What settings do I use for photos under actinic lights??

[josh85]

Does anybody know the proper camera settings to use for capturing the fluorescent colors given off under the actinic lights. I'd like to take pictures without having the radiant blue drowning everything out. Maybe it's something that's done in the editing phase? I'd like a few tips. Thanks!

 

[Daniel@R2R Verified Admin]

B-B-Bump!

 

[LetItReef]

I think it is mostly done on editing side Or tone down/adjust to low the acitinic.
Closest I can get but still not the best is adjusting the Kelvin on the dslr.
Taggin' along with more tips.

 

[twilliard]

What camera are you using?
if you can control shutter and exposure you can get what your looking for
This was a quick shot from my d40 under full lighting.

 

[Chris Adams]

look into ISO, it is the sensitivity of your sensor to light. The ISO setting you use depends on the amount of light in the scene you are photographing. The more light you have to work with the lower you can set your ISO. As settings go, ISO is one of the key camera menus you need to learn

 

[watchguy123]

All the tips given are correct about camera settings but none of them specifically will help with actinic pictures. ISO does have to do with light sensitivity but refers to dealing with low light issues. Shutter and exposure settings have to do with depth of field, light, and movement.

Actinics effect the color spectrum your camera sees and you will need to adjust your white balance. You can do that on the camera and post editing. Actinics are extreme blue lighting and very challenging to correct for. Filters may be helpful as well. There are some great tutorials on the photography forum section regarding all these issues.

 

[Righteous]

ISO helps take pictures in lower light with a higher shutter speed, but to get rid of the blue oversaturation, you need to adjust the white balance. You can do this a little in camera, depending on your camera. You basically want to set it to as high as it will go... often labeled "shade" or "cloudy" which would be about 6000-7000 kelvin. This helps, but typically doesn't adjust high enough for a 20,000K tank. What you really need is a camera that will shoot RAW (rules out iphones and most point and shoots), then you can adjust the white balance with software on your computer. RAW records the information directly from the sensor, without processing it. So when you adjust the white balance on the computer, you're not changing the image, just telling the software how to interpret the bits of data. Without RAW, you can attempt to adjust the colors on the computer, but the software is basically just faking it by recoloring the data in image, and there won't be enough data to maintain the correct coloration.

Here are some examples taken with my Canon EOS:

 

[josh85]

I use a Canon 7D twilliard. Yeah messing my with the exposure, shutter and aperture does help to an extent. Thank you

 

[josh85]

Thanks! Righteous. I will definitely take that tip and shoot a few RAW shots. Those are some awesome pictures!. Thanks for sharing

 

[nwkermit]

White balance with actinic on. Put a white ceramic tile in the water to get the right balance and you can play with the rest as you go.

 

[Chris Adams]

ISO helps take pictures in lower light with a higher shutter speed, but to get rid of the blue oversaturation, you need to adjust the white balance. You can do this a little in camera, depending on your camera. You basically want to set it to as high as it will go... often labeled "shade" or "cloudy" which would be about 6000-7000 kelvin. This helps, but typically doesn't adjust high enough for a 20,000K tank. What you really need is a camera that will shoot RAW (rules out iphones and most point and shoots), then you can adjust the white balance with software on your computer. RAW records the information directly from the sensor, without processing it. So when you adjust the white balance on the computer, you're not changing the image, just telling the software how to interpret the bits of data. Without RAW, you can attempt to adjust the colors on the computer, but the software is basically just faking it by recoloring the data in image, and there won't be enough data to maintain the correct coloration.

Here are some examples taken with my Canon EOS:

what lens is that.

Is it more prevalent to have a need to mess with white balance under T5 than leds?

 

[Righteous]

what lens is that.

The candy cane was shot with a Canon EF 100mm macro lens. The trachyphyllia was actually taken with a kit lens with a +10 close up macro filter attached.

Is it more prevalent to have a need to mess with white balance under T5 than leds?

My shots are under AI Hydra LEDs. It shouldn't matter for white balance what type of bulb it is shot under. The primary issue is the temperature of the light, ie how blue shifted the light source is. Daylight is considered 6500K, which would look quite yellow on a reef tank. I keep my lights at about 20K during the day, and blues only at night. So when I'm processing the photo, I'm able to set the white balance to 20K or higher in Adobe. If you have T5s running at 20K, it should be the same.

The only issue I know of with LEDs is that they can cause rolling bar interference in certain cameras, especially those with rolling shutters (phone cameras) or when shooting video.

Put a white ceramic tile in the water to get the right balance and you can play with the rest as you go.

This does work as well. It gives you a reference during the photo processing. So in Adobe Camera RAW there's a white balance button that you can select and then click on the white tile in your photograph, and it should automatically set the white balance. I've found eyeballing it to be a lot quicker and look just as good. Since the lighting in your tank is probably not changing all that much, once you adjust it for one photo, they are usually all about the same.

The important thing though is the RAW setting on the camera. If you are adjusting the white balance in camera, and shooting in JPG, the camera usually doesn't compensate enough for the temperature of the actinic. The rest of the color information will get thrown away, and the best you can do post-processing is to colorize the photo by adjusting the hue, which really doesn't look very good.

 

[wangspeed]

It's a a lot easier to shoot under T5. LEDs tend to spike so high in a narrow range that it throws the sensors all off.

Nicer cameras deal with it better for sure. Forget about it with a phone type sensor. Colored gel filters can help as well. Some of the light Amber ones.

Agree with others. Shoot in raw and edit color temp after. I usually almost always have to reduce the highlights and up the shadows. Beyond much of this, it is likely a photo by photo discussion.

 

[maroun.c]

I just shoot in Raw and correct in Post Processing using Photoshop.
I use the Grey White balance button and click on anything grey in the picture (rock or other) then fine tune if needed using the slider.
I fine it easier than using the white described above as most of the time white is overexposed in shots and you get an error that area is too bright for correction...
This also avoids dropping a tile or a white object in the tank.
I still have to experiment with dropping a grey object in the tank and taking a picture of it and setting a custom white balance...