Skip to content

Lights, Strobes, and Lighting Technique / Archived topic

Help needed for shooting black fish

Started by ScubaSpen ·

  • 26Posts
  • 26Replies

Read-only discussion

Help needed for shooting black fish

26 posts
  1. I have been lucky enough to find the same jet black frogfish on a couple of occasions on one of the local dive sites. There are actually 2 and the spotted one comes out looking better. But the jet black one is giving me problems as I can see it is a frogfish but cant make out the detail as it all blends in. Take a look at the photos to see what I mean. Am I doing something wrong or is black just a nightmare all round.

     

    All taken with a Nik D80, Nikor 60mm, ds-125 strobe TTL mode, 1/125s, f8, RAW. I also tried f16 and got the same results.

     

    Any suggestions would be appreciated.

     

    Spen

    post-6578-1192900990_thumb.jpg

    post-6578-1192901036_thumb.jpg

  2. Hi Spen,

     

    TTL on a very light background is a large part of the problem. TTL is great for medium tones but going from white to black one is going to be under exposed or the other is going to be over. I would hope to locate the fish on a darker background (not suggesting you move the fish) then try manual as well as TTL to obtain better exposure. One great thing about frogfish they don't move much so you should be able to try a variety of exposures.

     

    Good luck

     

    Phil Rudin

    Edited by tropical1
  3. I have been lucky enough to find the same jet black frogfish on a couple of occasions on one of the local dive sites. There are actually 2 and the spotted one comes out looking better. But the jet black one is giving me problems as I can see it is a frogfish but cant make out the detail as it all blends in. Take a look at the photos to see what I mean. Am I doing something wrong or is black just a nightmare all round.

     

    All taken with a Nik D80, Nikor 60mm, ds-125 strobe TTL mode, 1/125s, f8, RAW. I also tried f16 and got the same results.

     

    Any suggestions would be appreciated.

     

    Spen

     

     

    IMHO I think the second shot is great. The frog fish is doing his job wonderfully and you captured it. His details are supposed to blend in so that even fish can't see him. :-) I'm sure that if you shot in RAW, changed f stops, lighting intensity, shadows and tried diffusers etc. and took 100 shots one would jump out as the National Geo shot but what you've got looks darn good. Then there's Photoshop. Maybe work on the contrast and intensity of the sand.

     

    I'm sure someone more knowledgeable that I can give you more specifics but when I show people, especially non-divers pictures of frog fish the whole point is for them to go, "WOW, now I see it!!" Your shot does just that. Nice job.

     

    Andy

     

    I have been lucky enough to find the same jet black frogfish on a couple of occasions on one of the local dive sites. There are actually 2 and the spotted one comes out looking better. But the jet black one is giving me problems as I can see it is a frogfish but cant make out the detail as it all blends in. Take a look at the photos to see what I mean. Am I doing something wrong or is black just a nightmare all round.

     

    All taken with a Nik D80, Nikor 60mm, ds-125 strobe TTL mode, 1/125s, f8, RAW. I also tried f16 and got the same results.

     

    Any suggestions would be appreciated.

     

    Spen

     

    Oops, now that I re-read the last paragraph of your post, actually, the first thing I would do is turn off TTL and shoot manual.

     

    Andy

  4. Sorry for thinking out loud with multiple posts but the lack of contrast may be causing the autofocus to hunt. Maybe switch to manual focus (or auto focus lock) and pick a focus point (eye or mouth or lure) by moving the camera back and forth noting the fstop which is also going to aid in what the human eye sees when they view the picture. Maybe even f22 or higher. I notice that the feet are out of focus. You should be able to get the whole critter in focus at a high fstop.

     

    Photographing a pet frog fish in the same location in the wild is a problem/project we'd all love to be faced with.

  5. Hi guys,

     

    Thanks for the suggestions.

     

    I will indeed next time try a manual setting to see if I can improve the detail on the black frogfish.

