Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

Macro Photography for Fish

Started by Guest_Erica Lyons_* , Dec 09 2013 08:35 PM

Next

Please log in to reply

26 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_Erica Lyons_*

Guests

Posted 09 December 2013 - 08:35 PM

I saw this article and although the snowflake thing is cool, imagine how useful this would be for photographing small creatures in the aquarium?! I have infusoria I've been looking at for a while but that my camera can't detect. Maybe with this technique I'll be able to take better pictures of my one inch elassoma and possibly even capture those elusive infusoria.

The article on how to take pictures of snowflakes: http://chaoticmind75...s-shooting.html

Posted Image

Back to top

#2 Guest_Erica Lyons_*

Guests

Posted 09 December 2013 - 08:36 PM

Here are some of the example snowflakes the author of that article captured using that setup and multiple image technique.

Posted Image

What fish pictures can you all take with this technique? I imagine our ID photos would be a lot better with fin rays photographed using this technique.

Back to top

#3 Guest_daveneely_*

Guests

Posted 09 December 2013 - 09:44 PM

Here are some of the example snowflakes the author of that article captured using that setup and multiple image technique.
What fish pictures can you all take with this technique? I imagine our ID photos would be a lot better with fin rays photographed using this technique.

Why don't you demonstrate why it would work so much better than the dedicated macro rigs some of use.

Please.

Back to top

#4 Michael Wolfe

Board of Directors

North Georgia, Oconee River Drainage

Posted 09 December 2013 - 11:55 PM

I think Dave is right, there are a lot of good macro setups out there, that would seem a lot easier than taping a bunch of optics to a stick. Remember the forum down sizes all our pictures, so if you really want to see what is out there, take a walk through the Gallery Archive and see some work of NANFA photographers at full size.
For a quick example, this is the picture that you see here if I post my Savannah Darter
Posted Image

but this is the detail at that is really in the original photo of just the dorsal fin

fullsize.jpg 123.08KB 1 downloads
and that is just with my 16 megapixel waterproof set on its built in super macro mode... and I am not even in the better half of the photographers here. I dont think most of us need better cameras... most of us need better set ups and more patience.

Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing. - Benjamin Franklin

Back to top

#5 Guest_trygon_*

Guests

Posted 10 December 2013 - 08:31 AM

Michael is correct, it's the photographer that makes the photograph; and Dave is correct there are better hardware solutions.

Back to top

#6 Guest_Erica Lyons_*

Guests

Posted 10 December 2013 - 08:33 AM

Why don't you demonstrate why it would work so much better than the dedicated macro rigs some of use.

'Cause you can use any lens you have laying around?
Not all of us can buy $500 cameras. The lens used in the article costs less than $50 on ebay, rigged up to a normal camera that has 6x optical zoom.

Back to top

#7 Michael Wolfe

Board of Directors

North Georgia, Oconee River Drainage

Posted 10 December 2013 - 08:50 AM

but you are just hacking a solution... the camera I am using can be bought for $200 and is waterproof... and is certainly more durable than anything cobbled together. You are giving people the wrong impression that the photography is hard because of the camera. It is just not the case. The hardware is easily there... I spend more on gas and boots and seines to get to the fish than I do on cameras!

Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing. - Benjamin Franklin

Back to top

#8 Guest_daveneely_*

Guests

Posted 10 December 2013 - 09:00 AM

If you happen to have an SLR lens around and no body? Try Ebay, or POTN, or any one of a bazillion places out there to get used camera gear on the cheap. No duct tape required. You're trying to engineer a solution to a problem that isn't there, unless you're trying to take photos of something much smaller than even a larval Elassoma.

There's a lot of aspects of the original article that could be interesting that weren't discussed in any detail, like using image stacking to get a super wide depth of field. A few years ago an entomologist colleague of mine dropped ~$45K on a photomontage system that did this automatically. All portions of an image were in clear focus, down to the tips of abdominal bristles or the little hairs on the wings. It was spectacular! There's some free tools out there now that allow you to do almost the same thing, well, for free!

Back to top

#9 Guest_Erica Lyons_*

Guests

Posted 10 December 2013 - 10:11 AM

There are things in my fish tank that I want to get good photos of but can't. Newly hatched Elassoma. I can see them, my camera can't pick them up. The infusoria that are there by the thousands: I can see them, my camera can't.

Here are some pictures of my elassoma gilberti fry. I'm trying. I'm just unable to photograph them very well.
http://gallery.nanfa...er/033.JPG.html
http://gallery.nanfa...er/064.JPG.html
http://gallery.nanfa...er/009.JPG.html
http://gallery.nanfa...07_002.JPG.html
http://gallery.nanfa...01_002.JPG.html
http://gallery.nanfa...ze_001.jpg.html
http://gallery.nanfa...06_001.JPG.html
http://gallery.nanfa...resize.jpg.html

Currently my technology is limiting me. The only reason I haven't documented the microfauna in the tank is 'cause I can't, not 'cause it's not there and I'm not watching it. It's important, especially when you consider that fish like orangespotted sunfish are nearly impossible to spawn in captivity. There's stuff happening at the micro level that we should be paying attention to, but can't share with each other because our cameras can't pick them up. Why do the baby orangespotted sunfish die? What's going on? Isn't this something we should look at? I'm trying. I'm sorry, but this is not a non-issue.
There was a situation recently where I asked, "Are my fry eating this food?" My camera was of no help and couldn't pick the fry up, so as much of them as I could see with my eyes was all I had to go on. Fry are really small. There are even smaller things in my tank that I can see that the camera just absolutely fails to pick up.

When I saw the article I posted above, I liked how much zoom they were able to get with just the cost of a $50 lens on an existing camera. Is this 'hacking'? I don't know. If a $50 solution works as well or better than $200 one, why not try it, or at least talk about it? Especially since if the solution is $200+, I can't afford it.

I freely admit that I don't know very much about cameras. If you guys have alternative solutions, I'm listening.

Back to top

#10 Guest_daveneely_*

Guests

Posted 10 December 2013 - 11:07 AM

Then try it and report back.

Or look for a used compound microscope. A quick couple searches popped up lots of options for <$100, and some < than the $50 you'd spend on a lens. Cut a short piece of 1" or 1.5" PVC to slide over the eyepiece; essentially just to cut down on the light when you hold your existing camera up to the eyepiece. If your camera has a telescoping zoom lens that protrudes from the front, it might actually rest in the PVC -- this is good, as you won't have to hand-hold it. The benefits of this are that you'll actually be able to adjust focus easily, and if you find one with a transmitted light base (a handy feature for larval fish, hint hint!) or make one from frosted glass or acrylic (via fine sandpaper), you might be able to see structures that you couldn't with the lens-duct-taped-to-a-board (LDTTB) trick. Get the right scope and I'd suspect you'll be able to get much higher magnification and image quality than the LDTTB.

Don't just say "Ooh, look, I found this on the Internet and this is soooo much better than the stuff that you do." That's not going to get a positive response.

Back to top

#11 Guest_Erica Lyons_*

Guests

Posted 10 December 2013 - 11:14 AM

Don't just say "Ooh, look, I found this on the Internet and this is soooo much better than the stuff that you do." That's not going to get a positive response.

I wasn't saying that. Have you seen the photos I took of my fry? It just looked better than what I was doing, which was not anything.

I think you misunderstand me. Idon't know anything about cameras. I just know that what I currently have isn't working well enough, and I'm interested in discussing alternatives. What methods are there to attach macro lenses to normal cameras? How is that done? All of this is interesting to me. Do you have any good sources of information I could read?

Back to top

#12 Guest_daveneely_*

Guests

Posted 10 December 2013 - 11:54 AM

I wasn't saying that. Have you seen the photos I took of my fry? It just looked better than what I was doing, which was not anything.

Then use "my", not "our".

What methods are there to attach macro lenses to normal cameras? How is that done? All of this is interesting to me. Do you have any good sources of information I could read?

