DSLRUsers.com

Here's a photo of a "Common Toadfish". I see them occasionally around the Sydney Harbour coves. I don't have a VR lens, so I had to use the "Take 120+ photos and hope one turns out sharp" technique. This one was not too bad. It's a subject that you can photograph in bright daylight, as long as it's not windy. I had to keep waiting for the wind to die down because you can't see through the ripples. And when you can, the curves of the ripples distorts the shape of the fish.

Vital statistics: focal length 300mm (handheld grrr), ISO 200, f8, 1/400 sec.

We call 'em "Blowfish" or "Blowies" down here in the Southern States. Its an interesting shot through the water, the ripples make it difficult to gauge the depth; ankle deep ? We dont usually see them this close to the beach and that is certainly a cheeky bugger.

There seems to be alot of glare off the water, a polarising filter would have reduced this and increased the contrast between the fish and sand. You'll see keen fishermen wearing polaroid sunglasses for this reason

The result looks great and its an interesting shot. I used your exact technique last week trying to shoot a sunset with a 1-2second shutter speed. Holding the hammer down in continuous shoot and trying to hold very still yielded a high number of sharp shots

I'd love to get an underwater housing for the D70 but I've got a feeling that is not likely to happen anytime soon Does anyone know if this is even an option ?

/M.

Thanks for you reply psionic.

The water would have been just a bit deeper than ankle deep. About a foot deep. I shot this without a polarising filter and removed a lot of glare with photoshop. I reduced the glare this way because I wanted the ripple reflections for effect. It wasn't supposed to be a shot of just a fish. Maybe I was trying to be too fancy. I do have a polarising filter, but didn't want to lose all of the surface reflections.

I will in the future try to photograph one of these with the filter, so it looks as you described.  BTW, I have seen a photo on the net of an underwater housing for the D70, so I know they exist. Thanks again for your critique!

Excellent photo Potatis

Just make sure you don't drop your camera OK?

Regarding underwater housing, go to Google and search for the following

Nikon D70 underwater housing

You'll get quite a few hits.

This topic was discussed this afternoon but I cannot find the link. Anyway, Gary or Birddog pointed out that you need to pay careful attention to the lens you plan to use. One size does not fit all D70 underwater housing kits.

Hope this helps

Cheers

Graham

Thanks for your comment, Graham.

The underwater housing is what psionic would like to have. There's no way I'd take my camera anywhere near the water, even in a camera housing. When I took this photo, I was lying on a bank about 10 to 12 feet above the water, photographing over the edge with my telephoto at the full 300mm. I was holding the camera VERY tight, I can tell you.

Hi Potatis,

With a polarising filter you will still get the highlights from the ripples on the water but it wont quite be so glary and the contrast of the fish & sand will increase. I'd never of guessed that the water is that deep. If you stare at the image for too long you'll swear that the fish is above the water. The turbidity of the water is very low.

I dont know that I'm brave enough to dangle the D70 over the edge of a bank. Looks like you had fun though !

/M.

Nice capture especially considering the conditions your were in to take the shot. Very glad your equipment wasn't in any danger, I really imagined the shot being taken from above, while standing in the water, so I thought you were very brave.

I'd call this guy a Toadfish or Toadie as well, while they do blow them selves up a little, they don't blow up anywhere near as much as what I'd call a blowfish (the ones that end up looking like ballons).

psionic, if you're still reading this thread, I wanted to let you know that I tried the polariser today. There were no toadfish, but I shot anyway at some rocks under the water. I see what you mean. I got the effect I was looking for with my toadfish photo, without the need for PP. Thanks for the tip, I'll remember it next time I see a toadfish.

Thanks Alpha_7 for your comments.

It's an interesting perspective as the water does not look as deep as you say it was. The theory of light passing through another transparent medium is quite fascinating, called Quantum Electrodynamics.

Also i have cought one or two of those things from deep sea, and you'd be surprised how big they get out there, more than 1 metre in length. Amazing if you've never seen one that size before.

Hi Steve, thanks for your comment. I agree the water looks very shallow. I'm wondering if it's because of the water clarity, or the post processing, but the depth looks shallow from the raw image too. Maybe it is an effect of the telephoto lens at it's full 300mm that gave the shallow effect? Or I guess it was the light effect you mentioned. The water was around a foot deep.

1 metre long? That'd be truly amazing, but I'd have to see it to believe it. Are you SURE we are talking about the same fish?

That little sucker looks like either a yellow eyed toadfish or an orange spotted toad fish. They both belong to the puffer fish family but ony grow to about 15cm. The one that KillaKoala was talking about is known as the Star (or Starry) pufferfish and usually grows to about 1 meter in length and has really big teeth. They are quite territorial and have been known to have a go at divers, specially if the divers have been feeding the fish.
Doug

Very interesting, Dougie. A quick google and I found images here:

http://www.redang.org/galleryu_05.htm

http://www.redang.org/galleryu_15.htm

And here: http://www.richard-seaman.com/Wallpaper ... etlips.jpg

Amazing stuff. I thought the one in the photo I took was called "common toadfish", but I could be wrong. It doesn't have yellow eyes, or orange spots. Check out the "common toadfish" at this link, bottom right: http://www.amonline.net.au/fishes/fishf ... iltoni.htm

Eek. I just found the large version of the photo in the link above. It makes my photo look like absolute crap! But you can clearly see the "common toadfish" has a red eye, not a yellow one: http://www.scuba-equipment-usa.com/mari ... _hamiltoni).html

I know they are poisonous if you eat them, and human deaths after consuming them, have been recorded.

Thanks for the info on that star pufferfish. I'm interested to learn more about that one. I won't be photographing it though