DSLRUsers.com

Sigh. Just looking through my Aquarium photos from La Rochelle in France. Not all of them turned out aswell as I hoped. The LCD screen is so misleading at times. Images that I thought looked fairly sharp turning out fairly blurry. The only lense I could shoot with at the Aquarium was the 50MM 1.4. All the others weren't fast enough for the low light. Anyway I will have to go through and determine what are keepers are what aren't. Here is one that I think turned out reasonable sharp.

<img src="http://www.morganpost.com/Turtle.jpg">

<img src="http://www.morganpost.com/Walking Fish.jpg">

<img src="http://www.morganpost.com/Blue Fish 1.jpg">

<img src="http://www.morganpost.com/Blue Fish 2.jpg">

<img src="http://www.morganpost.com/Crab 1.jpg">

<img src="http://www.morganpost.com/Crab 2.jpg">

<img src="http://www.morganpost.com/Langoustine.jpg">

love aqua life images....have to bring my gear next time I go to sydney aquarium....

Nice aquatic colours, we had one of these washed up on the beach two years ago, got the wildlife rescue people out to have a look at the critter, I think he was a bit sick, eventually he got back in the water, maybe he's the one now in the aquarium? Ozi

Added some more

Kipper, I think those shots are as sharp as you could hope through photographing through 20mm glass and a column of water. Well done

Did I say that the 50MM 1.4 is one of my favorite lenses?

Glen, I agree these shots that I've put up are quite sharp. However out of 90 photos that I took, there aren't many more then these that I'd call sharp. I understand that the low light which requires a low shutter speed, and the 20MM thick perspex that they use doesn't help with image quality. I'll have to check my images to see what ISO I used. I think I either used 200 or 400. Should of probably tried something higher.

Nice shots, kipper.

Admin request, tho: resize your images for a maximum width of 800 pixels.

No problem, will do when I get home from work. Boss is here at the moment

Why 800 though, is it a KB size issue or because you have to scroll the page to view them?

kipper
i took some good shots at the perth underwater whatever its called and a few had that greenish colour through them and when i took it out i thought they looked better, your shots are good post some more
hope you didnt mind me touching up your pic

cheers rob

Kipper, 800 pixels is so everything fits on the page for normal monitors, and one doesn't have to scroll just to read a sentence

robw, like your work

A bit of both really. It stops you having to scroll sideways to see the image (and sometimes the image won't fit on a 1024x768 res screen), and also the file size being larger can make it slower for the dial up users.

kipper wrote:Why 800 though, is it a KB size issue or because you have to scroll the page to view them?

While download size isn't a major issue (remember, there are still some 56k'ers out there...), a lot of pages are still designed primarily for 800 x 600 monitors. While I won't argue that it's a bit odd for a machine to run on anything below 1024 x 768, you have to understand that even at 800 x 600, webpage width still can only hit a maximum of 720 pixels, and say if your monitor runs at a res of 1600 x 1200 and it's perfectly centered for you, it may be off the screen for others.

My suggestion is to use a max of 800 width as I doubt that anyone here is running below 1024 x 768 and 800 should allow for the clearance needed that the table spacing and form sections pages on this forum utilises.

If that made any sense.

I have a normal 21" monitor running 1600x1200. Doesn't everyone have one of these?

Nice pics kipper - I like the first one in particular

Btw, I'll change the size of the image to 800 wide tonight. Not sure it will affect the image size if I retain the same quality. All of the images are < 200K bar one. Which I think is reasonable for broadband. I have ADSL 256K at home at the moment (downgraded while I was away to reduce costs).

Robw, let me know via a private messgae the settings you used to adjust the colors to remove the blue. I like the settings you used there.

kipper wrote:Robw, let me know via a private messgae the settings you used to adjust the colors to remove the blue. I like the settings you used there.

... or you could post them so that others learn

ozimax wrote:Nice aquatic colours, we had one of these washed up on the beach two years ago, got the wildlife rescue people out to have a look at the critter, I think he was a bit sick, eventually he got back in the water, maybe he's the one now in the aquarium? Ozi

Yech, I can still taste the salt water. What a night that was. One second I'm dancing at a party in Australia, the next thing I know I'm lying on the beach with a bunch of kids poking me with sticks. Thanks for getting help... I'm fine now...in Canada...taking pictures.

i tried doing a tutorial but couldnt work out how do get a screen shot....

anyway its quite simply.... in photoshop cs go to image/adjustments/match colour then click the "equalise box" and thats it !!

cheers rob

Ok fixed size to 800w, adjusted colors to robw's instructions, fixed a broken link and added a few more images.