Lion Strangle

[Tom Graham]

This from Tanzania, Ndutu area, Feb 2011. Lion takes down an adolescent zebra.
Nikon D200, F8, 1/750, ISO640. 195mm on 70-300mm zoom.
Severe crop of original, keeping perhaps only 25%. I took about 12 other shots, most much closer, but this one the only good one for head angles. Cropping was most difficult, where to crop, more scene, too tight??? And it is a bit more square than I'd like. Following this in my own reply, I will post the original camera framing and would welcome any suggestion about how to crop.

119630

Tom

[Tom Graham]

Ok, this the original camera framing of Lion Strangle above. Just taking the camera Nikon NEF in Bibble 5 to JPG.
So you see the crop above. Would welcome all suggestions about cropping. I took several tries at it over time but always came back to close to above cropping.

119631

Tom

[Rachel Hollander]

Tom - unfortunately I don't think the IQ holds up to the big crop that you want to do in frame 1. And, as you said, the original comp doesn't really work either. With the 70-300 zoom lens and your shot at 195 mm you should have either zoomed out wider to include the entire lion and a bit more space or zoomed in closer on the action and perhaps gone vertical. Not always something easy to remember while the action is unfolding. I think one of your better alternatives to use this image is a vertical crop. I wanted to keep the musclature of the lion's leg too. I've done a repost to give you an idea. I did no other pp than the crop and resizing for web so you'll need to go back to the RAW file to properly process it.

TFS,
Rachel

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Tom, well the OP isn't too bad, however the detail/clarity and depth isn't quite there due to IQ and the huge crop.

As you know, unless you have the IQ within the image, any substantial crop is not going to give you the results you want or are looking for, therefore I feel you have to make the decision in the field, shoot tight or wider and use the image with only a small amount of cropping. If the subject is on the move, shoot wider with the environment, when the subject stops, go tighter for detail. If I was you I would have shadowed this lioness, providing she did not feel harassed and fired away in different modes (wide/close up), helps to have two bodies, then you can cover all wishes and then edit, filling a couple of CF cards isn't an issue and means you will have something in the bag.

Actually, if the lioness was on the move and providing you did not block her movements why not move the vehicle to get a better angle? Like making the choice to shoot wide or close-up, positioning the vehicle IMHO is key and may make your choice for you, however, if the position isn't working and you were not impeding others then move.

I can't really comment about colour until late tomorrow, but I guess all you are looking for is cropping suggestions so how about this?


Sometimes you can't win them all, but I really don't think the IQ is bad on original post.

Seeing the RAW would be true test Tom. :w3

Also Tom, you know the Rule about posting two separate images within one thread, therefore I will sadly have to delete it, as it contravenes the Guidelines.

cheers
Steve

[Tom Graham]

Thanks Steve.
Agree much of wildlife photography is about vehicle position. Sometimes we win, sometimes we don't. Very shortly when the zebra was for sure dead, the lion drug it over into that ditch you can see a hint of it. And the view became hopeless. Well, your crop, too much on right side for me. I cropped as close as I dared in order to emphasis, I hoped, the drama of the scene, the zebra eye and open mouth in particular.
Too bad you must remove an image of this exact same scene. I was hoping we might have a learning opportunity here BPN??
Tom

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Tom, sadly one image is allowed per critique and although part of the sequence, it was a different image and therefore we are discussing the first image only.

I left room on the RHS for the 'walk in', however if the IQ allowed, then your OP answered the brief and what you wanted to achieve. How long were you with her, did you witness the kill, any others joined her later?

cheers
Steve

[Morkel Erasmus]

While your OP crop does emphasise the drama with the zebra's eye so prominent, to me as well the IQ doesn't hold up. If you say the RAW file is good, then it's a workflow issue. :e3
I like Steve's crop, and would shave half of the RHS space off for my tastes.
You are welcome to post more of this sequence, but all as separate threads :bg3:

[Tom Graham]

Steve - we had just witnessed the kill of a young wildebeest when our guide's radio said there was a lion stalking a zebra nearby. So we drove over that way and from about 100m away saw the lion catch and bring down this zebra. And of course drove over to it. With other photographers in a game drive vehicle, there are always different opinions as to vehicle position. Next time on safari my own "private" vehicle (or so I wish!!). Everything has to click :S3: just right for an action photo like this. As for how long we were in that viewing position, been about 2 years ago and I don't recall, maybe 5 minutes before the lion dragged the zebra into the ditch. I've been on around 200 game drives in Africa over last seven years, and have seen the actual chase and kill (by lion or leopard) only about six times. A real "National Geographic" moment :S3:.

Morkel - RAW file looks good - but I cropped too much I fear. The (Nikon D200) frame at 3880 pixels wide (10 Mpx total), to my crop of around 1450 pixels wide, equals 2Mpx. A 2M pixel image should present on BPN just fine (?). Anyone had a 10-20Mpx image and cropped it to 2-3 Mpx and posted here BPN with no "complaints" about IQ?? This might make good topic for a BPN tech forum, i.e., given a 10 or 20 Mpx RAW file, how much crop can be tolerated before image IQ degradation can be seen here on BPN?? ( I suspect lens quality being the primary factor in this more so than crop factor).

