Photographing Tropical Fish In Aquariums

Majik Mike · Post by **Majik Mike** » 12 Feb 2004, 23:35

I have tried in vain to take quality photos of my aquarium fish, but the photos come out terrible. I've seen many photos online which are high quality so what's the technique? Now believe me I've tried many combinations. Like tank lights on/off, room lights on/off, camera at an angle, flash on/off, etc. and a few other combinations of these. I know myself, like most fish enthusiasts, would like to remember how our little catfish, gars, barbs, etc. looked before they grew up. And also we would like to show others our beautiful fish. So how to take quality photos?

MackIntheBox · Post by **MackIntheBox** » 12 Feb 2004, 23:51

the best recomendation I can make is have lots of light behind the camera, make sure the lights are at an angle to the tank to eliminate glare. Its going to take lots of trial and error. I am still working wit my film camera to takepictures in my tank.

the problem im having with my film camera is my lense islimited in its field of focus, I can only turn it so far to focus it so well. I usually wind up a few steps away from the tank rather than right up on it like I would like. This isnt really a problem I dont think, I have developed the film yet though so... I will let you know how it al turned out on Saturday, might even have some pics posted.

Majik Mike · Post by **Majik Mike** » 13 Feb 2004, 00:11

Your light behind idea gave me some ideas, thanks. Maybe if I put a light source on the side of the tank and have no flash it would help, but maybe that's just like having the tank lights on overhead with no flash. I think the main problem is the camera flash!! Also the quality of the camera must be important. Hopefully some more successful ideas will come in.

MackIntheBox · Post by **MackIntheBox** » 13 Feb 2004, 00:16

do you have any examples of the pictures youve taken? maybe if we see your mistakes we can offer some remedies

whats the biggest problem, or what you dislike the most, about the pictures you have taken?

sass · Post by **sass** » 13 Feb 2004, 00:30

Hi Mike.

I've done a few aquariumshots my self and have a few on planetcatfish too. The lesson I've learned is that a SLR camera is the best for aquariumshots. I use a Nikon F70 but any SLR will do the job. I prefer to use an off camera flash so you can control the direction of the light. Sometimes it's great to get the light from above and sometimes it's good to have it coming in from the site of the tank, depends on what you want to achieve with you shot. I use a manuel focus macrolens (Micro-Nikkor AI-s 55 mm f/2.8) at the moment. The advantage of a macrolens is, that it allows you to enlarge the fish on the final image, since macro is when one centimeter in real life is equal to one centimeter on film. This works fine. Another great thing with a macrolens or a lens with a big aperture (low f-number) is that the depht of field (normally known as DOF) is very small, so you can bring out the fish from the background.
Before I used my digital camera for shoting fish, but I wasn't pleased with the results (I have an old Canon PowerShot A10 - 1,3 MP camera). The disadvantage with many digital cameras are IMO that they don't offer a narrow DOF but every thing in the frame is in focus. I don't like that. I do have to say that the macro settings on my digital is very poor and could be improved with newer cameras, but you will still see that the DOF is very deep. A thing you can't change with the compact cameras. It has something to do with the size of the sensor (CCD or CMOS) that captures your image, it's much smaller than a regular film is and therefore gives a huge DOF.
Another thing that could be useful to you is a circular polarizer. It's a filter that in some level removes the reflection from the glass and water. This can be helpful. Another useful thing is a black piece of clothing to put behind you when you are shoting. It prevents (in some level) the reflection in the glass. Another way to use it could be to put it around you self and the camera so only the lens is pointing at the aquarium. A last thing is, if you use an on camera flash, to angle the shots. What I mean is, that don't shot directly into the camera but the angle between the camera and the front glass of the camera has an angle. How much is hard to say, it depends on your focallenght. This prevents that you only capture the reflection of the flash in the glass.
Hope you find this helpfull and please ask if you have further questions.
Best regards Sass
PS: If you go to my website, the shots there are all quite old and not taken with the macrolens I was talking about, but do say if you want to see examples of that.

