Just dived in

[mrhasan]

Originally Posted by sphelps

Not to purposely contradict but I'd say that's pretty much the worst advice anyone could give you. Shooting in RAW basically tells your camera "don't worry about it I got this" thus bypassing the processing ability your camera came with. In addition raw files are larger and much harder to work with on a computer since you need special software to even open and view the file. Then you end tuning everything to what your see on your computer monitor which may be very different compared other video sources or printers. So unless you really think you can process images better than the fancy camera you just bought I'd advise against the hassle that comes with RAW format.

I'd say better advice would be to stick with the basics relating to actual photography as appose to relying mostly on manual post processing. Shoot in jpeg and take lots of pictures. Choose an appropriate lens for the subject, the body is only as good as the lens you use. Try stationary subjects first like corals. Stick with auto focus until you get use to the other settings. Aperture priority mode is my preference and what I would suggest you try first. If you can keep the subject still (ie no tank flow) then choose a lower iso setting for better clarity. Try large aperture (small f number) for faster shoots and less depth of field, then try small aperture (large f number) for slower shutter speeds but higher DOF. The DOF because more important in macro shots. Adjust WB as needed, with LED lighting tune your lights more white to make this easier. Once you start getting clear shots with good color you can look at post processing but still no need for raw files. If you have the software most allow you to open jpeg files as raw format to get the same level of adjustment but there's really not much more in there you need.

+1. I was also going to suggest AP mode for beginning the experiments. RAW is more...well...."RAW" so basically its better to experiment before going raw. Sometimes, its painful to edit raw pictures (takes a long time when you take too many images) and needs software (I guess a basic software for editing raws come with the camera but for proper utilization, PS is needed). And autofocus is always the best friend

[sphelps]

If you're looking for lens suggestions for aquariums I'd recommend you get yourself two prime lenses as appose to anything with zoom. Prime lenses are cheaper and take better pictures in terms of clarity and while you can't zoom that feature really isn't needed for aquariums.

A 50mm prime is a pretty common lens, no need for a macro version or the most expensive version which will only vary slightly in the aperture range. It's rare to use some thing like a 1.4 f number for aquarium shots and you'll have to get impossibly close to the subject to take advantage of the macro ability.

Next would be the macro (100mm for Canon I believe), this is probably what I would consider the best lens for aquariums. I prefer a larger lens like say 150mm, (Sigma makes a nice 150mm macro) simply because the larger the lens the further the min focus distance. You can also move the lens back but you can't move the lens through glass.

[Aqua-Digital]

Thanks guys for the help Its seems I need to get a basic grasp of the camera and then can play more. So far what I have taken is not too bad, the camera is very good at doing the dirty work for you it seems, manual mode is easy to tune will post some photos shortly, not all corals my wife makes a good subject also (ex model)

[Aqua-Digital]

first attempt at photography, clearly got a lot to learn but not bad start for me at least. got two good subjects, the wife and my corals.







Rare and expensive coral! other than being proud of course the reason I add this one is because its the first photo I have taken of Liz with the camera, but still looks like the exposure is wrong, background too light the walls are Mocha, I guess its the flash.

[H2o2]

For sure you must have the actinic lighting right because that last photo sure has a lot of pop :-)

[Aqua-Digital]

Originally Posted by H2o2

For sure you must have the actinic lighting right because that last photo sure has a lot of pop :-)

Takes a lot of care to grow them like that!

[sphelps]

You need an external flash that you bounce off the ceiling to avoid those kinds of shadows. The coral pics look pretty good, WB could use some work and they're a bit soft but without telling us what settings and lens not much else to say.

[Aqua-Digital]

Lens is 18mm-55mm

settings for corals, WB i had on auto

[Patwa]

Originally Posted by MarkoD

Shoot in raw so you can adjust as much as possible in post processing.

That's probably the best tip anyone can give you

I agree.

People who disagree really have a weak understanding of what RAW really is and affords the user; see below

Originally Posted by sphelps

Not to purposely contradict but I'd say that's pretty much the worst advice anyone could give you. Shooting in RAW basically tells your camera "don't worry about it I got this" thus bypassing the processing ability your camera came with. In addition raw files are larger and much harder to work with on a computer since you need special software to even open and view the file. Then you end tuning everything to what your see on your computer monitor which may be very different compared other video sources or printers. So unless you really think you can process images better than the fancy camera you just bought I'd advise against the hassle that comes with RAW format.

