Composition Critique

[Russell Johnson]

Took this image last year, and would appreciate your thoughts.

I have a similar shot taken vertically, though would be interested to see how you feel this composition works? I appreciate that the subject is dead centre, yet I don't feel this detracts from it.

Canon 1D Mark IV
70-200 @70mm
1/1250 @4.5
ISO 640.

Any other crit welcome.



116702

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Russell is this FF, or cropped, if it has is it worth posting the FF version?

Steve

[Ken Watkins]

Russell,

I think the composition works OK, it is in your face which is what it should be.

On my monitor it looks a little light. Do you have a little more at the bottom?

Is this from the sighting which resulted in Alwyn getting told off for allowing you out of the car?

[Russell Johnson]

Hi Russell is this FF, or cropped, if it has is it worth posting the FF version?

Steve

This is FF. My other version was actually shot vertically a few frames later.

[Russell Johnson]

Russell,

I think the composition works OK, it is in your face which is what it should be.

On my monitor it looks a little light. Do you have a little more at the bottom?

Is this from the sighting which resulted in Alwyn getting told off for allowing you out of the car?

Thanks, Ken. I have one last curves adjustment that I disabled before posting, as I felt the image was a little dark. Will probably take another look.

The telling off only came after we submitted a 4 page compliant letter about our stay at LK, which is a whole other story.

[Russell Johnson]

A quick repost with a curves adjustment (luminosity Blend) to the whole image except the nose and darks on the eyes.

116704

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Russell thanks for that.

I think it does work as presented, I think it could also work coming in from the RHS, perhaps avoiding, or cutting through the tree in the BKG, pushing things slightly off centre? Was the image/subject backlit and did you 'double process' the file, as I get the impression the face looks a little noisy for the ISO? Compared to your previous posting the image does look a little thin and could do with 'beefing up' Russell. Took the liberty Russell. :w3

Looks like we overlapped in posting. :S3:


The telling off only came after we submitted a 4 page compliant letter about our stay at LK, which is a whole other story.
Guys this really has no relevance to the thread and therefore please keep future comments to the Critiquing of the image, if you wish to discuss this further then please exchange by PM or email, thank you.

[Steve Kaluski]

Russell, I think somewhere between your RP and mine?

[Russell Johnson]

Hi Russell thanks for that.

I think it does work as presented, I think it could also work coming in from the RHS, perhaps avoiding, or cutting through the tree in the BKG, pushing things slightly off centre? Was the image/subject backlit and did you 'double process' the file, as I get the impression the face looks a little noisy for the ISO? Compared to your previous posting the image does look a little thin and could do with 'beefing up' Russell. Took the liberty Russell. :w3

Looks like we overlapped in posting. :S3:
.

Thanks, Steve. There light source was from the side, and I double processed the image to give a warmer feel to the shadows.

I have applied more NR to the face, and that seems to have done the trick, I had only applied it minimally to start.

[Russell Johnson]

Russell, I think somewhere between your RP and mine?

Agreed :)

[Ken Watkins]

Guys this really has no relevance to the thread and therefore please keep future comments to the Critiquing of the image, if you wish to discuss this further then please exchange by PM or email, thank you.

Can I ask if this sort of comment is applied equally to all those who post comments which some consider to be off topic. I believe that establishing details of the sighting is fairly important and this is how it was described amongst those with knowledge of it. Sorry if it has offended you.

The re-posts are both still wide of the mark as far as I am concerned I still think Russel's needs to be darker, but he was there and only he can decide.

[Andre van As]

Hi Russel
The power of your image is in the cheetah's eyes therefore I would portray this image as an isolated head shot and get rid of all of the other surrounding distractions. There is a lot of noisy distraction in the sky the the left and above; the legs and feet are not visible; the horizon cuts the subject in half. So get rid of all of these elements. I did a rough edit on your image - still needs more work. There may not be enough resolution left to achieve what I suggest. I am used to working with 50MP images so I have a lot more cropping latitude.

Best regards

Andre116714

[Russell Johnson]

Hi Russel
The power of your image is in the cheetah's eyes therefore I would portray this image as an isolated head shot and get rid of all of the other surrounding distractions. There is a lot of noisy distraction in the sky the the left and above; the legs and feet are not visible; the horizon cuts the subject in half. So get rid of all of these elements. I did a rough edit on your image - still needs more work. There may not be enough resolution left to achieve what I suggest. I am used to working with 50MP images so I have a lot more cropping latitude.

Best regards

Andre1167140

Thanks Andre, I have tighter crops and images in vertical. As I have mentioned on the forum before, I feel that you need the foreground portray the shooting angle.

Was just trying work a different image perspective.

[Hilary Hann]

Russell, I think the central composition works well but it feels a bit like an image which has had too much shadow highlight adjustment. It would be hard to make adjustments further on your posting.