     

    I also have experimented with higher fstops up to f22 and found that at the higher stop the image was not as sharp as I would like so i went down to f16. Next time f18 to see if I can get the web feet as sharp as well. I have been trying some shots for focus on the face and some mid body to try and get the whole thing sharp as possible.

     

    The frogfish have been there for 2 weeks already so I hope they stick around till I get back from Similan islands next week.

     

    This is the shot I like the best.

    post-6578-1192946343_thumb.jpg

  6. I also have experimented with higher fstops up to f22 and found that at the higher stop the image was not as sharp as I would like so i went down to f16.

     

    Can anybody help with why he would lose sharpness at higher fstop?

  7. Can anybody help with why he would lose sharpness at higher fstop?

     

    Would need examples of f/22 shots to see what sort of loss of sharpness it is. There may be marginal reduction in sharpness due to more diffraction effect through a smaller aperture, but you would have to look very closely.

     

    Could be slower shutter speed giving camera shake blur.

  8. He's past the diffraction limit for the given circle of confusion; and this changes with film or CCD image size.

     

    For APS & DX, the sweet spot is in the f/8 to f/11 range

    For 35mm, the sweet spot is between f/11 & f/16

    For medium format (6x45, 6x6, 6x7), the sweet spot is f/16 to f/22

    For 4x5, the sweet spot is f/22 to f/32

     

    Can anybody help with why he would lose sharpness at higher fstop?
  9. Spen, nice shots!

     

    Two suggestions:

     

    In Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), hold down the ALT key while moving the Exposure slider: The preview will change to black, and then as you increase the exposure, you'll start to see blown pixels;

     

    Then, in Photoshop, use the Shadows/Highlights adjustment to recover shadow detail. This can be found at:

    Image -> Adjustments -> Shadows/Highlights...

    And then be sure to enable the Advanced settings.

     

    The starting points are way too aggressive, though: Start out with these settings:

     

    Shadows: Amount = 20% ... Tonal width = 30% ... Radius = 30 pix

     

    Highlights: Amount = 2% (that's two, not twenty percent) ... Tonal width = 20% Radius = 30 pix

     

    Adjustments: Color correction = zero ... Midtone contrast = zero (but you'll adjust this once you recover the the shadows & highlights)

     

    Black Clip = 0.01% ... White Clip = 0.01%

     

    Then, save these as your defaults.

     

    Hope this helps!

     

    I have been lucky enough to find the same jet black frogfish on a couple of occasions on one of the local dive sites. There are actually 2 and the spotted one comes out looking better. But the jet black one is giving me problems as I can see it is a frogfish but cant make out the detail as it all blends in. Take a look at the photos to see what I mean. Am I doing something wrong or is black just a nightmare all round.

     

    All taken with a Nik D80, Nikor 60mm, ds-125 strobe TTL mode, 1/125s, f8, RAW. I also tried f16 and got the same results.

     

    Any suggestions would be appreciated.

    Edited by Dan Schwartz
  10. That second shot is really cool and potentially really amazing but the negative space hurts it. The blown out whites and the branch-like shadow are distracting.

     

    I have an idea what's up: at 1/125th and f/8 and the white sand, you're letting the ambient light do most of the exposure work with only a little strobe (at least what it looks like to me). What exposure mode are you using? I would close your exposure to f/16 or f/22 and use the strobe to expose and isolate the frog fish from the background. Also always shoot macro at base iso (ISO100 i think on D80).

     

    You said you stopped down but got the same thing - if you're using program auto or aperture priority, then the camera will simply slow the shutter speed to give an equivalent ambient exposure. This would be exactly why your f/22 pic would look soft. It is NOT because of diffraction - I wouldn't listen to Dan who seems to describe diffraction as something that would destroy the sharpness. It does not and is a very subtle effect at f/22 only noticable upon very close inspection. I've shot upwards of f/32 on my D200 + 60mm with plenty sharp results. Shoot on manual, using f/16 or f/22 and 1/250th and light with the strobe on TTL (or using the strobes power settings to adjust exposure).

