Fish photography

[dawsonjm]

<p>I attempted to photograph spawning kokanee at Wallowa Lake last week, but the results were not nearly what I wished for. I was using my K20D with an old Tamron 80-210 Adaptall, model 103A. I was using a circular polarizer, and bumped the ISO up to 1250, but the fastest shutter speed was 1/30 of a second. </p>

<p>I know that part of my problem stemmed from trying to keep the polarizer aligned properly when it turned every time that I tried to focus, but it doesn't seem as if I was able to "see" into the water very well at any time.</p>

<p>Suggestions would really be appreciated.</p><div></div>

[dawsonjm]

<p>ISO up to 1250</p><div></div>

[dawsonjm]

<p>One more!</p>

<p>By the way, is there any way to attach more than one image at a time? One at a time seems tedious, and other answers can sneak in between.</p><div></div>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>For salmon, I'd suggest you use a Sage <a name="790-4 Xi3">790-4 Xi3 </a> flyrod ;~)</p>

<p>Interesting and difficult subject John! Seems to me the distortion caused by moving water is the biggest challenge. Most of the successful fish photos I've seen are in calm water.</p>

 

[stemked]

<p>John, I think you have a couple of problems here. First, fast running water simply isn't going to give you a clean image period. Air and water have different refractive indexes (think of a spoon in a glass of water, the handle seems bent at the interface). If the water is perfectly smooth it isn't a major problem (just one interface) but if the water is moving rapidly there are multiple bend interfaces and so even though water is transparent you can't see clearly through it.<br>

Also a polarizer is not going to be effective if the reflection from the water is in parallel with your lens; polarizers remove polarized light only. With running water you have surface reflection that is going to bounce straight back into your camera.<br>

Hopefully someone with a better grasp of the physics of optics will give you a better answer.</p>

[shaloot]

<p>I thought a polarizer was suppose to cut reflections off the water... but I guess it depends on the viewer's angle in relation to the light? Similar to the angle b/w the sun and sky when using circular polarizer?</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>Maybe a fish-eye lens is the solution :-) (sorry, couldn't resist). But seriously, perhaps an underwater camera would do the job, although I realise that the water is not very deep. Is it possible to choose a position straight above the fish, then you might have fewer reflections. All in all a challenging photo assignment.</p>

[jtk]

<p> Sharpen the bejesus out of them, then sharpen some more, then print huge. Gorgeous. Forget the shopping/tech oriented comments. You've got some fine files to work on.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>I don't know what focal length these were actually shot at but they look soft, probably from camera shake and the moving water as well. Probably better to raise ISO further if necessary to freeze the motion. Also, look like images may be a bit overexposed a bit as well which would further rob you of shutter speed but of course the reflection highlights will probably need to clip to white.</p>

<p>As for attaching more than one picture at at time: No, not if you're attaching the image directly to this post and having photo.net host the image. If the image is uploaded to another site (even photo.net in your user gallery) then you could embed multiple images into your post (via Insert Image in the built-in HTML editor).</p>

[trw]

<p><img src="http://trentwhaley.smugmug.com/photos/353779175_amwpm-M.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Kokanee spawning at Kokanee Creek, 2007 <br />Trent Whaley. K10D, SMC FA 50/1.4. F2.0, 1/90s, 400iso, circular polarizer<br>

It works for me. Try a different angle. The places kokanee spawn tend to be <a href="http://trentwhaley.smugmug.com/Pets/Wild-Feral-or-Semi-Tame/5729996_xN5Jz#353774139_Aukti">shallow</a>.</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>John<br>

Red fish shots are usually pretty cool, and John Kelly's comments got me curious, so I did a screen grab of your second one, imported it into Lightroom, and started playing.</p>

<p>Cropped out the blown areas and decided to focus on the colorful part: the fish and the orange rock. A few masks to reduce glare and increase saturation; highly negative clarity combined with bejesus-approved sharpening. Noise reduction as this is just a screen grab, and here you go as an idea stimulas.</p>

<p><strong>John's Kokanee</strong></p>

<p><img src="http://www.smugmug.com/photos/671749920_RE4AV-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>ME</p>

 

[les_lammers]

<p>Fish-R-Beautiful.</p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>I am in total freakin' awe, Michael. Bravo!</p>

[shaloot]

<p>really? nothing splashes me in face, but I guess it's different strokes for different folks...</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Angles. It's about angles when you are dealing with water. This is because water is transparent, but it is also highly reflective.</p>

<p>Look at the OP photos, and then look at Trent Whaley's photo. Think about the angle from the camera to subject, relative to the surface of the water. The first ones had a shallower angle. Trent's photo is from higher, looking down at a steeper angle. It's the steeper angle that helped him out some. </p>

<p>Want to improve the fish photos from above the surface of the water? Watch out for those angles.<br>

To help you out further, stake out a spot where the water's surface is likely to be as even and smooth as possible. Usually this means slow-moving water, but it doesn't have to. There can be a fast-moving river; how smoothly does the water itself glide along? The smoother the surface is, the fewer bumps and waves and ripples; every one of those bumps and waves and ripples form another three dimensional surface which will have its own pattern of reflecting light from above. </p>

<p>Watch the angles when reflections are a problem. Water is a moving mirror, even when it appears clear.</p>

[trw]

<p>Also fortunately, their spawning grounds tend to be under the forest canopy, which reduces the glare.</p>

[dawsonjm]

<p>I really appreciate all these responses. It looks to me as if getting less of an angle would probably be of the greatest help. This was an overcast day (even spitting a little snow), but there was enough light to cause problems. It being overcast, though, reduced the light a lot. I had the Tamron opened up as far as it would go, F1:3.8, and most of the shots were at 150-200 mm. </p>

<p>The slow shutter speed did produce some really abstract colorful shots, which will be fun to play around with a little more.</p>

<p>Again, thanks to everyone.</p>