# Hyphessobrycon colombianus and Hyphessobrycon rosaceus



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

Man these guys are hard to get a good photo of! _H. rosaceus_ are very cool though, they make nice big schools that swarm around together with lots of action.

This is a female:
_Please click to see image correctly._









Here is the _H. colombianus_, which fit in really well with the rosaceus and don't push them around much. Awesome colours on these guys and a nice hardy attitude:
_Please click to see image correctly._









Canon EOS 20D
18-55mm EFs 
Rollei flash OH
Onboard @ -2 with tissue over bulb
1/160
f16
ISO100

:thumb: 
Blair.


----------



## KoenEeckhoudt (Oct 28, 2007)

absolutely stunning pictures.


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

Thanks, Koen!


----------



## PaulineMi (Apr 3, 2008)

Very nice~


----------



## MidNightCowBoy (May 7, 2007)

A school of those rosaceus must be quite a sight!

Very nice! :thumb:


----------



## herny (Nov 30, 2007)

man they would a been great pics if you didnt paint the back ground all black why did you do that man they are great pics


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

I don't really "paint" anything black bro, that's simply how they were exposed - the flash is powerful overhead near the front with the subject, so only that is picked out where not enough light hits the background to expose it... When masking and adjusting levels for the fish to be correctly exposed this helps punch the fish forward whilst pushing any slight distraction further back (ie faintly lit plant matter/airbubbles etc).


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

Hmm this is annoying, what you are seeing are the lighter area's where I have not properly blended after contrast masking.

The way I do this is create a duplicate of the background, I simply push the midtones out on the background (layer) so any slightly lit up distractions are pushed to the background, then creating a layer mask and filling with background colour, I can "paint" the fish and this brings it to it's original exposure, whilst leaving the distractions "in the dark". The line shouldn't be refined like that, I've obviously changed the size and opacity since I did this last and it's  for not checking.


----------



## bulldogg7 (Mar 3, 2003)

Sorry deleted my old post, didn't want to get you riled up. Great shots. I taught "herny" a little trick (sorry), the lines only show when enhanced. I love the pics :thumb:


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

No bud I'm not fussed, I'm not going to deny that I post process my shots :lol:, what you see is about as far as it goes. If no-one points it out then I won't know that I have my calibration out of whack, or that I've missed things in the program settings.

Trick - you mean whacking up the midtones to bring back out anything that might have been burnt?

When burning this is how I normally test for consistency - by doing that I can see area's that are lighter, as we have in these shots, if I'd done that as normal then even if you did fiddle with the levels, you wouldn't find anything to really show that it'd been done. When I'm up tomorrow I'll rework the pics and then you can do your levels trick and see what you think .

I'll also probably do a stage by stage of contrast masking from original<final so you can see just "how much" processing is done on these images.

:thumb:


----------



## bulldogg7 (Mar 3, 2003)

That'd make a great diy type post. The "trick" was on irfanview, bumping up the gamma correction. Sometimes I use it for a quick correction if my pics turn out way too bright. Would love to see the masking process steps. I'm still learning my PS tricks.


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

:thumb:

I'll start with what I originally only thought to use layer masking for, which is retouching blemishes/freckles/wrinkles etc, mostly because it shows how easy yet powerful a process it can be.

I'll then go on to show you how it can be used in aquatic photography, to easily bring your fish forward over a black background, or to perform very specific sharpening, saturation etc, using basically the same process. It'll probably be in instalments as I do it, so we'll start with teaching you the process using one of my favourite actors, Morgan Freeman (freckles galore).

_*Open the image, right away set your foreground colour to white, the background to black. *_
We do this because when layer masking you will be using the paintbrush to show (white) or hide (black) the layer masked below - very simple. If you make a mistake, you change the brush colour to black and paint over it, "hiding" the area behind the layer mask, and vice versa.

_*Now, we want to duplicate the Background image* (right click)_:









_*With the Background copy selected, we want (in this instance) to use the Noise Filter, specifically Dust and Scratches*_ *You want to play with the Radius and the Threshold until you get rid of the freckles, whilst maintaining the skin texture. * :









*Now we create the layer mask (with Background copy selected)*:









*Next we want to Fill the layer mask using the Background (layer) as the fill*:


















_*Once you have done that, you will see the image returns to normal, this is the Background layer mask, "below" that is the Dust and Scratches edited image, ie your Background Copy. So here we start to use the brush with white, to reveal the layer below the mask. I set my Brush flow to about 40% and opacity roughly at 50% - you don't want sudden or harsh changes (this is what I forgot to do with the fish images last night)*_









*Of course the image is quite different now. Notice that the mask fill (layers window), which was black, is showing white where I have revealed the layer below:*









*Finally, side by side:*









It only took me about 1.5 mins to do that, so it's not as refined as it could be (I just plastered it on using a larger brush, you should be using a brush the size of the smaller freckles and avoid hitting the regular skin too much), but you get the gist of it. Have a go yourself. I'm going to work on the tutorial for using this in aquatic photography after I eat lunch, so you should have had a go by then.


