PlanetCatfish.com

Well, there is a learningcurve to everything you do and photographing fish in a tank isn't easy. Do expect that some if not many of your shots will turn out in a way that you dislike. It is rather difficult and you'll probably spend a lot of money on film due to that. The first roll I took had 3 good shots but it keeps getting better and today almost every shot is worth looking at, but not great But it's quite fun. Good luck on your quest

sass wrote:Well, there is a learningcurve to everything you do and photographing fish in a tank isn't easy. Do expect that some if not many of your shots will turn out in a way that you dislike. It is rather difficult and you'll probably spend a lot of money on film due to that. The first roll I took had 3 good shots but it keeps getting better and today almost every shot is worth looking at, but not great But it's quite fun. Good luck on your quest

thanks, and im not too worried about the film and the cost, ive got lots of film right now, around 5 rolls of 800 and 3 or 4 rolls of 400 (which i will play with next, jus tto test the waters). the only problem will be development costs, but at 6 bux a roll, it wont be too bad. I should be able to get some good shots after about 3 rolls (I have confidence in my learning curve

That's the spirit. Do you have the oppotunity to get the flash of the camera, because then you really can do some nice work. A suggestion when you use a flash is to use a slower film. You will bring out more details with a slower film. I use Fuji slide films in the range from ISO 50 to ISO 200. Slide isn't a must, it's just because my scanner works best with slides and you see the adjustments that you made to the exposure. If you use a flash, there will be enough light for an ISO 100 or 200 and you will have much fewer grains.

sass wrote:That's the spirit. Do you have the oppotunity to get the flash of the camera, because then you really can do some nice work. A suggestion when you use a flash is to use a slower film. You will bring out more details with a slower film. I use Fuji slide films in the range from ISO 50 to ISO 200. Slide isn't a must, it's just because my scanner works best with slides and you see the adjustments that you made to the exposure. If you use a flash, there will be enough light for an ISO 100 or 200 and you will have much fewer grains.

actually, this is something I was planning to do. I do have a flash for the camera already, its retty decent. just time to go practice and have fun!!

yashmack wrote:actually, this is something I was planning to do. I do have a flash for the camera already, its retty decent. just time to go practice and have fun!!

If you can get a cord for the flash at a low price, it's worth the money. I have tried two different cords to mine, one was 0.7 meter and the one I have now is 1.5 meter. And to aquariums the 0.7 meter was the best, because the long one has a tendency to get in the way. But with an off camera flash you have great oppotunities to get some real nice work and have much more control over the light.

Depends on what you want to spend, but all the pictures you see currently credited to Planet Catfish were taken with a digital camera you can no buy for under $200. Here's an example.

http://www.planetcatfish.com/jpg/mochok ... iatus4.jpg

Here is the same fish taken (in the same conditions) by a real photographer (JJ) with expensive kit.

http://www.planetcatfish.com/jpg/mochok ... iatus1.jpg

IMO, neither takes more skill, but lots of practive is required and that is cheaper to get by practisiing with digital. A newer, more expensive digital camera will give better results probably all you need fo the web. If you want slides then maybe an SLR is you best bet but you must pay for processing... Bottom line: you get what you pay for.

And a litttle tip, wear all black while photographing ...

Jools

Hello all, thanks a million. Very good info. But if I had any idea of the amount of responses I would generate, I would've been more specific. I am looking to spend around the price of digital cameras. Like 200-400, no more. Jools, great response, to the point and with some photographic examples, perfect. Your first example is the quality I am looking for. I will probably buy a digital camera. But how did u get the pic to seem as if there were no fish tank glass there at all? What conditions made that possible? No flash, light behind camera, tank lights off, camera angled, etc??
And lastly, what features in a digital camera might I need to adjust a little to improve things, so I know what to look for in a digi camera?

