Camera/Film Advice

MackIntheBox · Post by **MackIntheBox** » 26 Dec 2003, 19:39

Ok you picture takers out there, im going to be getting myself a fairly nice (somewhat old) 35MM camera. I beleive it has zoom and is focused manually by rotating the lense. If I find out what brand and model it is I will update this post.

my qustion is this, what film do you find works best for taking pictures of the aquarium? The camera will be outside the tank looking through the glass. The lighting in the tank should be sufficient for pictures I beleive. What speed and brand film do you photophiles recomend?

pleco_breeder · Post by **pleco_breeder** » 26 Dec 2003, 20:21

Hello,

I haven't used a 35 mm for fish pics in some time, but can tell you what I did learn. The faster speed films will work best. If you take a pic and the fish just happens to move during your shot, they will cut out a lot of blur. I wouldn't use anything less than an 800 film. Fuji was my preferred brand, but that will vary from one person to the next.

Single tube flourescent lights are usually unsufficient. They also require a filter to cut out the yellowing of the lights. Otherwise, the fish will have a faded look. I used clamp lights over the tanks with the special photo bulbs. 2- 500 watt photo bulbs would light a 29 gallon tank well enough to take pics anywhere in the tank. These bulbs were about 8 bucks each and the clamp lights can be bought at most hardware stores or photo shops.

If possible, use a tripod for your photos. Again, this will take care of a lot of blur. You would be amazed how much you actually move when trying to be perfectly steady. A cable for taking the photo also gets rid of a lot of movement.

These are just a few tips. I'm sure that others on the list will have their own additions to these.

Larry Vires

michelle56 · Post by **michelle56** » 26 Dec 2003, 20:48

If it is a digital camera, use mircomade-the little flower on the camera.

Post by **Barbie** » 26 Dec 2003, 21:15

That would be macro mode...

and he did just state that it was advice needed for a FILM camera.

Barbie

Post by **Silurus** » 26 Dec 2003, 21:27

This raises the point that you should invest in a macro lens if you plan to take a lot of fish pictures. Zoom lenses generally suck at this sort of thing.

pturley · Post by **pturley** » 26 Dec 2003, 22:35

See...

...THIS THREAD...

...from my local Cichlid Association Website.

I would recommend the following:

35mm Camera, any brand will do.

ISO 64 (OR SLOWER) film. I use Fuji Velvia 50 almost exclusively for aquarium photography. NOTE: We want all the light creating the image to come from YOUR flash and NONE to come from ambient light! I can explain reasons for this later when I have a bit more time to post.

Powerful flash of 150' Guide number (more powerful the better), with a hot shoe adapter and an off camera cord so the flash can be directed at the glass outside of the field of view of the camera lens.

Any manual focus medium length 50-120mm lens (NOT ZOOM) and extension tubes, OR a macro lens.

You will want manual focus, as most cameras (except the $$$$ ones) read an IR beam reflected off the subject.

I've got to run now, I'll post more later tonight.

Post by **Shane** » 27 Dec 2003, 00:00

Yashmack,
I strongly recommend against getting a film camera for fish photography unless photography is also your hobby and you are willing to learn all about focal lengths, films speeds, light meters, lense filters, F Stops, ad naseum. Even if you get a really good deal on a used 35 mm, you will find that for the cost of all the accessories that you will need to take fish pictures (esp. the macro lense), you could have bought a very high speed digital camera.
I am not knocking film as I really appreciate the work of a good film photographer. To me film vs digital is like fly fishing vs using a rod and reel. Nobody can doubt that a good fly fisherman is an artist, but he will never catch the amount of trout on his flys that a 13 year old kid can with a hook and worm. With lots of work, you can become an artist with the 35 mm, with a few days practice you can snap lots of great photos with digital.
Another thing to take into account is if you ever plan on going collecting. A digital camera is key. Not only do you only have to carry about 1/10th what a film person has to carry, but you KNOW you got the shot. If your film is developed when you return, and the only photos you took of a super rare catch did not turn out, you can never do anything about it.
I do not want to dissuade you from buying the camera, but before you do, price out all the accessories you will need to take fish photos. Do not forget to add on a couple of hundred dollars also for the 20 or so rolls of film and fim developing you will also have to pay for before you get film photography down.
In case you are wondering, I am speaking from experience. A couple of years ago I blew enough money on a 35 mm set up to buy a very nice digital SLR. A few months later I bought a digital camera and the very expensive 35 mm set up has not been used even once since.
-Shane

MackIntheBox · Post by **MackIntheBox** » 27 Dec 2003, 00:16

Im not going to be buying the camera, it will be free. I dont have any money to buy anything so I will do the best I can with what I got. I will refine my method to get ok shots of the fish, its ust gonna be to update my website really, lol.

Film doesnt cost much and neither does developement so im willing to waste a few rolls and develop them to get some ok shots of my cats, hehe.

thanks for the advice so far

Post by **Shane** » 27 Dec 2003, 00:42

Yashmack,
I did some surfing on this topic as I was curious about the price differences. All prices are from the web.

35 mm camera (medium quality) $260.00 to 350.00

Macro: $250.00 for the cheapest brand on the market $300 for a name brand. A good one can cost up to $1,400.00

Tripod: about $100.00 In all fairness, this is nice to have with digital (got one for X-mas

), but as was pointed out, is a must for film.

Basic Filter kit: $50.00

Film: $5.00 per roll

Developing: $10-12.00 per roll

Camera set up" about $800.00 and we can add another $100 for some film and developing.

Digital:
Top of the line: Canon Rebel Digital SLR $800.00. (6.3 megapixel)
Great: Nikon Coolpix 5400 $700 (5.1 megapixels)
Good: Nikon Coolpix 4300 $399 (4 megapixels)

Post by **Rusty** » 27 Dec 2003, 04:04

Shane wrote:Top of the line: Canon Rebel Digital SLR $800.00. (6.3 megapixel)

Over here you would also have to take into account the cost of nice lenses, which, as noted before, can cost several times more than the body. This can also be an advantage if you are moving over from a Canon analog SLR setup, since you can use the same lenses. Anyone have one of these babies yet?

Rusty

benny · Post by **benny** » 27 Dec 2003, 05:15

I don't have a Canon Rebel Digital, but I have one of their old DSLR cameras. I must agree that the cost savings is unbelievable. You just throw out so many spoilt shots with aquatic photography. Having shot more than 4500 pictures, I probably only have about 100+ which I consider good.

I also use the traditional film SLR and have 6 SLR bodies. I never dared to use them for fish photography as I know what my chances are of getting a good shot out of an entire roll. Besides, it does not offer instant preview.

Cheers,

michelle56 · Post by **michelle56** » 27 Dec 2003, 05:25

I heard that digitals are better than film cameras.
Ok here's an example of micromode:

benny · Post by **benny** » 27 Dec 2003, 07:36

er.. I think macro or micro mode is suppose to let you get close the the subject.

Something like this..

The coin is less than 1 inch in diameter.

Or in the case of aquatic photography...

barbels of corydoras simulatus

Cheers,

Antti · Post by **Antti** » 27 Dec 2003, 11:56

Hi Yashmack, if your gear will be what you describe try at least getting used flash. You'll get one very cheap. If you can not focus too close and you have fish less then 15cm in length don't think about high speed films, you'll end up with bad quality pics. Also you need to use full aperture, which means very thin sharpness. With ISO100 film you can crop and pictures retain ok quality for web. Sharp area will be a lot deeper. Especially with flash keep aquarium glasses clean and shoot from an angle so that you won't see the flash in the picture. I have no experience of iso 800 and up films, bigger manufacturers films propably won't differ too much in grain and color you can adjust in photoshop. If you will use these films try to aim at lighting which will give you at least 1/45s. shutter speed. In digital bright 9000-10000K lamps have been ok for me. Letting in some daylight might help. If you have tripod you can use slower speeds with slow fish.

Antti

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 27 Dec 2003, 13:06

While we're on the subject of photography, I often struggle with the flash making the entire picture to bright; especially if taking pictures over sand. Is the only solution an overhead flash?

Jools

benny · Post by **benny** » 27 Dec 2003, 16:12

Jools wrote:...I often struggle with the flash making the entire picture to bright; especially if taking pictures over sand. Is the only solution an overhead flash?

If it's river sand that you are using, overhead flash will not solve the problem. The overall exposure will still be as tricky if not even more challenging.

Cheers,

Antti · Post by **Antti** » 27 Dec 2003, 16:16

The "telephone chords" ,which are connected to the flash shoe allow you to move flash where you want, might help. Just try different angles and find the ones that work best for you. They are relatively cheap too. In newer cameras many flashes work even without any chord with the infrared(?) transmitter(don't have it). I take most pictures with normal flash attached to camera(about 12cm above camera) or just with the inbuilt flash(about 5cm above camera) and haven't had too much problem with that. For me the chord is must with small silvery rasboras and tetras which will give flash right back from their sides if the angle of flash is not enough.

Antti

flyinmike · Post by **flyinmike** » 28 Dec 2003, 14:49

Jools wrote:While we're on the subject of photography, I often struggle with the flash making the entire picture to bright; especially if taking pictures over sand. Is the only solution an overhead flash?

Jools

Overhead flash. I assume you're talking about the flash pointing down from above the tank? Hmmmmm. I'm gonna have to try that one. I'm like you, the flash seems to make the entire picture too bright.

Mike