# General > Member's Lounge > Photography >  The Last Of The Parotocinclus sp.

## benetay

I guess i've really got to brush up my skills...seems very sloppy.

----------


## hwchoy

well, if you intended it as documentation, then crop it down to maximise visibility. If you intended it for photographic presentation, I'd say it is too near the bottom of the frame, probably should get it onto a piece of driftwood or something.

In both cases, did you do anyt adjustments for levels, etc? maybe not enough contrast too.  :Confused: 

Nevertheless a very nice fish. Can shoot a full side profile and give me the pic? Is this taken on a DSLR, because if so please don't shoot it full across the horizontal frame because then it would not be possible to crop down to 4/3 aspect ratio.

----------


## benetay

It's shot on my G3. It's been a long time i've touch my Cam. well i'll try harder.

----------


## hwchoy

bene, did you say you have 2 × +4 close-up? I now have +4 and +1 (hoya) and might want to add another +4. Have you tried +4+4 whether there is any degradation?

----------


## benetay

I'm only using 1 x (+4) and 1 x (+1)

Basically the +1 isn't of any use. Might be better if it's +2 or +4

----------


## hwchoy

my current set with +4+1 is OK, but I just wonder if +4+4 what would be the focusing distance, wouldn't I have to be right on top of the fish!

----------


## benetay

It should give u better distance to shoot macro.

----------


## benny

Guys,

Do bear in mind the degrading image quality as you keep stacking 'em filters up.

Cheers,

----------


## hwchoy

[quote:8c2b0eeb42="benny"]Guys,

Do bear in mind the degrading image quality as you keep stacking 'em filters up.

Cheers,[/quote:8c2b0eeb42]

that's why I'm trying to ask bene here. Actually with the G5, only the centre portion of the filter is used, usually degradation comes from the edge right, which means it shouldn't be so bad. the G5 lens is miniscule compared to the 58mm filter.

----------


## RonWill

Hi Choy,

Can you elaborate on the 4/3 ratio and why it wouldn't be possible if done across the horizontal frame. I was thinking but still couldn't figure out what you meant (sorry, it's one of those 'slow' days).

Keep 'em fingers wet,
Ronnie Lee

----------


## hwchoy

[quote:dd01d818 :drool 2: ="RonWill"]Hi Choy,

Can you elaborate on the 4/3 ratio and why it wouldn't be possible if done across the horizontal frame. I was thinking but still couldn't figure out what you meant (sorry, it's one of those 'slow' days).

Keep 'em fingers wet,
Ronnie Lee[/quote:dd01d818 :drool 2: ]

Ronnie,

4/3 aspect ratio refers to the traditional screen resolution available on computer screens, e.g. 640×480, 800×600, 1024×768, 1400×1050, 1600×1200. There is a common resolution available (especially many of the 17-inch LCD) which is 1280×1024. If you display an image with fit-to-screen option, you will find that on 1280×1024, the image is "out of shape" because the correct resolution should be 1280×960 for an image formatted for 4/3.

Now 4/3 also happens to be the aspect ratio in used by most point-&amp;-shoot digicams (e.g. on the G5 I get 2272×1704), which means if you display an image from digicam onto a computer screen (let's say 1024×76 :Cool:  it will fit perfectly, with the correct shape.

Unfortunately DSLR uses 3/2 ratio. So those images will have 3000×2000 (don't know what is the exact value as I don't have a DSLR  :Crying:  ). Now if you want to fit such an image onto a computer screen, it wouldn't! You either have to fill-in some space with a background colour, or it will be out of shape. This is exactly what happens if you want a wide-screen DVD on your old "normal"-screen TV.

What I am asking bene is to shoot the subject such that there are horizontal "blank" spaces, which I can crop away to reproduce a 4/3 ratio. If the fish extends across the frame fully, I will not be able to crop, and have no choice but to fill the top and bottom space in order to produce the required 4/3 ratio.

----------


## benny

That's why sometimes I prefer to shoot with black background. Solves all the problems.



Cheers,

----------


## hwchoy

Benny, the problem is not the background, it's the horizontal size of the subject (btw, what are the images sizes available on the D60 and 300D?)

Here you notice your image size is 600×400 (3/2 ratio) so you can't make it into computer wallpaper, for example. We'd need to crop it to 533×400 (4/3 ratio) which I can do so in this case by cropping off the sides, thus: (btw nice fish, what is it?)



now if the fish were to occupy more of the horizontal frame like this:

 

then we will have almost no room left to do a proper crop:

----------


## hwchoy

[quote:91d316f4c8="benny"]That's why sometimes I prefer to shoot with black background. Solves all the problems.

Cheers,[/quote:91d316f4c8]

I see, you mean with a black background I can extend the vertical using black "filler"?

----------


## benny

[quote:f94a172aea="hwchoy"][quote:f94a172aea="benny"]That's why sometimes I prefer to shoot with black background. Solves all the problems.

Cheers,[/quote:f94a172aea]

I see, you mean with a black background I can extend the vertical using black "filler"?[/quote:f94a172aea]

Bingo!

But this only works with plain color blackground, be it black or white or pink.

Frankly, I don't care about the 4/3 presentation. I pefer the 3/2 format as that has always been the tradition 35 mm format. Most compact digital cameras images are for PC usage and thus formated for the screen into 4/3 prior for convenience.

Cheers,

----------


## Simon

[quote:85dcd8494f="benny"][quote:85dcd8494f="hwchoy"][quote:85dcd8494f="benny"]That's why sometimes I prefer to shoot with black background. Solves all the problems.

Cheers,[/quote:85dcd8494f]

I see, you mean with a black background I can extend the vertical using black "filler"?[/quote:85dcd8494f]

Bingo!

But this only works with plain color blackground, be it black or white or pink.

Frankly, I don't care about the 4/3 presentation. I pefer the 3/2 format as that has always been the tradition 35 mm format. Most compact digital cameras images are for PC usage and thus formated for the screen into 4/3 prior for convenience.

Cheers,[/quote:85dcd8494f]

yup... I too prefer the 3:2 ratio... for developing purposes

----------


## hwchoy

ah but the Oly E-1 is 4/3  :Laughing:

----------


## hwchoy

ha, in fact the most pleasing rectangular shape should be a Golden Rectangle with a ratio of 1.618034 (from the Fibonacci numbers) and so for my G5 (5 Mpx) they should have 2851×1762 frame size  :Smug: 

whereas the 3/2 format has 1.500 ratio
and the 4/3 format has 1.333 ratio.

----------


## fishie.com

gd explanation choy!  :Smile:  

tat fish benny took is nice man! what's that fish huh? 
it got the blueish fins like my friend's fish below (i think it's frontosa).

----------


## hwchoy

and as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words

----------


## RonWill

[quote:ef540c1a43="hwchoy"]and as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words[/quote:ef540c1a43]
Choy, thanks for the explanation and subsequent pics. Point understood.

Keep 'em fingers wet,
Ronnie Lee

----------