Majik Mike wrote:Hello all, thanks a million. Very good info. But if I had any idea of the amount of responses I would generate, I would've been more specific. I am looking to spend around the price of digital cameras. Like 200-400, no more. Jools, great response, to the point and with some photographic examples, perfect. Your first example is the quality I am looking for. I will probably buy a digital camera. But how did u get the pic to seem as if there were no fish tank glass there at all? What conditions made that possible? No flash, light behind camera, tank lights off, camera angled, etc??
And lastly, what features in a digital camera might I need to adjust a little to improve things, so I know what to look for in a digi camera?

If I had to buy a compact digital camera that should be able to take aquariumshots, I would go for one with a good macrosetting. Most of the cameras today have this feature. And I would also go for a known brand (Nikon, Canon, Olympus etc.) since they know how to make a good lens. After seeing many shots from different cameras, my experience is that the known brands usually gives a sharper image than the unknown brands. The extra money is spend well. And I think that in that pricerange Canon has some fine cameras. If the camera has manual settings then it's great because you can adjust the exposure to get the right amount of light in your shot and avoid areas that are burned out (no colors or detail, just plain white). But as said, I would choose one with a good macrosetting which allows you to get closer to the aquarium. This also means that you with some cameras can get so close to the glas that you don't have to angle it and still have a great shot.
That said, I think you have to use the flash, it is not easy to take shots of your fish without extra light, and the flash is useful since some cameras are able to adjust the amount of light needed. If the camera has a possibility to adjust the ISO-rating, then it's great, because the higher number here, means that you need less light to get the correct exposure. The downside is, that you get some more grains, but hopefully you can adjust that in PhotoShop or another photo-editor. I think that most cameras today has the possibility for adjusting the ISO. It could give you the chance of taking shots without flash. And if you don't use the flash, you don't have to angle the camera as much as if you use flash.
If you want to check out some different cameras then you should take a look at http://www.dpreview.com, they have testet many cameras and you can see how they perform. Each camera is tested the same way and on the same subjects so it's easy to compare them. Digital cameras in this pricerange does have some shutterlag, which means that when you press the shutter it takes a little time before the shot is taken. It is very irritating IMO, but you can learn to cheat the camera. The reason for this is, that it measures the light and adjusts the focus before it takes the shot. And by pressing the shutter half way down it will do that before you take the shot and therefor it will take the shot faster. It can be useful.

Again, it boils down to practice. The digital pic above was taken without any fancy macro facility. The camera is a kodak DC290. I think the coolpix is about the best of the current crop of cameras.

The flash is mounted on the camera, but with some practice you can avoid flash bounce without taking the shot at such an angle that the picture looks distorted. Being close to the glass helps this. Also the glass must be very clean, the dirtier it is, the more flash bounce you get. Wear black in a dark room. I often use slate at the edges or even bottom of the phototank as it seems to even out the flash nicely. I took around 10 shots to get the one shown above and probably (I cannot remember) cropped out some flash from the top of the image.

Jools

I use a Nikon Coolpix 885 and it's a great camera with a good lens and a really great macro feature. My only beef with it is that I cannot stop down the aperture as much as I would have liked (the smallest aperture setting is about f10, while I would have gone down to f32 or f45).
I guess this is true of all consumer digital cameras .

Jools wrote:Again, it boils down to practice. The digital pic above was taken without any fancy macro facility. The camera is a kodak DC290. I think the coolpix is about the best of the current crop of cameras.

The flash is mounted on the camera, but with some practice you can avoid flash bounce without taking the shot at such an angle that the picture looks distorted. Being close to the glass helps this. Also the glass must be very clean, the dirtier it is, the more flash bounce you get. Wear black in a dark room. I often use slate at the edges or even bottom of the phototank as it seems to even out the flash nicely. I took around 10 shots to get the one shown above and probably (I cannot remember) cropped out some flash from the top of the image.

Jools

I'm not saying that it can't be done without a macrosetting. The shots I have on this site are all made with a really poor macrosetting and either with or without flash. What I mean is, that it is much easier to do the shots when you have a good macrosetting because you can get so close to the glas that you don't have to angle the shot.
You are right about the cleaning of the glas. I have many shots where I didn't clean the glass properly and it resultet in spots on the glas where the flash bounced.