MackIntheBox · Post by **MackIntheBox** » 13 Feb 2004, 00:56

What does SLR stand for? Ive been meaning to ask this forever and never have.

and this would be a great opportunity to show off that macrolense, would love to see the a shot with the lense. Im going to be looking into new lenses for my camera, its a 35MM Canon, I do not remember the model, I will find out in about 5 minutes though ;)

sass · Post by **sass** » 13 Feb 2004, 01:00

SLR is a short term for Single Lens Reflex, and what it means is that you see through the lens of the camera so, what you see is what you get (normally, some of the cameras doesn't show the entire image in the viewfinder). Normally a SLR gives you the oppotunity to change lenses so you only need one camerahouse and then have a selection of lenses to that camerahouse

MackIntheBox · Post by **MackIntheBox** » 13 Feb 2004, 02:11

sass wrote:SLR is a short term for Single Lens Reflex, and what it means is that you see through the lens of the camera so, what you see is what you get (normally, some of the cameras doesn't show the entire image in the viewfinder). Normally a SLR gives you the oppotunity to change lenses so you only need one camerahouse and then have a selection of lenses to that camerahouse

oh, ok. i have one of those in 35mm form, it is a canon AE-1
I like it alot, just need some better lenses for it. maybe i can find those cheap around ebay and the used camera shops around here.

I am getting my pics developed tomorrow, will scan and post them this weekend probly.

sass · Post by **sass** » 13 Feb 2004, 02:20

If you want a good lens for fish then go for a makrolens. You should be able to find lenses on e-bay for reasonable prices since the newer EOS-cameras uses a different lensmount (thats what I heard anyway - not the same with Nikon). Analog camera gear is going for very low prices these days except for the gear that can be used on a digital SLR. Good luck on your quest.

Best regards
Sass

PS: If you want good and fast lenses go for something with a big aperture (low f-number)

Post by **Silurus** » 13 Feb 2004, 02:59

PS: If you want good and fast lenses go for something with a big aperture (low f-number)

The best results in aquarium photography are not achieved with a fast lens. Using a fast lens with the aperture fully open just means that you have very little depth of field, leading to most of the subject being off focus (something that is especially apparent with using a macro lens).
Not worth the added expense, if you ask me. You're better off investing the money in some good lighting (flash) equipment.

Post by **Barbie** » 13 Feb 2004, 03:04

I turn off all the lights in the room, add a light off another tank on the top of the tank, put my camera on the 20 dollar tripod I bought for it, and take the pictures with no flash for fish that remotely hold still. For fish that won't, I aim the camera at a 45% angle to the glass and turn the flash intensity down .7 and shoot. I've been able to manage a few shots I was happy with that way. Basically its just all about practice, IMO, and enough light. The more light, the faster the shutter speed will be and the easier it will be to catch the fish in focus. MOST importantly, clean that glass to a polished surface, inside and out. You'd be amazed how much that will help.

Barbie

CatBrat · Post by **CatBrat** » 13 Feb 2004, 07:58

I would hae to agree with Barbie.
I turn out all the lights in the room and just sit on a chair that I use to watch my fish from. I don't even use a tripod, I just hold the camera, use no flash and just shoot my pictures. They seem to come out quite well, just takes practice.

Cheers, CatBrat.

sass · Post by **sass** » 13 Feb 2004, 09:39

Silurus wrote:The best results in aquarium photography are not achieved with a fast lens. Using a fast lens with the aperture fully open just means that you have very little depth of field, leading to most of the subject being off focus (something that is especially apparent with using a macro lens).
Not worth the added expense, if you ask me. You're better off investing the money in some good lighting (flash) equipment.

