My camera is a canon 700d and for the vast majority of trophy shots I shoot in ‘auto mode' . Most of these shots in recent times have been at night and I've been perfectly happy with the results . I've limited knowledge but have had a play about and wondered what mode you guys used to get those great shots that I like with the fish darkened up slightly , thanks .
In reply to Post #1
i've shot in manual mode for donkeys. .greater flexibility on setting up the camera for your catch shots.
best way to learn is just to play about changing settings and seeing what they do. practise with something static that you can take photos of over and over again.
i've shot in manual mode for donkeys. .greater flexibility on setting up the camera for your catch shots.
best way to learn is just to play about changing settings and seeing what they do. practise with something static that you can take photos of over and over again.
In reply to Post #1
I'm no expert but I've always shot in Aperture priority I believe it is. A - setting on the dial of a Nikon.
ISO: 100 for bright days, upto 600 for night shots. Anywhere in between for dull days etc.
Aperture: F2 to F3.2ish to get a blurred background and a nicely focused fish.
Shutter speed: 250 but if bright bump up, if dark then can reduce.
I manually focus the fixed lense using a bucket before hand taking a couple stills to confirm above settings.
I get good pictures, but I have seen better, using lightroom on my iPhone I can get them looking bang on using the auto adjustment.
I use a memory card reader with iPhone connector (£9 off Amazon) and edit photos at my leisure under the brolly whilst on the bank on my IPhone. Don't even need a computer these days.
I'm no expert but I've always shot in Aperture priority I believe it is. A - setting on the dial of a Nikon.
ISO: 100 for bright days, upto 600 for night shots. Anywhere in between for dull days etc.
Aperture: F2 to F3.2ish to get a blurred background and a nicely focused fish.
Shutter speed: 250 but if bright bump up, if dark then can reduce.
I manually focus the fixed lense using a bucket before hand taking a couple stills to confirm above settings.
I get good pictures, but I have seen better, using lightroom on my iPhone I can get them looking bang on using the auto adjustment.
I use a memory card reader with iPhone connector (£9 off Amazon) and edit photos at my leisure under the brolly whilst on the bank on my IPhone. Don't even need a computer these days.
I'm not a Nikon user (Fuji) but if you're setting iso, aperture and shutter speed yourself, youre in manual.
In aperture priority you'd be letting the camera figure out the other 2 (or at least one of them)
In aperture priority you'd be letting the camera figure out the other 2 (or at least one of them)
In reply to Post #4
Thanks for the replies . I'll have a play about and take it from there 👍
Thanks for the replies . I'll have a play about and take it from there 👍
I haven't had to use my camera at night for ages, but I remember setting it up at Aperture f11 or f16 – for depth of field. 1/160s shutter speed for flash. Any faster and shutter actually went faster than flash.
I also try to avoid 'open' background.
I also try to avoid 'open' background.
In reply to Post #1
The darkened fish look is in the lighting and editing.
There are so many variables my best advice would be to practice in the garden and see what the settings do. Tap 'the exposure triangle' into Google for idiots guides to what the three settings control.
For night shots With your camera and a lens at 50mm I'd start at f4 or f5.6 depending on distance and shutter speed at 1/60. Iso would depend on your quality threshold and how much of the background is lit by the flash.
Play with the iso setting and notice how the quality gets worse the higher you go, then work out the highest setting you find acceptable. This would be my iso setting if the background is open. If I had a dense, fairly flat background I'd be at the lowest iso the lighting can keep up with, shutter at the highest setting available with flash (usually 1/160 1/250 or 1/320)
The darkened fish look is in the lighting and editing.
There are so many variables my best advice would be to practice in the garden and see what the settings do. Tap 'the exposure triangle' into Google for idiots guides to what the three settings control.
For night shots With your camera and a lens at 50mm I'd start at f4 or f5.6 depending on distance and shutter speed at 1/60. Iso would depend on your quality threshold and how much of the background is lit by the flash.
Play with the iso setting and notice how the quality gets worse the higher you go, then work out the highest setting you find acceptable. This would be my iso setting if the background is open. If I had a dense, fairly flat background I'd be at the lowest iso the lighting can keep up with, shutter at the highest setting available with flash (usually 1/160 1/250 or 1/320)
In reply to Post #7
Thanks for the replies . Hadn't really thought about editing ! Can anyone recommend a decent editing app that would be suitable , thanks .
Thanks for the replies . Hadn't really thought about editing ! Can anyone recommend a decent editing app that would be suitable , thanks .
In reply to Post #8
Lightroom mate, it's the bees knees
Lightroom mate, it's the bees knees
In reply to Post #8
you might as well spend the time learning the ins and outs of your camera to get the best from it for your catch pics. you can also play with white balance settings to warm up or cool down the photos, this can also have a mild effect not he colouration of fish.
not to sound old and miserable, but why anyone would need to edit catch shots is beyond me. it's all doable in camera IMO.
you might as well spend the time learning the ins and outs of your camera to get the best from it for your catch pics. you can also play with white balance settings to warm up or cool down the photos, this can also have a mild effect not he colouration of fish.
not to sound old and miserable, but why anyone would need to edit catch shots is beyond me. it's all doable in camera IMO.
In reply to Post #10
Been snooping around this thread. Totally agree with your last point, I've not edited a single picture other than exposure/brightness for years. The flexibility with the shutter speed, ISO and exposure available with most cameras these days makes it so much easier.
Been snooping around this thread. Totally agree with your last point, I've not edited a single picture other than exposure/brightness for years. The flexibility with the shutter speed, ISO and exposure available with most cameras these days makes it so much easier.
In reply to Post #11
Lightroom is very good, I'm not talking about completely editing it within an inch of its life but its good for tidying the picture up
Lightroom is very good, I'm not talking about completely editing it within an inch of its life but its good for tidying the picture up
Lightroom is OK, but £120 a year dampens the appeal. Plenty of free offerings available.
In reply to Post #12
I find most proper cameras give a pretty 'flat' image
30 secs in lightroom makes a big difference imo
I find most proper cameras give a pretty 'flat' image
30 secs in lightroom makes a big difference imo
In reply to Post #14
If shooting Raw, absolutely, some sort of editing is beneficial. I do wildlife and landscape stuff too, but don't want to partake in Adobe's subscription format. I use Affinity and it does all I need.
If shooting Raw, absolutely, some sort of editing is beneficial. I do wildlife and landscape stuff too, but don't want to partake in Adobe's subscription format. I use Affinity and it does all I need.