Bill,
the Mundemba is looking GOOD!. And very nice too.
How I wish I have a tank for every species I keep, not just a small partition.
Hi folks, these are some I took today: ISO 200, F2.8, varying shutter
speeds with flash on (except for first pic) and using 12x zoom. Still need
external flash! These are unretouched, just downloaded.
Also, I caught them at morning feeding time, and the little red chunks
are chopped-up bloodworms they soon scarfed up!
(Downoi compliments of KL!)Bill
Bill,
the Mundemba is looking GOOD!. And very nice too.
How I wish I have a tank for every species I keep, not just a small partition.
Zulkifli
Thanks, Zul,
I'm noticing how yellow the 5000K 13w bulbs are. I'm going to get some
10,000K and 6700K to see if I can whiten it up some. These pics are the
closest I've gotten in focus, not that Heng Wah and Jianyang have anything
to worry about!![]()
10 gallon tanks are quite cheap over here: <$1 per gallon.![]()
Bill
Bill,
Why do you have to chop up the bloodworms when the fish looks large enough to swallow them whole?
Nice fish, very nice. The Downoi should be lovelier though
Loh K L
Bill, get tubes of about 6500K will be just right. 10,000K is way too blue meant for marine.Originally Posted by farang
why I don't do garden hybrids and aquarium strains: natural species is a history of Nature, while hybrids are just the whims of Man.
hexazona · crumenatum · Galleria Botanica
Bill,
Doesn't your new camera include a white balance setting? Some are just simple daylight, fluorescent, incandescent, etc. while some allow considerable in-camera tinkering.
For example, my S1 has settings for:
Auto white balance (let the camera worry about it, but don't complain)
Daylight (outdoors, bright day)
Cloudy (overcast, twilight, etc.)
Tungsten (really yellow-orange light, 3500K or lower))
Fluorescent (for warm white, cool white, or warm-white tri-phosphor)
Fluorescent H (for daylight fluorescent or daylight tri-phosphor)
Flash
Custom (for setting with a white sheet of paper)
5000K should be pretty white if the CRI is fairly high (>80). It is about like direct overhead sunlight. 6500K is like skylight (the northern exposure so beloved by artists) so has more blue.
The real stinker for photos is "cool white" which is tailored closely to human photopic visual sensitivity -- that is, a sharp hump in green and red and blue suppressed by about 90% from the peak. It optimizes the lumens, which are based only on human vision, and looks green as hell in a normal uncorrected photo.
Your tank looks a bit like "cool white," and a better white balance will take care of it in your pics.
Wright
PS. You are getting good fast!
01 760 872-3995
805 Valley West Circle
Bishop, CA 93514 USA
KL: I chop the bloodworms up because of smaller fish in the group I have
to feed. Yes, the downoi could look better, but I don't use CO2 injection
just Excel, which is a liquid carbon. A friend of mine has them in a
"Ferrari" style tank (high light, high CO2) and has several plants of the
cuttings you gave me. I will ask for a recent picture and post it.
Heng Wah: 6700K is what's available in 13w over here, thought I would
try those. Thanks for the advice!
Wright: I used auto white balance, and yes there is some tweaking I can
do, need to read more. Thanks for the compliment, but I have a lot of
practicing and learning to do![]()
Bill
Just got Paint Shop Pro 9 today, upon Wright's recommendation. This is
my first meager experiment with it:
Bill
Bill, if you don't mind, let me tweak it with Adobe Photoshop.![]()
Fish.. Simply Irresistable
Back to Killies... slowly.
Okay so here's the "photoshopped" version.![]()
![]()
Fish.. Simply Irresistable
Back to Killies... slowly.
Jianyang,
All I can say is "WOW!!!"
Did a water change to their tank today and the 2 males are facing off
to each other. Tried to get a pic like your wondrous Ijebu Ode, to no
avail![]()
Bill
Here's a ma and pa (hopefully!) photo:
Bill
Originally Posted by farang
The wonders of Photoshop. Even little bits of dust on the glass can be made to "disappear" with a blurring effect, thus emphasising the subject fish instead of the background.
Well there's always next time and I was several times lucky to find them flaring at each other. I spent about 10 minutes shooting pics of them and was rewarded with several usable images of which I edited two and found one to be the better of the other. Its always about luck, perfect timing, and a trusty camera with a fast focus.Originally Posted by farang
Not to mention, steady hands and a way of bouncing off the flash at an angle without it coming back as reflection.![]()
Fish.. Simply Irresistable
Back to Killies... slowly.
On the subject of photographing fish, Fuji Photofilm just announced 3 new models, and one looks like a fish pic winner (for the well heeled -- US$699).
The S9000 has 9 MP and a long (10.7X) zoom. Fuji has some neat tricks for getting high ISO with very little noise. This model has both macro and super macro modes built in. I particularly like the hot shoe to make remote flash easy, and a cable-release socket built into the shutter release.
It features very quick start and no shutter delay (10ms). As I read the publicity blurb, I could hardly believe how many of my gripes about most digital cameras they have dealt with very well.
I'm generally not a fan of high MP cameras, but if they are usable at ISO of 1600, the digital zoom suddenly becomes very practical. I may soon have 3 DSC-D770 Sony Cybershot Pros and 3 DKC-FP3s and one Canon S1 IS for sale. :-) I anxiously await the independent reviews, but I already like the specs.
Wright
01 760 872-3995
805 Valley West Circle
Bishop, CA 93514 USA
Wright,
It's a shame for such a fine new camera that they didn't come up with a
more orginal model #. S9000 is a Canon printer, which I found a whole
slew of entries when trying to find info on this camera![]()
I'll be watching ebay for one of your D770s!
Bill
Here is a link so you see what Wright is dreaming about:
http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epa...00Overview.jsp
Al Baldwin
AKA 00120
Jianyang's photoshopped version Of Bill's pic looks like the fish has been superimposed on the background. It's nice but there's a negative side to touching up photos.
When I was building this website, I was advised to use photoshop to touch up the pictures. Ronnie came one day and he immediately knew, on seeing the pictures, that they have been touched up. After he left, I thought about it and decided to leave all my pictures as they are, untouched by any picture software. The point I'm trying to put across is that, with my pictures, "what you see is what you get or more". Whereas, with touched-up pictures, the feeling is "what you see may not be what you get and probably less".
Loh K L
Just to add to what I wrote earlier,
A good touched-up picture is one where you can't tell it's been touched-up. It's like what they say about the girls spending all their money on cosmetics to achieve the "no make-up" look
Loh K L
Thanks, Al!Originally Posted by Al Baldwin
![]()
Bill
I agree, but doing so, discounts about 90% of the fish photos you seeOriginally Posted by timebomb
![]()
Bill
Bookmarks