I agree with you about not using the larger aperture, I wasn't talking about that when talking the actual shots, but the advantages of a fast lens. Usually the lenses with the large aperture is the best lenses and the sharpest ones because they have fewer glass layers in them, thats why I said that part about fast lenses.
And macrolenses do work to aquarium photos. I've recently taken some shots of a friends fish in macro 1:1 using an 55 mm f/2.8 with a 2Ã?teleconverter to get macro 1:1 and it worked fine. The aperture I used was f/11 and it came out fine. The fish has a length of approximate an inch.

This is not meant to be a documentaryshot and thats why the entire fish isn't in focus. But It wouldn't have been a problem to get the entire fish in focus if you used an aperture at f/22 or f/45 or simply take the shot from another angle. But a macrolens allows you to bring details out of even a small fish and it can be used as a normal lens with very good results. Nikons Micro-Nikkor are some of the sharpest lenses you can find.
Another thing is, if you want to take shots without flashlight (I actually hate flash my self) then you need a fast lens. Not a macrolens because this type of photography requires very much light to get a fast shutter and therefore needs flash. Here a telelens or a normallens (50 mm f/1,4 or 1,8) is the right choise. These are very fast and the DOF is deep enough to get the entire fish in focus, trust me, I've tried.
The narrow DOF is also helping you to isolate the fish from the background, which is very helpfull IMO. You'll have the attention on the fish and not the, in this context, distracting background. But hey, maybe I don't know anything about photo. But paying the price for good lenses is worth it. The faster lenses is, logical enough, faster but also much sharper than a cheap zoom. I will agree on your point that light is important and good light makes it much easier to work with, but a quality lens is much more worth than light. It's actually on the lens you should spend you money, not on the camera or the light, since it's the lens that actually draws the image for you. But hey, maybe my priorities isn't right, I should just buy a huge flash?

Best regards
Sass

Post by **Barbie** » 13 Feb 2004, 10:15

Sass I think you might have missed the point here. Not everyone wants to spend more on equipment than they did on the hobby they wanted pictures of, IMO. My method works for middle of the road cameras, without additional investments. I've managed a few shots I was proud of. It's all about priorities. When I get an extra 1200 dollars laying around, its going to buy fish, not an SLR, no matter how much the years of photography classes could help me use it for better pictures, rather than the ordinary auto focus digital I have now.

Barbie

sass · Post by **sass** » 13 Feb 2004, 10:23

Hi Barbie.

I don't think I missed the point. Mike asked how to get good aquariumshots and I answered him in I way I would find useful. Then yashmack said that he wanted to get some better lenses for his gear and I said what I would do, to get some good lenses. I have also told what I did with my poor digital camera, but okay, perhaps I shouldn't say anything at all, since all my priorities are wrong. Camera-gear isn't just for fishphotography, and the lenses will work fine as a portraitlenses or a landscapelenses and what ever you use them to, it just have the advantage of being capible of doing good aquariumshots too. And a macrolens isn't costing around $1200, especially not with the Canon FD-mount.

Post by **Barbie** » 13 Feb 2004, 10:28

An SLR camera IS going to be 1200 dollars, and without one, the lenses aren't going to do much good, no?

Your solution is one of many that might work. IMO, there is not a single correct answer to this question. Noone disagrees here to spite or belittle anyone else. It is just their opinion. I'm ever so sorry that it seems to have upset you, and I assure you that was noone's intention. I really would appreciate it if you'd reread what was said with that mindset. There's just no reason to be upset about something that is all simply a matter of differing opinions, is there?

Barbie

Post by **Rusty** » 13 Feb 2004, 13:26

Barbie wrote:An SLR camera IS going to be 1200 dollars, and without one, the lenses aren't going to do much good, no?

Only digital SLRs are that pricey. Nice used analog SLRs can be found for pretty cheap if you look around, but any way you look at it, you're going to end up spending quite a bit of money on an SLR system.

