> How slow is too slow? Are you missing by just 1 F-stop or a whole lot more?
> Some of the cichlid guys were using the Velvia 50 (rated less) and had
> wonderful flash pictures. When doing fish photography you really need a big
> flash (or two or three) to make sure you have everything exposed properly.
> In the past I've found that the Fuji films pop a little too much for my
> tastes. I think the greens ? looked pretty good though, so a planted tank
> looks nice.
I've heard the same thing about Fuji films (I really like the Reala; but for
reprints you need to give them the original print for color matching, I've
found).
> To tell you the truth I think that the generic elite chrome 100
> ASA (EB) by Kodak, or the same sort in professional film, (I don't remember
> what the code or name is off hand, works very nicely). Both may still have
> a "warm" version for portrait photography. That doesn't work too well for
> fish photography. I wouldn't use any SLIDE film over 100 ASA though as it
> really does get grainy. When you project the slides/enlarging them you can
> really see the diff. I tried the Elite 200 about 2 years ago when they
> claimed it was almost as good as the 100. I wasn't very pleased. I don't
> know what sort of guide # flash you are using but you need to have one set
> up (in US standards) that is at least 100 guide for 100 ASA film. Some of
> these autoflashes are so small that they are reporting their flashes in
> relation to 200 ASA film. Then you would need a flash with a 200 guide #.
>
> I think it is important if you are using a macro lens, 100 mm or longer that
> you use a small F-stop of F-16 or F-22. Using larger openings using a long
> lens will end up producing an out of focus fish at one end or the other
> unless they are in a perfectly flat (boring) plane. You can cheat a little
> more with a 50 mm lens (and less magnification) to something like F-11. If
> you flash doesn't meet the requirement try shopping for a secondary flash
> that you can slave or buying a bigger primary flash.
You're right, but I really don't want to to through the hassle of setting up
multiple flashes. At the moment I use a Nikon speedflash on a cable; sometimes I
mount the flash on a tripod and hold the camera.
I have a 105 mm macro lens, but I usually don't stop it down more than f/8 or
so. I can certainly experiment with a tighter aperture.
See these links for samples of my photography and a more detailed explanation of
my equipment:
My cichlid photos: http://members.aol.com/stephenbou/cich_pix.html
My photo equipment: http://members.aol.com/stephenbou/photo.htm
> Kodakrome 64 - I'm not so sure that it last any longer than the quality E-6
> film nowdays. Pop Photography did something on that a few years ago
> (probably Herb Keppler) and I remember that the bottom line was that you
> didn't have to go to Kodakrome anymore. I think he also mentioned that the
> chemicals were also much more harmful to the enviroment.
>
> So how much did you find a cool-scan slide scanner for (ballpark) and how
> many slides/month are you scanning? There was a pretty good place in CO
> that was scanning my slides for a $ or 2 that did a good job and was pretty
> faithful to the originals. Do you have to play a lot with the scanner to
> get the colors right? I know I had looked at one several years ago and
> unless I was going to scan hundreds of slides it just wasn't going to be
> worth the expense, or effort to make sure they scanned correctly. So far
> everything that I've seen from a flat bed scanner (for slides) hasn't been
> very impressive so the slide scan type system is really the only way to go.
I've had the scanner for a few years now; it's the CoolScanII. Perusing
shopper.com, I see that the current model, the CoolScanIII, can be had for about
$675 US.
>
> Do you have anyone that can do a very good direct from slide print without
> having to go through an internegative or scan? The fellow that was doing
> that for me stopped that part of his business. When you get a great slide
> shot it's almost ruined going through an internegative, even a larger fomat
> one!
I've had great results getting prints directly from slides going through Wolf
camera. They send them out, so it takes a couple of weeks. For slide developing,
I found a local place that I really like.
So far, I've not had as much success with rainbowfish as with cichlids, perhaps
because the irridescense you see on rainbowfish is so dependent on the angle at
which the light strikes the fish, and what colors the fish is showing at any one
instant. Though there are some cichlids (like Cythathopharynx furcifer) that are
difficult to photograph too.
-- Stephen
> cheers,
>
> gary lange
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Boulet <stepheb at comm.mot.com>
> To: rainbowfish at pcug.org.au <rainbowfish at pcug.org.au>
> Date: Monday, March 06, 2000 8:02 AM
> Subject: [RML] Slide film
>
> >I'm curious about whether any rainbowfish photographers out there use slide
> >film, and what kind.
> >
> >I really like the Fuji Velvia 50 for outdoors photography, but have found
> it a
> >bit too slow for fish photography. Any other suggestions?
> >
> >I like slide film because, unlike negatives, it's always color corrected,
> and so
> >is great for scanning.
> >
> >-- Stephen