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

See if this is any better:


----------



## bulldogg7 (Mar 3, 2003)

Dang near perfect :thumb: Great tutorial.


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

Thanks bud, near perfect is good enough :lol:.

Glad the tutorial was clear, I will put up the fish based one soon - I got roped into working overtime yesterday and today so I'll get it done after work and post it up!


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

Ok, well as promised.....

Be vigilant with save points as you want the option to go back to any of these stages, until you are certain you are happy with the image.

*As before, open the image, right away set your foreground colour to white, the background to black.*
We do this because when Layer Masking you will be using the Paintbrush to show (white) or hide (black) the layer masked below - very simple. If you make a mistake, you change the brush colour to black and paint over it, "hiding" the area behind the layer mask, and vice versa.

*Now, we want to duplicate the Background image (right click on Background Layer):*









*Notice that I have hidden the Background Copy and selected the Background, then opened the Levels:*









*Set the midtones down so that the majority of distractions are pushed out, whilst only just being able to see the fish (much easier if you can still see the fish ).*









*Create a Layer Mask as in the tutorial earlier (see why I introduced you to it this way):*
See if you can spot what is wrong in this pic though..... 








Ok I'll tell - my Fore/Background palette is switched up, so if you make the Mask with it the wrong way round like this and Fill, it won't do anything for you. Make sure you set it as outlined at the beginning!

*Fill the Layer Mask with the Background colour (again as explained previously):*







*

Ok, so now you have the darkened image showing, the Layer Mask is selected and you have your Paintbrush, using the white to show, start to uncover within the outline of the fish. *








When doing this I normally set Flow and Opacity to 100% for the actual fish - you want to make sure you uncover it properly. Around the edges you can then reduce the Flow and Opacity to make your minor adjustments to what is hidden/shown.

*Keep going until you have fully uncovered the fish to its original Levels, try to be accurate whilst going around the outline and fins, the more accurate you are here the easier and quicker the final steps are.*









*Once happy with the Layer Masking, right click on any Layer and select Merge Visible. 
You do this so that you can now use the Levels to reveal any missed areas. Zoom into an area to work on, open the Levels (Ctrl+L) and bring the midtones right up, see where you've missed, CANCEL the Levels adjustment. Burn the area you missed.* 









*Repeat until no more missed areas are visible around the fish, this is making it nice and tidy.*









*Using the Clone tool start to remove any remaining distractions that made it through pushing the midtones down, as with Burning you will find that setting the midtones up will reveal a few more specks that can be Cloned (as I have demonstrated here).*









*Finally, set the Levels and Colour Balance correctly and Crop according to your choice of composition.*

There are other methods for extracting the fish but I've found this to be the most controllable along each step of the way, it should only take you 15-20 mins once you've got the hang of it (depending on the fiddly bits around fins) and it's a great way of creating this style of fish photo. Here I started with an already dark background, but it wouldn't make any difference if the fish had been in front of lit up greenery, the end result of the process will be the same.

I stick to this method because my flash set-up is not powerful enough to get the plants etc in the background with enough exposure to create a well balanced image (the flash area is really tiny). So it forces me into this isolated and somewhat intimate form, but I really like it.

Here is my final image, I feel it is much better than my first attempt with this fish, don't you?









Blair.


----------



## NorthShore (Feb 3, 2006)

Blair, I had no idea you were such a cheater! :lol:


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

:lol:

Gerry, you're a wind-up, but I will address this.

Unfortunately this is the only way I can get a truly black background with my set-up, even with the fish literally only a couple of inches under the little flash I use, and _right_ at the front of the aquarium I just don't seem to get enough light from it to punch everything behind them out . Not like you guys with your powerful kit that'd make my life a little easier.... I'm still waiting for my xmas pressie BTW . Trust me, I'd rather not have to burn/do this to get a true black background, it's not much fun and I'd rather spend the time taking pics. But I've found it to be a good way of creating the black background in a situation where you don't have the capacity to do it purely through exposure, hopefully it will be useful to others like me who don't have the cash to spare for a decent flash set-up either.

This is actually a new technique to me, I've only created this image and the last two or three with it to experiment and play around with some of that CS3 power!!! Anyway, the skill is in the capture of the fish, not what I've done to the background, don't ya think . One important rule I adhere to which I will add is that I set my processing limit to anything but the fish - the fish must remain as natural as possible... , ie colour balanced with correct levels. I do not agree with manipulating a poor shot into a better one, or with juicing a fish up, or sharpening up loads, however I do believe in refining a shot so that the subject may be presented naturally, but with no distraction.