Rusty

Allan · Post by **Allan** » 13 Feb 2004, 16:24

Yashmack wrote about the SLR:

oh, ok. i have one of those in 35mm form, it is a canon AE-1
I like it alot, just need some better lenses for it. maybe i can find those cheap around ebay and the used camera shops around here

He allready has a SLR camera, they are talking about the right lenses for the purpose of aquarium photo, debating it. A question is beeing answered here, in my eyes in a quite good and detailed way, regarding both pocket digitals and SLR.

Looking at ebay, I see the used macro lenses go for about 50-300$ depending on i guess quality/demand.

I would, if buying new equiptment, go for a smaller digital camera as well. Must have good macro ability though. Still, I like the look of the pictures from the SLR way more, and having worked with SLR and macro lenses, i find it the optimal solution for aquarium shots as well.
The limitations in my expirience with the compact cameras come in particular when taking pics of reflecting fish that swin around a lot. I have offcourse installed all the ekstra light i have, but still can't catch these in a proper way without some flash, and if I use enough the in built flash to light up the details in the fins, I get a lot of reflection from the fish.
Also, having to angle the camera to much to the glass to avoid flash can make photography tricky. I have seen many pictures, where a cory seems way longer/slimmer than it is, also taken a bunch of pics like this my self. All of these with to high angle to the glass.
I recently borrowed my brothers small digital with in built flash. Here i could partially eliminate the problem with reflecs from the glass, actually placing the lens only a millimeter or less from the glass. The lens would then shadow for the flashreflection. Works quite well, but the camera must have good macro ability to do this trick.
Btw if the camera has manuel focus, i would use it. I have tried many times with the autofocus, but all my best results are taken with manuel settings, the camera way to often gets the focus all wrong. Does not take long to get used to setting it right manuelly imo.

Kr Allan

MackIntheBox · Post by **MackIntheBox** » 13 Feb 2004, 17:04

I do have a question about using the camera. I dont know what lense exactly I have on the camera, I wont be able to find out until I get home. It is a rather short lense.

the issue im running into is that I cant focus the camera once I get too close to the subject. If I were to get the camera close to the subject what kind of lense should I look for to focus it correctly. Im talking less than a foot, perhaps about 3 to 9 inches away. Is this posible, and what should I look for?

also, does anyone have any wbsites they could recomend for learning how to better use this camera? any tips, hints, or sites would be appreciated

this is fun

Post by **Silurus** » 13 Feb 2004, 17:14

the issue im running into is that I cant focus the camera once I get too close to the subject. If I were to get the camera close to the subject what kind of lense should I look for to focus it correctly. Im talking less than a foot, perhaps about 3 to 9 inches away. Is this posible, and what should I look for?

This means you have a regular lens. You need a macro lens (not necessarily a fast one...a fast macro lens is just not the best use of your money, IMO), which enables you to keep the subject in focus at close distances.
Macro lenses usually come in focal lengths of 50, 90 or 100 mm. A 50 mm macro lens should do fine.

MackIntheBox · Post by **MackIntheBox** » 13 Feb 2004, 17:28

would you mind answering perhaps a couple more questions? the one that pops to mind right now is, what is the focal length and how does it affect the photo? If you know a website with these answers I would love to check it out. Im still doing my own research to find this out and gain knowledge of the use of this camera

sass · Post by **sass** » 13 Feb 2004, 17:29

Barbie wrote:An SLR camera IS going to be 1200 dollars, and without one, the lenses aren't going to do much good, no?

Barbie, the SLR-gear isn't around $1200, yes if you choose to get a state of the art house and similar things, then yes, but you can get a house with lens for around $400 and then it is new. Used is even cheaper.
And you right, I have pictures posted on PC done in you way, but it is far from being an optimal solution. The DOF is way to big and you will need a tremendous amount of light to capture a swimming fish. Plecos and Corys can be shot this way with a shutter at 1/4 sec, but you need a tripod and you will end up with lots of useles shots. If you use flash, you need to angle the shot to avoid reflection from the flash and that can make the fish look a bit strange as Allan said.
You right, there is no right answer to this one, and taste is different. I like my shots to be razor sharp (therefor I use slidefilm ISO 100 and my SLR-gear) and stop the lens down to where the experts say it would be sharpest. I didn't get the sharpest images with my digicam and often autofocus is cheated by the front glass, even when you use the macro-settings.

