with getting a deeper DoF when macro shooting.

Expect to budget at US$1000+, though. You can probably get a decent macro lens for around $400, a body can be found in the $300-$500 range if you're willing to go used and aren't too picky about new features. And then you'll probably want to add on a tripod, a cable release or remote, and possibly some lighting gear and additional macro add-ons (close-up filters, extension tubes, etc). So, if you really want the image quality upgrade, it's not going to come cheap.

You can certainly hold off for a while and try to rock the X100S you've got, at least for shots of the whole tank, rather than the tiny denizens thereof. The X100 series more or less sees in the dark . And you will definitely want to master using manual exposure, white balance settings (or shooting RAW and post-processing), as well as possibly using off-camera lighting (or at least finding a way to block reflections from the glass and to shoot perfectly perpendicular to it), and the X100S is certainly capable of all those things, and as a bonus can sync with flash up to 1/1000s (most dSLRs can only sync up to 1/200s, unless using high-speed sync).

Thank you!

The X100s is just not doing it for me. Taking a bigger picture of the whole tank is sad for me because all these little beautiful detail is lost is a big rectangle box that is just blue. LOL

$1000 is definitely do able.. Just have to decide how exactly I will go about spending it.

[reeferside]

As for physical size, the pictures don't need to be gigantic. I mean.. if I can get a good quality photo and to just view it on the web/computer and have it so that the picture is around 2"x2".. thats plenty good enough for me..

Atleast for now...

I don't think I will be producing prints of these.. ever. DoF? Sorry I'm new. I'll google that right now.

As for being 6" closer to the subject.. that will be the main application. Sometimes I may want to take pictures a bit farther but I guess I could always zoom a bit and crop.. lose a bit of quality there but I guess it's always a give or take relationship.

[reeferside]

AND

Practicing with the Fuji camera will allow you to learn about hurdles which are presently unknown to you, but which you will need to overcome.

Ergo working out how you will overcome those hurdles will better define what Camera gear you will need to purchase.

WW

Very good advice here.. but what do I know. Thank you for your time and patience, beautifully laid out for me to read..

You make several good points here. Now, as for focusing on the details of my "coral" I can't seem to get it correct with my fuji. I understand there is a lot of practice necessary. I've actually made it a point to bring my camera everywhere and attempt macro shots with my camera currently of insects, plants, leaves.. etc.

Anyways.. I need to learn a lot about all these crazy terms I've been seeing you pros throw around. Time to get a reading!

Thanks once again

[inkista]

... as for focusing on the details of my "coral" I can't seem to get it correct with my fuji. I understand there is a lot of practice necessary. I've actually made it a point to bring my camera everywhere and attempt macro shots with my camera currently of insects, plants, leaves.. etc. ...

Couple of things to keep in mind.

• The minimum focus distance of the lens on the X100S (in macro mode with the EVF) is about 4 inches. You go any closer than that, and the lens is physically incapable of focusing.
  
• The X100S (and X100 and X100T's) lens also has a limitation. When used wide open in macro mode, it exhibits spherical aberration (soft focus), so you want to be stopped down to at least f/4.
  
• Because the AF system may latch onto the surface of the glass, rather than the object in the water behind the glass, you may want to consider using manual focus, along with one of the manual focus aids, like focus peaking or the magnified patch, to give you better focus accuracy. Shooting that close in drastically reduces the depth of field, no matter what your aperture setting is. Same deal if you're shooting through a fence.
  
• Focusing may be less about adjusting the camera's lens, and about adjusting camera-to-subject distance.
  
• When you're shooting macro everything magnifies--including camera shake blur from handholding, so shutter speeds either need to be faster, or you need to stabilize the camera and/or add light. This is why folks who do a LOT of macro and get in very close tend to use a tripod and flash. Adding light can let you use a faster shutter speed while stopped down.

I repeat. You can probably start practicing with the X100S. All these same issues are going to crop up (yes, even the minimum focus distance one) whether or not you're using a dSLR with a macro lens--we're all still subject to the rules of physics and optics. The X100S "not cutting it" may be more about technique and lighting skillz than the camera at the moment. While it's not 1:1 magnification (i.e., where the size of the object in real life is the size of the image on the sensor, it's still pretty decent at 1:3).

Here's an image I found on Flickr, taken with an X100S. It may not be as crap at this as you think it is.


Bokeh Gourami by Eduardo Merille, on Flickr

[jcuknz]

To me you have started with the wrong camera ... excellent for usual subjects and sorry Bill but your examples are laughable and are wide shots not close-ups
My suggestion is assuming you want the results for the web rather than wall sized pictures that you look at a camera with a long lens .. something at least 500mm equivalent angle of view and these can be bought new for the $350 mentioned... forget suggestions about cheap DSLR hand-me-downs ... they too take excellent pictures like your Fuji but not of your particular subject matter ... SORRY!