     

    Frogfish are tough to make pop out, but I would suggest using strobe light and focus to islolate him. Try to get lower to make the background more distant and throw it further out of focus. Get even closer and shoot his head with eye and lure and try using the stobe at different positions/angles to light him but not the sand. You don't, however want it completely black, as black fish black background won't work, just want the sand darker relative to the fish. This is easier said than done. Hope this helps. Cheers,

     

    Chris

     

    Can anybody help with why he would lose sharpness at higher fstop?
    Edited by Undertow
  11. Chris:

     

    Repeat after me: Circle of Confusion.

     

    I suggest you read The INs and OUTs of FOCUS by Harold Merklinger, which explains the science behind camera focusing, including diffraction limits with respect to the Circle of Confusion.

     

    You said you stopped down but got the same thing - if you're using program auto or aperture priority, then the camera will simply slow the shutter speed to give an equivalent ambient exposure. This would be exactly why your f/22 pic would look soft. It is NOT because of diffraction - I wouldn't listen to Dan who seems to describe diffraction as something that would destroy the sharpness. It does not and is a very subtle effect at f/22 only noticable upon very close inspection.
  12. Spen,

     

    By the way, the issue you're having with the frogfish is that the shadow details are in the toe of the curve, where, just like up in the shoulder, the tonality is compressed in order to have a lower (more "tame") contrast in the midtones. When you perform the raw conversion in ACR, you are applying a tone curve which has a default of compressing the shadows and highlights -- But is also widely adjustable in the Shadows and Highlights sliders to expand these parts of the image. Also, they can be expanded using the Shadows/Highlights controls once inside Photoshop; but it's better to start out right in ACR and then fine tune later.

  13. Thx Dan

     

    I am off to Burma on Monday for a week of diving and I will have time to try your suggestions.

     

    Cheers

    Spen

  14. Hey Dan, in looking through Spen's comments I didn't see where he specified his RAW conversions or even the fact that he used ACR. How are you able to make your diagnosis without knowing that information? I'll remind you of what you've "reminded" me of before, digital capture is a linear process; there is no "toe" and no "shoulder". Those exist potentially in an applied tone curve, but you don't know the tone curve because it wasn't described and you didn't ask.

     

    My defaults for ACR are different than most. I zero out vibrance, saturation, contrast, brightness, blacks, fill light, and recovery. I then set my tone curve to linear and save that as the default. When I convert a raw file, I first set white balance, then exposure, then recovery, then blacks. Any remaining adjustments, if any, will be related to contrast and dynamic range. The image will look initially very flat until you make some adjustments. Don't be discouraged.

     

    I prefer linear tone curves as a start because they are required when shooting test charts to get accurate results. It's not necessary for your camera to be accurate, of course, but I like having a reliable starting point and I feel calibrating to a standard produces better underwater images for me. That's entirely subjective. The downside is that images look bad until they are adjusted.

     

    As others have said, your details are in the darker parts of your image and so correct exposure is important. Beyond that, your choice of contrast settings will have a great deal of effect on the way the frogfish looks. If you are using ACR, there is no need to use curves or shadow/highlight controls as Dan suggests, since ACR allows you to specify custom tone curves directly inside it. It's always best to get as much of the basic image right in the raw converter as you can.

  15. After reading this thread...I need an aspirin.

  16. Craig and Spen, I need to "expand" a bit on the technique I mentioned for your particular photos, as this is what I use for "bride & groom" RAW images, which your excellent frogfish photos fall into, i.e. we need to extract (especially) shadow detail (the groom's tux, the fish) and the highlight detail (the bridal gown lace, the sand); so this technique applies to these particular frogfish scenes.

     

    First and foremost, you have to watch the histogram in the upper-right corner: The ultimate goal in the RAW converter is to expand the histogram curve as wide as you can without clipping; so that when you get to the Shadows/Highlights tool you have enough "meat" in the dark areas to grab on to. [Of course, this means you'll be converting to, and then manipulating in, 16 bit/color depth.]

     

    Step 1, while holding down the ALT key, click & hold the Exposure slider: The preview screen will turn black. Then, as you move the slider to the right, you'll start to see blown pixels in the color they are blown, i.e. you see which color is blocking up first. Usually, you'll see the yellows block up first; but since it's just sand (as opposed to bridal gown lace), you can tolerate a small amount of this... But, watch the histogram. This step is a bit counter-intuitive, as this is where you open up the shadows;

     

    Step 2, while holding down the ALT key, click & hold the Shadows slider: The preview screen will turn white. Generally, if I have a scene involving extracting shadow detail, I set this to zero. Again, this step (actually, the "shadows" name) is counter-intuitive, as it is here where you open up the highlights. Since we have sand, (again, as opposed to lace), we can safely leave this at zero;

     

    Step 3 is to get your color balance (not just white balance) close -- It can be fine-tuned much better in the main program. Here's a "quick & dirty" trick I use: I look at what the camera "As Shot" tagged the WB at, noting the temperature and tint; then in the pop-up I select what Photoshop thinks it should be -- The "Auto" setting, again, noting the values. Sometimes they are very close, sometimes they diverge widely. If they are close, I pick which one I like. But, if they differ widely (such as 4800, -24 and 6000, +8), I then split the difference (in this case, 5400, -8) as a starting point, then tweak it. You'll also notice that the pop-up changes from Auto (or As Shot) to Custom;

     

    Step 4 is to touch up the brightness & contrast, keeping an eye on the histogram: Note how the curve shifts shape as well as position as you move the sliders;

     

    Step 5 is a repeat of steps 1 & 2 if necessary to touch-up the histogram: Remember, the goal is to make it as wide as possible in the RAW conversion step, to give the main program as much data as possible to work with, but without going overboard -- You'll extract even more shadow detail later on in the main program;

     

    Step 6 is, if you are using PS/CS is to set the sharpening slider to zero (under the Detail tab); as you'll want to sharpen just the Luminosity channel in the main program. If you are using CS2 or later, go ahead and apply the sharpening here, as Thomas Knoll completely rewrote ACR's sharpening module to do just that. :P

     

    Now, hit OK to convert and send the 16 bit file to the main program, where you'll first save it as a .PSD file. (If you don't first save coming out of the converter, the memory doesn't get freed up -- Internal PS stuff)

     

    Next, you'll go to the Shadows/Highlights tool and start out with the settings I gave above, then fine tune accordingly, all the while keeping an eye on the Histogram in the Info palette;

     

    Finally, you'll fine tune the color and apply sharpening. Save as a 16 bit .PSD file; then convert to 8 bit and Save As... a JPEG for web, yada yada yada...

     

    Hope this helps!

    Dan

     

    [by the way, I'm still using ACR 2.4 (part of Photoshop 8, err, CS), since I use Win2k/Server on my workstation, and PS/CS3 needs Win2k3 or XP/SP2.]

     

    (Cut)

     

    My defaults for ACR are different than most. I zero out vibrance, saturation, contrast, brightness, blacks, fill light, and recovery. I then set my tone curve to linear and save that as the default. When I convert a raw file, I first set white balance, then exposure, then recovery, then blacks. Any remaining adjustments, if any, will be related to contrast and dynamic range. The image will look initially very flat until you make some adjustments. Don't be discouraged.

     

    I prefer linear tone curves as a start because they are required when shooting test charts to get accurate results. It's not necessary for your camera to be accurate, of course, but I like having a reliable starting point and I feel calibrating to a standard produces better underwater images for me. That's entirely subjective. The downside is that images look bad until they are adjusted.