My main reason - because if I burn out the distractions, which would be enough for 99% of my "final" images, then as happened earlier, you get people fiddling with the levels and showing burn spots and asking why. I don't want to have to explain why I burnt something distracting like that from my work, to me it means my work is not being viewed as it should. So, this gives the black background exactly the same, except that if you juice up the midtones you don't get burn marks showing.... It's basically just burning en mass, ensuring an even final result.


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

I don't mind showing the workings behind some of my shots, as all I do is manipulate the background when necessary so that the subject is the sole focus for the viewer. Here is the original. This is why you shouldn't shoot after feeding if you can help it - with these fish I use food to entice them within range of my flash and this has created a lot of distracting particulate as you can see. The fish itself is unchanged though, bare in mind that the levels and colour balance are off as this is literally straight off the cam (apart from a resize for web).


----------



## NorthShore (Feb 3, 2006)

Blair, you do realize I was only teasing, right?

I can appreciate the work you're putting into this hobby, and I love your tutorial. I don't do a third of the work you do, although I do understand your rationale.  :thumb:


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

Yeah Gerry, don't worry I got the humour, I know you too well my friend.

I was addressing that general line of thought that I know some people do take, just spring boarding off your jibe as I didn't know where else to sneak it in . I do go on a bit though, generally I want to try and get as much info out as possible so that people don't even have to ask the why or how they can just see for themselves exactly what I've done. It's the one thing I really wished for when I started to learn PS as there are very few tutorials for dealing with subjects like aquatic photography (this was before I knew of APF of course).

You do a third of the work that I do, yet your images are much better, you're just _too_ darn good G. I think we need to give you a handicap, like a finger splint, or a vibrating armchair, hahahahaaa let's see you click that button now then!


----------



## NorthShore (Feb 3, 2006)

My work is not better, just different in a Nikon sorta way. 

But you're right, there is a real trend online to say a pic that actually looks nice is "photoshopped". Of course most pics are "photoshopped" even if it is only to resize the image for the web. Photoshop and other editing programs are essentially digital dark rooms. A lot of fun to mess aorund with but somewhat complex at the same time. :thumb:


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

Yes yes, there's no need to rub salt in the wounds with your fancy Nikon sensor, I know I'm a cheap and cheerful Canon boy, but c'mon :lol:.

I edited my post so you might have missed my fingersplint remark.See above . I think a handicap would be a good idea, even out the playing field a little. If you're that good you can only use one arm, half a flash, and manual focus, whilst hopping on the spot and humming the anthem....


----------



## NorthShore (Feb 3, 2006)

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Nikon's new sensor is an imitation of the canon sensor, Blair. 

It actually picks up so much more detail, it creates more cloning work for me.

As for handicaps, I already shoot mostly in manual focus with all manual settings. A fingersplint would actually help, since it would keep my finger from cramping up.

A vibrating chair would be a complete distraction and I'd probably put the camera way all together, lol....

Have you tried using a small tank designed with photography in mind? Makes a big difference shooting the smaller fishies....


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

Heh, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery I guess..... :lol:

More detail is no bad thing eh, rather live with some extra cloning and that awesome clarity you get in your pics. I would hope you are a Manual kinda guy, if you're anything like me the Auto settings (on anything) are just inferior - I don't have much natural light over the tanks so if I get a fish in a particularly dark spot it just won't fire, or it triggers the flash to focus, or it's too saturated, or sharpens it on cam (I turn on-cam sharpening off, hate that function), although I'm sure there's a remark in waiting about not having that problem with the Nikon. 

I have thought about a photo tank to be honest with you, but my problem is that if I set up a tank anywhere long-term it usually gets turned into, well, a fish tank.... Do you have one that you just set up on the day? Presumably you're talking about actually having some substrate, wood/rocks/plants to create a nice little "scene", so that must be something you have permanently set up? I would have thought that an established environment is best, one in which you can unleash the subject and allow it to relax for a while before you start the shoot....

Hmm. It would make a lot of sense for me to use a shallow tank in which I could a. reach more than 1/3rd of the height down (my flash cable is about as long as your hand length) and b. in which it's small spread would be comparatively sizeable and perhaps allow me to get the more natural shots that I love, like Eds shots over on APF and of course Hristos, not to forget your threadfin shots either!


----------



## NorthShore (Feb 3, 2006)

Blair, rather than taking this thread in a nother direction, I'll start another thread with my 5 gallon photo tank.


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

:thumb:


----------