Guys this really has no relevance to the thread and therefore please keep future comments to the Critiquing of the image, if you wish to discuss this further then please exchange by PM or email, thank you.

Just one comment re this … many threads go off topic quite happily except when it is controversial so I think there should be one rule followed by everyone including moderators. :S3:

HOWEVER, it upsets me greatly that if evidence of a photographer not behaving appropriately (not saying that it happened here), whether by his own demands or by the guide pushing boundaries, that we all as collective wildlife photographers should choose to ignore the behaviour because we want to make congratulatory remarks on the final quality of the image. The ends do not justify the means and I think that it should be part of the critiquing process. If a photographer intrudes, or we suspect that it may be the case, on a wild animal's space, causes them undue distress, puts their safety at risk, then it should be criticised as much as the IQ or composition. I think we should make a stand against the increasing unethical behaviour shown by photographers around wildlife.

That is my view.

[Hilary Hann]

PS, not taking a shot at anyone on this thread, by the way, just saying that we need to be seen as being proactive in defence of the very fine proponents of wildlife photography who do everything in their power to get artistic and excellent photos without behaving badly. If it gets put in the General Discussion, it doesn't address the critiquing of the image where the problem may be an issue and it gets buried.

[Ken Watkins]

Apart from the fall in IQ (inevitable given the small file he had to work with) the crop by Andre gives a whole new perspective and certainly strengthens the subject, for me it is just a little too tight.

Interesting that there are few comments on his suggestion so far.

Hilary,

Given the fact that some are constantly suggesting getting out of the vehicle to avoid the "look down" look and do not get criticised for it then I think a thread in general discussion would be great, over to you.

PS I think it is only to fair to omit places like Mana Pools where it is thankfully allowed

[Hilary Hann]

I have started a topic in general http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/101626-Ethics-in-Nature-Photography?p=827221#post827221

As far as the close up crop is concerned, I'm not convinced. It is an alternative for sure, but loses something from the original which may be an environmental feel.

[Russell Johnson]

Before Ken or omeone else gets their knickers in a twist, they should understand the context of the sighting:

1) No rules were broken, as walking is permitted in this area. I was under instruction from someone who has walked and guided in the delta for over 15 years.
2) There is a walking camp in the same area. Footsteps regularly approach tthis wildlife on foot, which is one reason why they are habituated.
3) We parked got out of the vehicle arOund 30 metres from the Cheetah, and did not approach them. It was their decision to move closer.
4) we were the only vehicle at the sighting, and the guide and I have a rule that this should not be done with another party present and potentially detract form their game viewing.
5) I would suggest that you contact the guide in question about any telling off. As Ken is certainly portraying it a different light to my involvement in the discussion. This happened 4 months after he incident and was only raised following complaints about the poor standard of service provided by the company concerned.
6) There have a numerous occasions where upon asking the guided to leave the vehicle they have said no.

I do raise the shooting angle as a crit. As I said before to you Ken, good perspectives do not require you to get out of vehicle, it can also be achieved through better field craft when positioning the vehicle or how you sit in the car. I would be more than happy to provide you with examples that I have written in an e-book.

[Ken Watkins]

Russell,
You fully know that the circumstances of this sighting were related to me by an old friend your guide, you also know that I am fully aware that walking is practised in this concession, so I do not have any idea why you are asserting that I am "portraying it in a different light".
It is hardly my fault that other people may have misinterpreted, either my question or your response. Nevertheless the discussion suggested by Hilary is totally valid, I am aware as you probably are that many people abuse the sujects of their photography purely for self publicity.

My knickers remain totally untwisted:t3

Thanks for your offer of education, but I think I have enough allready.

As this is now getting totally off piste, I believe that having expanded on your comment, purely in self defense, that further comments on photographic should be restricted to the thread started by Hilary.

[Dumay de Boulle]

I like the original crop...i like the balance and the view of the surroundings, colors do look washed out and the IQ is not great as i see noise in the subject...Think a bit of contrast and sat increase but I see some have addressed those issues already....Nice image design!

[Morkel Erasmus]

Love the POV here Russel.
The eyes are really compelling, and I don't mind the centred placement of your OP. Hilary's made a good point that the OP looks like it was overtreated with S/H adjustments...:e3...would be interested in seeing the straight-from-RAW-jpg for comparison?

Will weigh in on the ethics thread when I have more time. Baby calling! :Whoa!:

[Ken Watkins]

Morkel,

Before this thread went slightly pear shaped, I think I commented on the lightness in pane 3, whether that is from S/H I have no idea.

It makes a nice change to agree on brightness:bg3:

I would also like to see a straight from Raw, basically to test out the possibilities of a smaller crop, IQ allowing.

Good luck with the baby!

[Tom Graham]

To me, in the original framing and all reposts the BG looks artificial. Also seeing all four legs like that, lined up across 1-2-3-4, looks very strange, to me.
Tom