Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Angelfish

Angelfish[edit]

Self-nom. It's uploaded on the Commons and I'm unclear on whether this would qualify as a featured picture on the English Wikipedia and whether I need to also create an image page on the en-wp.

This is one my favorite photos that I have taken of my angelfish; those little buggers just won't stop moving around and as a consequence, the pictures usually end up blurry. This photo doesn't appear to have that problem and the subject matter is of one of the striking varieties of domestic angelfish. It appears in the article Pterophyllum. Neil916 15:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate and support. - Neil916 15:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I don't think that it would make it. There is some blurriness around the face, the dorsal and pelvic fins are cut off, and it's somewhat grainy. By the way, is your aquarium at all near a window? I think that the blurriness and grainyness are caused by dim (indoor) lighting. Even if it's not in direct sunlight you could bounce light from a near-by window using a sheet of white paper held at the correct angle, or if you want you could use a sheet of aluminum foil taped to something flat and stiff (I use a file-folder). If you don't have a near-by window, then you could try using white paper and reflecting a flashlight beam (the paper will difuse the light so it will eliminate the harse shadows normally caused by a flashlight), or an extra lamp (not the greatest solution, but every bit of light helps). --Pharaoh Hound 16:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been some time since this photo was taken, but I believe that the photo was taken at night in a completely darkened room using lighting from the aquarium only, with no flash. I used a digital camera on a tripod with a preset manual focal length (no autofocus), which means that about 98% of the photos ended up blurry or slightly blurry (but that's the nice thing about digital photography; I can fire off 100 pictures in a relatively short period of time without being concerned about wasting shots that end up blurry). The biggest problem with taking the photos of the fish is usually a light reflection off the glass, whereas this technique seems to have generated the best results. I have seen recommendations on other fish photo nominations of remotely mounting a flash pointing straight down into the water, but I just don't have that kind of equipment. Neil916 17:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that reflections are the nemises of any aquarium photographer. If you don't have a polarizing filter, than my best guess for reflections would be trying to drape the camera in non-reflective fabric except for the lens. Though this only works if the thing creating the most reflections is a shiny, silver camera (like mine). I've had good experiences with white paper reflections for light. But of course, it depends on where you can put extra lights, and where any windows are. As for preset focus, I really don't know if there's any way to fix that (other than getting a better camera). --Pharaoh Hound 23:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.The best approach for photography in a home aquarium is to use a lens with a flat-front lens shade that can be rested against the aquarium glass (no reflections), and a flash on an off-shoe cord held over the top of the water pointing down into the tank (good lighting) combining apertures in the f/8 - f/11 range (good DOF) with zone focusing techniques (limited focus error). This all depends on having the right equipment, of course... a camera that can accept a lens shade and an off-camera cord connected to a flash. A Canon G2 - G6 series point & shoot could do it if you had an EX-series flash with off-shoe cord... but obviously this would all be easier with an SLR of some type. -- moondigger 00:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should have read more carefully... you already commented on pointing a flash into the water and equipment concerns. Sorry! -- moondigger 00:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder: