Jump to content

New fish photo ideas?


Bterrill
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am looking for some ideas on how to take different photos of fish for my reports. Keep in mind I usually hit the timer and set the camera on a rock or log. Be as creative or silly as you know how, it's all in good fun. Has to be something I can do quick for the health of the fish.

 

Here are a couple of typical examples:

 

IMGP1081.jpg

 

IMGP1038.jpg

 

 

Thanks, Brenden

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoy taking photos of the fish with a rod, tackle pack, your waders under foot , driftwood or such on a grass bank or stone edge. It makes a nice photo for a wall photo.

 

Try using the flash. It can blackout the background and highlight only the targeted elements of the photo.

 

Play/practice with the camera and the natural light to see the effects.

 

You would be amazed the amount of light a white cloth, metallic fly box or foil wrapper will do for light when positioned just out of the picture.

 

I had all sorts of different lenses and little folding board I used with my 35mm. Since the digital many leave the shots to digital enhancements instead of shooting the best picture.

 

 

Fuel for thought!

 

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoy taking photos of the fish with a rod, tackle pack, your waders under foot , driftwood or such on a grass bank or stone edge. It makes a nice photo for a wall photo.

Rick

 

Rick, do you mean laying the fish on the driftwood, grass or stone? It might change the composition of the photo, but it isn't doing the bass any good. The ground will remove the protective slime coat and leave the fish vulnerable to infection. It may be easier to get a shot that way when you are alone, but it should be avoided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always thought your shots were pretty good, especially considering the self-timer thing.

 

My only suggestion would be to Photoshop your ugly mug out and replace it with Jessica Simpson. Actually, I'd appreciate it if you could go with the whole body instead of just the face. Thanks in advance....Jude ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know a free, photo editing dealio that really rocks? I use an older program that came with a 1998 camera.

 

Eric's photo's are very good. I am thinking he probably has an SLR camera? Or is it in the editing?

 

In any case some editing tips would be cool. I know how to crop, lighten, blur out stuff, replace me with Jessica Simpson, etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can get some very good Photo Editing Software at a reasonable price. Paint Shop Pro is pretty good or Photoshop Elements and I think they are about $100.00. Eric uses Photoshop for his photo's and it is the full blown version too. For what you are doing your photo's are fine. You can also go to www.photobucket.com to host your photo's and they have editing software with that. It is a good hosting site. Check them out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even after you've put Jessica Simpson in Brenden's place, you're still going to need a good composition.

 

One element of design that's usually helpful to remember is to avoid "dead space" in a photo. In general, its' best to fill the frame with the thing you are photgraphing. That allows you to bring out more detail in your subject.

 

You might include a point of interest along with the fish, like a nice riffle or someone fishing in the background, but you have to decide what the composition is really about and then do your best to capture that thing well. Lots of sprawling space around the edges of a composition with nothing special in it doesn't generally add to the photo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know a free, photo editing dealio that really rocks? I use an older program that came with a 1998 camera.

 

Eric's photo's are very good. I am thinking he probably has an SLR camera? Or is it in the editing?

 

In any case some editing tips would be cool. I know how to crop, lighten, blur out stuff, replace me with Jessica Simpson, etc...

 

I think Eric has stated that he uses a moderately priced point and shoot. Photography is an art and Eric is an artist. The tools can improve the quality, but not the content. He has a knack of framing and composing interesting shots. I'd like to see what he could do to improve the portraits I take of Don and his catches. I've yet to find his better side.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get a camera with a flip out screen. Practice, practice, practice before you go out. Know the settings and have them ready before you start fishing. Use the highest resolution. Don't use anything less than a 4Meg. Always use a flash. Get a 2 GB card. Try some videos. Buy a Mac and get photoshop or use the newest version of Iphoto (has the basic tools of photoshop). Know how to hold the fish. Don't hold the fish out. Kneel down and get small (unless the fish is a longer species). Save the original file. Use photobucket. .... ugh..man, there's alot of rules to this gig. I'm gonna quit taking pictures. :rolleyes: Yeah...right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't use anything less than a 4Meg.

 

An increase in megapixels doesn't neccessarily equate to better picture quality, the lens does. There are cameras that shoot less than 4MP but produce a better picture than others with higher MP capabilities. A higher quality lens will produce the best results. That being said, the costs for better quality cameras has dropped as technology advances faster than we can shop. A good quality camera is pretty affordable these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was talking about the kind of camera that someone is going to carry around in their waders. We have SLR's as well as Canon A-95's, but we leave the SLR's at home when we're out on the water unless we're in a boat.

A higher megapixel rating doesn't always mean a better picture, true. But in my line of work it's the easiest guideline to give to someone unless they're shooting a full page spread for a magazine (again..that's where the SLR's and specialty lenses come into play). Technology has come so far that a higher meg Canon Powershot series shoots as well or better than the highest end $1,000 cameras of a meer 5 years ago. Some of the stuff we see and shoot on a $200 camera lately is just mind blowing.

Ofcourse, I'm speaking about all this from a professional side. I gotta deal with the 4 megapixel shots taken on a riverbank as well as shots where companies dump in a million dollars to take a single picture of a bacon double cheeseburger. I was going more for the average fisherman angle here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was talking about the kind of camera that someone is going to carry around in their waders. We have SLR's as well as Canon A-95's, but we leave the SLR's at home when we're out on the water unless we're in a boat.

A higher megapixel rating doesn't always mean a better picture, true. But in my line of work it's the easiest guideline to give to someone unless they're shooting a full page spread for a magazine (again..that's where the SLR's and specialty lenses come into play). Technology has come so far that a higher meg Canon Powershot series shoots as well or better than the highest end $1,000 cameras of a meer 5 years ago. Some of the stuff we see and shoot on a $200 camera lately is just mind blowing.

Ofcourse, I'm speaking about all this from a professional side. I gotta deal with the 4 megapixel shots taken on a riverbank as well as shots where companies dump in a million dollars to take a single picture of a bacon double cheeseburger. I was going more for the average fisherman angle here.

 

Yea, you're right Jamie. I guess I was splitting hairs a little bit. You sound like you have a lot more experience than I do in regards to digital photography. There are cameras out there that advertise high megapixel capabilities, but have crap lenses, are cheaply built and take crappy pictures. To the average guy, the camera will look like a good bargain from the megapixel standpoint. The expectation is that the pictures will be that much better, and they're not. I guess a good guideline would be to purchase from a proven camera mfg (like the Canons, Nikons, etc.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott,

Sometime whem angling alone a peice of a log, stone or the grass of a bank is the only prop a solo angler/shutterbug has to get the shot. I'd prefer it over photos of coolers, some anglers thrive on taking.

 

Moistening the background may aid the fish and add another element to the photo.

 

I have Photoshop but still try to shoot the best natural picture. Practices from the days of 35mm and Medium Format

 

Photo Elements is a good tool for most users.

 

As for cameras

There are several digitals that are water resistant to 3-6 meters. They have a 3X optical and plenty of features for most shutterbugs.

 

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...