     

    As others have said, your details are in the darker parts of your image and so correct exposure is important. Beyond that, your choice of contrast settings will have a great deal of effect on the way the frogfish looks. If you are using ACR, there is no need to use curves or shadow/highlight controls as Dan suggests, since ACR allows you to specify custom tone curves directly inside it. It's always best to get as much of the basic image right in the raw converter as you can.

     

     

    Gary, I'm sipping on a Green Apple Bite flavor Smirnoff Ice... :)

     

    Now, it's off to watch them wreck some more at Texas on ESPN2! :D

     

    After reading this thread...I need an aspirin.
  17. I needed several aspirin...

     

    spen, lots of advice here... I think all this photoshop advice is ok, but I think the important part is getting things right underwater.

     

    assuming your subject is within the DOF, and your not getting any natural light camera-shake blur from using a low shutter speed,

    the angle of light from your strobes, and the exposure will dictate the amount of detail you get... I'd play around with that to get the best photo you can.

     

    scott

    Edited by sgietler
  18. spen, lots of advice here... I think all this photoshop advice is ok, but I think the important part is getting things right underwater. [Emphasis added: DLS]

    (cut)

     

    Scott is dead-to-nuts here; and in fact, while running an errand, I was mentally composing a follow-up post somewhat to this effect; which is below.

     

    assuming your subject is within the DOF, and your not getting any natural light camera-shake blur from using a low shutter speed, the angle of light from your strobes, and the exposure will dictate the amount of detail you get... I'd play around with that to get the best photo you can. [Emphasis added: DLS]

     

    And, I might add, for shots of this type, exposure

     

    One of the biggest "issues" with digital photography is that, between in-camera automation and Photoshop skills, even a below-average photographer can still turn out a decent photo... And with little-to-no schooling, either.

     

    That is, until they get into an unusual situation they can't handle; or conversely getting the most out of a given image capture, either onto film or digitally.

     

    As it turns out, for shots like Spen's frogfish, Ansel Adams figured out what to do eight decades ago with The Zone System. Understanding how this "intermediate level" technique works on film will lead you to the adaptations for the digital camera/Photoshop realm.

     

    In the case of the frogfish photos, everything Spen needs to do involves luminosity... In other words, the issues he is having would be the same as if for a B&W photo (i.e. color is not an issue here).

  19. When Dan says "Shadows" slider, he means "Blacks". The ALT key is the option key on Macs. Also, if the specific problem is detail in the blacks, as it is here, it's much better to use the tone curve options in ACR. That's the second tab from the left for those who don't know it. First set the point curve to linear, make your exposure adjustments, then play with the tone curve, either through point settings or the parametric sliders, to improve the dark portions of the image. That's what it's there for. ;-) Don't just ignore what the default tone curve is set to. After all, you're likely to be trying to fix something that's just being broken by that setting.

     

    If you are using Lightroom, you have access to all these ACR controls but you do NOT have use of the Photoshop adjustment controls such as Shadows/Highlights. It behooves you to learn how to deal with these issues within your raw converter rather than depend on Photoshop when it isn't necessary. That holds true for other raw converters, not just ACR.

    Edited by craig
  20. No, I meant Shadows in ACR 2.x -- But, as I said above, I'm using PS8 (PS/CS), not PS9 or PS10.

     

    Yes, ACR 3.x (in PS9) has more gewgaws and vastly better sharpening, especially for noisy high-ISO shots; but I was already doing in the main program what Thomas Knoll implemented when he completely rewrote ACR 3.

     

    When Dan says "Shadows" slider, he means "Blacks". The ALT key is the option key on Macs. Also, if the specific problem is detail in the blacks, as it is here, it's much better to use the tone curve options in ACR. That's the second tab from the left for those who don't know it. First set the point curve to linear, make your exposure adjustments, then play with the tone curve, either through point settings or the parametric sliders, to improve the dark portions of the image. That's what it's there for. ;-) Don't just ignore what the default tone curve is set to. After all, you're likely to be trying to fix something that's just being broken by that setting.
Kraken Sports

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.