Silurus wrote:This means you have a regular lens. You need a macro lens (not necessarily a fast one...a fast macro lens is just not the best use of your money, IMO), which enables you to keep the subject in focus at close distances.
Macro lenses usually come in focal lengths of 50, 90 or 100 mm. A 50 mm macro lens should do fine.

Silurus, As I said before, he needs a macrolens for this type of work. I know, it doesn't have to be the fastest he can finde, but the fast lenses are usually also the sharpest lenses around when they are stopped down to around f/5.6 or f/8.0. And macrolenses works quite well as a normal lens (50 mm). And if he does takes shots indoor and don't want to use flash (I'm not thinking of aquariumshots here), then a fast lens is a must. The macro and fast lenses is better in quality than an old zoom. A normal lens are usually quite good because there are so few layers of glass in them.

sass · Post by **sass** » 13 Feb 2004, 17:36

yashmack wrote:would you mind answering perhaps a couple more questions? the one that pops to mind right now is, what is the focal length and how does it affect the photo? If you know a website with these answers I would love to check it out. Im still doing my own research to find this out and gain knowledge of the use of this camera

A normal lens (50 mm) works as you own vision. It gives the same image as you see with you eyes. A shot focallenght <50 is a wideangle and shows a lot of the surroundings. The extreme wideangle is also known as fisheye-lenses because the have an imageangle on more than 180Â°. The telelenses >50 is zooming in on the subject. You could use this, but telelenses usual needs some distance to focus and are therefor not good as aquariumlenses. Also movement will occur at a much faster shutterspeed. Normally it's said that a human can keep a lens steady at a shutter speed that is 1/focallength.
So if you want a good lens for aquarium, get a 50 mm macro, use flash and IMO the money spend on a fast lens is worth it. They are sharp and to your camera the price is fair.
If you want to know more about photo, this site is good: http://www.photo.net/learn/

MackIntheBox · Post by **MackIntheBox** » 13 Feb 2004, 17:40

ok, looking over items on Ebay, google, and the info here I know I want a macrolense, now I just need to decide which one

what MM lense would you recomend for aquarium photography, ive seen some that are 85-210mm, 28-85mm, and some that are just 50mm with macro. the camera will be used somewhat for other use, some indoor, some outdoor. It currently (im guessing) has a 50mm lense, no macro or zoom with a manual focus.

and thanks for the website, I will probably be checking that out for the next hour or so

sass · Post by **sass** » 13 Feb 2004, 17:46

yashmack wrote:ok, looking over items on Ebay, google, and the info here I know I want a macrolense, now I just need to decide which one what MM lense would you recomend for aquarium photography, ive seen some that are 85-210mm, 28-85mm, and some that are just 50mm with macro. the camera will be used somewhat for other use, some indoor, some outdoor. It currently (im guessing) has a 50mm lense, no macro or zoom with a manual focus.

and thanks for the website, I will probably be checking that out for the next hour or so

I use a Micro-Nikkor AI-s 55 mm f/2.8 my self, and find that it works great. The lowest focusdistance with this is around 25 cm or 10 inches. A zoomlens, eventhough it has the macro-ability is not as good, the focusdistance and magnification isn't as good as a true macrolens. I have a 75-300 mm that focuses down to about 1.5 meter or 5 feet when set to macro. And thats not great for aquariumshots. Therefor I would say, that a 50 mm macro is the choise, maybe a shot tele, but usual these are more expensive and the focusdistance is longer than with a normallens. Important to remember is to check what mount you Canon has, I think it's a FD-mount, but I don't know for sure since I use Nikon my self

MackIntheBox · Post by **MackIntheBox** » 13 Feb 2004, 17:56

I found this lense on ebay, this is probably what im going to go with (im going to hunt one up locally probably, or one similiar), from everything ive read this will probably suit my needs best, it is adjustable from 28mm to 50mm and has a macro zoom.

I also found this lense which is a "VIVITAR 1:1 MACRO 2X TELECONVERTER" that looks like it would probably suit myneeds as well on my current lense.

and yes, the camera is an FD mount

sass · Post by **sass** » 13 Feb 2004, 18:05

yashmack wrote:I found this lense on ebay, this is probably what im going to go with (im going to hunt one up locally probably, or one similiar), from everything ive read this will probably suit my needs best, it is adjustable from 28mm to 50mm and has a macro zoom.

and yes, the camer is an FD mount

You'll probably end up using the 50 mm focallenght in the end, because you have the biggest magnification here. And macro 1:4 is okay, but seen better. Don't buy the example from e-bay, since it has oil on the glass an needs professional cleaning that might not work. In Denmark, where I live, a cleaning is at least another $100 and in most cases around $200. So it could be worth checking out Canons own macrolenses if it ends at these prices. Normally the company that produces the camera has the best lenses also

The converter gives you twice the focallength. I use it my self with my macrolens but on zooms they can be useless since the quality in the image is reduces and the lens is really slow. The f-number would change from f/3.5 to f/7.0 and that's really slow. The shutter is getting 4 times as slow than it is at f/3.5. The converter works the best with a primelens (one focallenght) and not with zoom-lenses.

MackIntheBox · Post by **MackIntheBox** » 13 Feb 2004, 18:26

sass wrote:
yashmack wrote:I found this lense on ebay, this is probably what im going to go with (im going to hunt one up locally probably, or one similiar), from everything ive read this will probably suit my needs best, it is adjustable from 28mm to 50mm and has a macro zoom.

and yes, the camer is an FD mount
You'll probably end up using the 50 mm focallenght in the end, because you have the biggest magnification here. And macro 1:4 is okay, but seen better. Don't buy the example from e-bay, since it has oil on the glass an needs professional cleaning that might not work. In Denmark, where I live, a cleaning is at least another $100 and in most cases around $200. So it could be worth checking out Canons own macrolenses if it ends at these prices. Normally the company that produces the camera has the best lenses also
The converter gives you twice the focallength. I use it my self with my macrolens but on zooms they can be useless since the quality in the image is reduces and the lens is really slow. The f-number would change from f/3.5 to f/7.0 and that's really slow. The shutter is getting 4 times as slow than it is at f/3.5. The converter works the best with a primelens (one focallenght) and not with zoom-lenses.

OK, thats what I thought, if I got the 2X macro converter it would be used on my fixed focal length lense that I have currently.

I am going to be looking into lenses similiar to the one on Ebay but I will be getting it locally, there are lots of camera shops around, im sure i can find a suitable lense on the cheap. my sister or grandmother might even have a btter lense, I will need to ask them.

Thanks for all the info, this has helped greatly. the website you linked answered just about all my questions and I was able to understand just about all of it. the things i dont understand im reading into further to figure them out

sass · Post by **sass** » 13 Feb 2004, 18:26

Glad I could help. The converter will help if you have a fixed focallength.

I just thought of another solution that you might be able to use. You can get some lenses that can be screwed in in front of you lens (there are normally a thread for filters there) and these lenses (called close up lenses) allow you to do some macro with your normal lens. They are cheaper than a real macrolens. All you have to find out is what diameter you filterthread is. Image-quality may not be as good as a true macrolens can offer but it could be an OK solution.

MackIntheBox · Post by **MackIntheBox** » 13 Feb 2004, 18:53

ok, i will keep that in mind

I will try and look aroud this weekend, as soon as i get these photos developed and scanned (the ones ive taken with just the standard fixed focal length no macro havin lense it came with

I will post them for everyone to check out, and possibly laugh at

But practice makes perfect