Tom

[Jamie Douglas]

Cool image but I can't help but wonder what happened to the IQ with those settings. Please share some of the rest of the sequence in seperate threads so we can see how the IQ compares.

Jamie

[Tom Graham]

Look close around the zebra's mouth/snout. See the blurryness/hazeness all around it?
Here it is crudely outlined -
119676

I was expecting someone to ask what I cloned out. But I did not, that is the real image. What is it? Is it the zebra's soul leaving its body?
Tom

[Tom Graham]

Jamie - thanks for your reply. But to really see the IQ I'd have to put up the Nikon NEF file(s), and I'm just too lazy to dig them out and do that :S3:
But I am contemplating trying to take a RAW file and cropping it in various amounts. Then posting here BPN in a tech forum to get opinions about how much cropping can be made before IQ deteriorates (can be seen) here on BPN. I just don't know how to make a test-target that is constant in detail from full-frame through cropping sizes. (So as to not give away what crop is which).
Tom

[Jamie Douglas]

Jamie - thanks for your reply. But to really see the IQ I'd have to put up the Nikon NEF file(s), and I'm just too lazy to dig them out and do that :S3:
But I am contemplating trying to take a RAW file and cropping it in various amounts. Then posting here BPN in a tech forum to get opinions about how much cropping can be made before IQ deteriorates (can be seen) here on BPN. I just don't know how to make a test-target that is constant in detail from full-frame through cropping sizes. (So as to not give away what crop is which).
Tom

Hi Tom, the IQ should carry down to the web file if it is converted properly. So unless the original NEF file isn't strong, then I don't see why the BPN web file should be any different IMO.

I can see what you want to do with the NEF file but I don't have a solution for you unfortunetly.

Maybe post a new thread in the tech forum and good luck.

Jamie

[Tom Graham]

Thanks Jamie. My post #2 is the NEF file, no cropping, converted to JPG. That is, the original 3880px wide NEF was converted to jpg and I resized it for here. Looking at it can you tell if it (#2) has good IQ? There is no close detail (in #2) such as hair that has enough pixels when compressed to that size (1024). Even if I put up the NEF converted to JPG remaining full pixel width, (3088px), would detail such as hair be larger than one pixel? If not we aren't going to see it. Sort of like, if I take photo of a bird nest 1000m away (with a 300mm), will I be able to see the individual twigs making the nest?? (Or even the nest!!). Perhaps I'm not understanding the theory behind this?
Tom
ps - what is Image Quality anyway?? How do we know it when we see it?

[Jamie Douglas]

Thanks Jamie. My post #2 is the NEF file, no cropping, converted to JPG. That is, the original 3880px wide NEF was converted to jpg and I resized it for here. Looking at it can you tell if it (#2) has good IQ? There is no close detail (in #2) such as hair that has enough pixels when compressed to that size (1024). Even if I put up the NEF converted to JPG remaining full pixel width, (3088px), would detail such as hair be larger than one pixel? If not we aren't going to see it. Sort of like, if I take photo of a bird nest 1000m away (with a 300mm), will I be able to see the individual twigs making the nest?? (Or even the nest!!). Perhaps I'm not understanding the theory behind this?
Tom
ps - what is Image Quality anyway?? How do we know it when we see it?

Hi Tom, the full frame does look a wee bit soft IMO and maybe that is the contribuitng factor. I can't see what could have gone wrong in processing. If the image is sharp full frame and at the original file size, then those details will carry through when you resize it for web. If you can see whiskers in the 3880px file then you will see them in the 1024px file.

"Sort of like, if I take photo of a bird nest 1000m away (with a 300mm), will I be able to see the individual twigs making the nest?? (Or even the nest!!)."

If the image is sharp and you zoom in then yes you should see the twigs. Reszing for web at 250kb will not reduce the image quality significantly enough to actually remove objects from the image. If you can see them in the RAW/NEF file then like I said, you will see the same detail in the web file. Maybe not as easily but it will be there.

ps - what is Image Quality anyway?? How do we know it when we see it?

I can't define IQ easily and it varies from image to image, but it is made up of a number of contributing factors like, getting it right in camera - choosing the right camera settings for the desired effect you want i.e motion blur or tack sharp, the camera body, the user ;), the lens quality, processing skills, exposure settings, the list is endless and you can probably dig something up in the other forums to get more details.

As for posting various crops of the same image to test if people can see the loss of detail, maybe this is something to try but some folks in here can tell if you so much as crop a slither of an image. The loss of pixels can be seen by folks with a keen eye. A whisker would never just be a pixel.

I am little tied up with my taking care of my 6 month year old so excuse me if I can't delve into this too much further. I am still learning as well so I hope I have at least helped you a wee bit.

Good luck and maybe find a way to post a link to the actual full size NEF file next time.

Jamie