My approach ever since I gave away my SLR for a digital bridge camera has been to use a moderate [ two dioptre/ 500mm] close-up lens to overcome the inability of a long lens to focus even reasonably close.
This means the long lens enables me to maintain a reasonable distance from the subject while still getting a 'tight framing'. ie with my Panasonic FZ50 and its 430mm lens along with the 2D CU lens I fill the screen with a 35mm across subject from a distance of about 325mm [ thats 1.5" across from 13 inches ]
It can be very much cheaper and perfectly adequate to use a modern bridge camera [ rather than my older FZ50 ] than messing with DSLRs and macro lens which COST!

The basic principle is that you do NOT need to go close to take close-ups [ tightly framed shots ]. Incidentally you will find that people working to this principle often use moderately long macro lens which in turn are expensive.

Finally I guess that the examples posted on this thread are not the work of the posters ... I thought this was agin CiC rules? EXIF tells me I was at 405mm AoV for this little fellow. Whole frame not cropped

[xpatUSA]

Lots of blue light that floods the picture.. so there is need for white balancing, though I can buy a gel filter or I can use the camera's settings. Haven't quite got that down either..

Welcome to the forum, Johnny.

I believe you to be on the wrong track as regards white balancing. You have corals under blue light and corals are known to fluoresce which means that some of light seen by the camera is emitted by the corals - in addition to light reflected from them in the normal way. If one is photographing emitted light, the correct (or nearest to correct) camera WB setting to start with is 'daylight'. If your Fuji allows setting by color temperature then that would be 5500K but with a slight tint adjustment toward red (trust me).

Think of it as "what is the correct WB for capturing the glow from your wrist-watch in total darkness?"

[Inkanyezi]

I second jcuknz 100 % on this issue. One of the modern bridge cameras with long zoom range will do the trick, with a suitable close-up lens.

A tube for immersion is a good idea, and I think it might be better to build than buy one. It need not be white or transparent, probably black and opaque is a better choice. The window of course should be plane glass of good quality. I would suggest gluing an UV filter to the set, one with good AR coating.

Your main issue will be lighting. You need much light, and for images like the first one in the series, sorry, but those are not the natural colours of the subject, and to achieve those fluorescing colours you need to get much UV radiation upon the subject, and to enhance colours, there should not be any ambient visible light. Probably you need to make your own lighting setup, water-tight, for indoor shooting. Those colours come out when you light the coral with UV light, and it can be done with LED, although it takes some skill to build the lighting.

Water is not very transparent to UV, and therefore these colours will come out best when using an UV light source underwater close to the subject. You can search for "blacklight" and probably find something you can convert for underwater use. The advantage of LED is mainly that it is low voltage, so blacklight LED or UV-LED might do the trick if your subject does not move. Other types of lamps than LED need high voltage, which may be fatal if applied in the wrong way in moist conditions or water. Most blacklight sources are high voltage and need special attention if you intend to use them under water. They must be used in a water-tight container with a window transparent to UV radiation. There should be absolutely no possibility for electrifying surrounding water. High voltage is dangerous and can be deadly.

You might prefer an approach where the blacklight source is not immersed, and it can be done with light above, or through a PMMA side of the tank. The posted image is made with the blacklight source from behind. I would guess a regular blacklight lamp through the side of the tank or obliquely from above.

Google images for blacklight coral and you'll get the drift.

[William W]

. . . sorry Bill but your examples are laughable and are wide shots not close-ups . . .

John:

Please explain how you extrapolate that the first image posted in response #9 and which clearly labeled "JPEGS SOOC . . Macro Mode . . . WD = 80mm" is a: "wide shot not close up".

I think that having the front element of the lens of a camera 80mm from the Object is a "close-up", and certainly not "laughable".

I think it was quite clear that being labelled "JPEG SOOC" there was no cropping and also the second shot shows clearly the linear measurement of the fish indicating that the magnification of the first image is about 1:3

BTW, you seem to have a reoccurring habit of using emotive words (for example describing the image example "laughable") rather than just stating that you believe it is a wide shot and not a close up shot and seeking further explanation and or discussion.

I recall similar has happened previously. If you have some particular gripe with me, why not just PM me directly and state the issues so they might be resolved.

Meanwhile, I await your response as why you think that is a wide shot and not a close-up?

WW

[William W]

Johnny mentions in post #1 and reiterates in post #13 that typical working distances would be 6" or less.

In posts #1 he outlines how many of the experienced folk are managing these photos and that is with - "with the DSLR lens pointed very close to the water."

***

. . . The basic principle is that you do NOT need to go close to take close-ups . . .

If this principle is to be adopted, then it would be wise to consider any shortcomings of having a very long Working Distance, for this particular task, before making any purchase choices.

WW