I'd say better advice would be to stick with the basics relating to actual photography as appose to relying mostly on manual post processing. Shoot in jpeg and take lots of pictures. Choose an appropriate lens for the subject, the body is only as good as the lens you use. Try stationary subjects first like corals. Stick with auto focus until you get use to the other settings. Aperture priority mode is my preference and what I would suggest you try first. If you can keep the subject still (ie no tank flow) then choose a lower iso setting for better clarity. Try large aperture (small f number) for faster shoots and less depth of field, then try small aperture (large f number) for slower shutter speeds but higher DOF. The DOF because more important in macro shots. Adjust WB as needed, with LED lighting tune your lights more white to make this easier. Once you start getting clear shots with good color you can look at post processing but still no need for raw files. If you have the software most allow you to open jpeg files as raw format to get the same level of adjustment but there's really not much more in there you need.

While your overall advice is good, and that's because it's aimed and composed primarily for the "noobie" photographers in this forum, you're exclusion of the entire RAW format is fundamentally flawed.

You do know your stuff when it comes to photography, i'd be the first to admit that, as i've been lurking on this forum for a short while (was a user on Canreef many years ago, though). But you completely lack the understanding and thus, the benefits of using RAW.

Mind you, when I started shooting with DSLRs, I stuck with JPEGS for a few years. But when I read up on and started employing RAW, my photography game got exponentially better. I don't think you're there yet...maybe?

Originally Posted by sphelps

Shooting in RAW basically tells your camera "don't worry about it I got this" thus bypassing the processing ability your camera came with.

no it doesn't! you're giving misinformation. RAWs collects all the information from the sensor, that's it. And for the record, nothing compares to the processing ability of the human brain (ie. when working with RAW files, post-process, i mean) and the processing ability of a computer when dealing with RAW is SO MUCH more multiplied than the processing available to you on even the most expensive Nikon or Canon SLR on the market.

Originally Posted by sphelps

In addition raw files are larger and much harder to work with on a computer since you need special software to even open and view the file. Then you end tuning everything to what your see on your computer monitor which may be very different compared other video sources or printers.

they're larger b/c they have ALL the light information the sensor received when the shutter button was pressed.....why is it harder to work with? coz they're larger? lol

and no, you don't need special software to read RAW files....if you're on Win7 or 8, it's very easy. Also, Nikon and Canon come with software to view RAW

working with RAW is more involved, of course! BUT if you value higher-quality images, you need to go the RAW route at some point. And yes, you need special software. But it's no harder than Googling "Adobe Lightroom" and buying and installing the software haha

Originally Posted by sphelps

So unless you really think you can process images better than the fancy camera you just bought I'd advise against the hassle that comes with RAW format.

Anyone with a brain can process a RAW file better (on a post-process level ie. using Adobe Lightroom in your office while sipping some coffee) than ANY SLR out there right now.

Originally Posted by sphelps

I'd say better advice would be to stick with the basics relating to actual photography as appose to relying mostly on manual post processing. Shoot in jpeg and take lots of pictures. Choose an appropriate lens for the subject, the body is only as good as the lens you use. Try stationary subjects first like corals. Stick with auto focus until you get use to the other settings. Aperture priority mode is my preference and what I would suggest you try first. If you can keep the subject still (ie no tank flow) then choose a lower iso setting for better clarity. Try large aperture (small f number) for faster shoots and less depth of field, then try small aperture (large f number) for slower shutter speeds but higher DOF. The DOF because more important in macro shots. Adjust WB as needed, with LED lighting tune your lights more white to make this easier. Once you start getting clear shots with good color you can look at post processing but still no need for raw files. If you have the software most allow you to open jpeg files as raw format to get the same level of adjustment but there's really not much more in there you need.

the only part of your post I completely agree with, wholeheartedly

z

[sphelps]

Gotta love that need people have to bump up old threads to only attempt to discredit someone on silly technicalities while offering zero new advice or any for that matter in regards to the subject. I like the phrase "in layman's terms", it's something I've become quite good at over the years in my profession and while perhaps a lot of what is said isn't necessarily 100% accurate it gets the point across without sounding like a complete tool or making someones else's eyes cross.

RAR files require post processing, sorry but they do. A RAR file contains only what the sensor recorded, nothing less and nothing more. Windows can only allow you to preview the file provided your camera format is supported and you have the plugin installed. You can't edit them with Windows alone nor can you convert them to jpeg so specific software is absolutely needed. Software may come free with your camera but ultimately you get what you pay for. RAW files are harder to deal with, not because they are larger but because you can't print them, post them, send them or share them with others, it's just bits and bites until you process it into jpeg. So unlike jpeg you're forced to manually process every image to take, that's harder than not having to do anything... During manual processing of RAW files you'll end up tuning the image to your monitor, you can be the most intelligent person in the world but if your monitor isn't calibrated properly your images will suffer.

So if you really feel the best advice for new photographers is to shoot in RAW so be it. It only enforces the act of relying purely on post processing rather than real photography, an art near extinction for that very same attitude. RAW has it's purpose, no doubt but there's a learning curve involved and I don't agree it's a good idea for beginners.