PDA

View Full Version : A Clown Fish

sophos9
15-06-09, 11:09
Went for a shallow depth of field... Comments welcome!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3385/3626657332_c791b31b41.jpg?v=0
B-Cat
15-06-09, 11:46
Did you post the pic??
sophos9
15-06-09, 11:48
Did you post the pic??

Can you see it now? Got the wrong flickr address :(
dgoulston
15-06-09, 11:51
i would prefer if the whole fish was sharp.. but im no photographer.. i have no clue. but makes me eyes go funny. nice pic though
sophos9
15-06-09, 11:58
i would prefer if the whole fish was sharp.. but im no photographer.. i have no clue. but makes me eyes go funny. nice pic though

Thanks for the comments - I was playing with a shallow prime lens, amazed really at how shallow the shot was - intended focal point was the clowns head.

Will try another shot on the whole clown next time and compare :)
Alastair
15-06-09, 13:41
Nice shot.. the eye is in focus which is the main feature and important for fish portraits. Perhaps a touch over-esposed (the orange looks a little washed out) but easily fixed in post.

Having the whole fish sharp is nice, but generally less creative (I much prefer the type of portrait shot you've taken).. and without the enormous DOF of a compact not easily achieved with a fast moving subject.
cdurkin100
15-06-09, 13:42
Stunning pic
sophos9
15-06-09, 16:20
Perhaps a touch over-esposed (the orange looks a little washed out) but easily fixed in post.


Good call, I've got the shot in RAW so will have quick play about with it. I can remember the shot being pretty blown, tank lighting is not the easiest :)

Stunning pic

Thanks mate
seasalt
24-06-09, 23:39
nice looking fishy :)
as said it is a touch over exposed but easier to fix than under, also with the focus being on the head to the left, i'd be tempted to crop it slightly that way and possibly flip it from left to right,
give it a try?:)
zimreef
24-06-09, 23:45
as said it is a touch over exposed but easier to fix than under,

That's not right :confused: - once the detail is lost by over-exposing, even with shooting RAW, it's gone. You can do a lot to bring out detail in under-exposed stuff.

John
seasalt
25-06-09, 00:19
show what i know then :0 i supose it's tit for tat really, no?, you loose detail which ever way.
seasalt
25-06-09, 00:21
http://www.ultimatereef.net/uploader/2009Q1/3626657332_c791b31b41b.jpg


My attempt, bearing in mind i have no photo knowledge :)
Andy456
25-06-09, 16:03
Quality picture mate!
sophos9
26-06-09, 11:45
nice looking fishy :)
as said it is a touch over exposed but easier to fix than under, also with the focus being on the head to the left, i'd be tempted to crop it slightly that way and possibly flip it from left to right,
give it a try?:)

Hey dude, thanks for the feedback. The problem is, a picture thats over exposed is pretty much lost forever - under exposed is the way to go!

Problem is, I looked back and I've actually deleted the RAW's, bugger - little improvements can be done to the JPG... Will have to grab some more shots!

Cheers
Callumarine
26-06-09, 14:47
http://www.ultimatereef.net/uploader/2009Q1/3626657332_c791b31b41b.jpg


My attempt, bearing in mind i have no photo knowledge :)


I like that!
J4MRU
01-07-09, 23:14
It is always difficult to snap a fish, but in the digital era we can always try again!!

Yeh its a pity the tail is a bit blurred, but like you say the head was the focal point.

Well done