Turn camera off, align indicator marks on lens with corresponding marks on body, insert lens base into body, twist to seat bayonet lugs, and turn camera on.

But seriously, the LDTTB trick is just a crude DIY bellows system. You could buy an of-the shelf equivalent, or resort to using extension tubes or such. The issue is that focusing with the LDTTB is going to be a bear if you don't have an option on the camera body to manually adjust focus. The only way to focus would be to move the whole thing, or move the subject in relation to the lens. The depth of field is going to be super narrow, too -- probably why the OP had to resort to focus stacking to get the whole snowflake in focus and reduce noise.

If you only have a point-n-shoot, you're going to have to resort to something drastic. If you're taking photos of something that's consistently about the same size, the LDTTB might work with a lot of trial and error. If you can borrow a lens (doesn't need to be a macro, nor does it need to be for a dSLR; an older 50mm f/1.4 might be about perfect), try it!

I still suggest that a low-end scope would probably serve your needs much better.

Back to top

#13 Guest_Erica Lyons_*

Guests

Posted 10 December 2013 - 12:00 PM

I still suggest that a low-end scope would probably serve your needs much better.

Microscopes are really expensive, and I can't always take the things I want to photograph out of the tank.

I'll look into macro lenses, but the problem is I have no idea how to compare them or which ones are better than others.

Back to top

#14 Guest_trygon_*

Guests

Posted 10 December 2013 - 12:12 PM

You should listen to Dave he is spot on. You are wanting to go into the supermacro world without the proper equipment. What type of camera system do you currently have? If you have a point and shoot and try the DIY bellows it will never work on infusoria or anything else that moves as there is a considerable shutter lag, but you might be able to do snowflakes all day long. Why can't you get the subjects out of your aquarium, use a long pipette. You will need to control the subject, and shoot through as little water as possible. The images you want to capture are quite specialized and you will need the correct tools for the job.

Back to top

#15 Guest_Erica Lyons_*

Guests

Posted 10 December 2013 - 12:19 PM

What type of camera system do you currently have?

Canon Elph 330 hs

Back to top

#16 Guest_natureman187_*

Guests

Posted 10 December 2013 - 02:14 PM

Microscopes are really expensive

Or look for a used compound microscope. A quick couple searches popped up lots of options for <$100, and some < than the $50 you'd spend on a lens.

^ Dave already covered this.

and I can't always take the things I want to photograph out of the tank.

Why not? Laboring over shooting moving macro sized creatures through a tank is making your problem worse.
Suck the little monsters up using a dropper and squirt them out on some media under the scope.
You have control. It's not that hard.

Back to top

#17 Guest_Erica Lyons_*

Guests

Posted 10 December 2013 - 02:20 PM

Could an admin please delete this thread? All it seems to have done is tick people off, and that was not my intention.

Back to top

#18 Guest_Dustin_*

Guests

Posted 10 December 2013 - 02:33 PM

Erica, I'm not sure that the end result was ticking people off. I think what the guys have tried to do is lead you in the direction of some alternatives to the method you posted originally. There are flaws in the method, specifically related to using the method on animate objects through water. Some of the best native fish and all around photographers there are have posted in this thread. I feel like the info they have passed along is extremely valuable to the community as a whole. I have certainly learned quite a bit.

Back to top

#19 Guest_Erica Lyons_*

Guests

Posted 10 December 2013 - 02:39 PM

Right-o. Starting a new topic, won't post here again. They don't like the snowflake thing, got it, won't talk any more about it.

Back to top

#20 Guest_Skipjack_*

Guests

Posted 10 December 2013 - 04:03 PM

Erica, people would not have such a hard time with your posts if you made an effort to be a bit more humble. You are talking to some of the most qualified fish photographers in the world. Asking others what they think about this improvised set up would have been more effective than saying "our" ID photos could be better with this technique. Have you looked at Lance's, Dave's or Uland's ID photos? They don't get much better..Do you really think taping lenses to their camera's will help?