Whitetail Deer

[Don Thompson]

Canon 40D, 100-400mm, 1/640s f/5.6 at 400.0mm iso400

Taken this morning at a local park.

http://www.pbase.com/dltphotography/image/147392774/original.jpg


<iframe width="468" height="60" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="http://mer54715.datafeedfile.com/widget/aff_widget_prdt_generate-2.0.php?aff_num=10536&aff_net=1&widget_num=2002"><p>Sorry your browser does not support iFrame</p></iframe>

[Rachel Hollander]

Hi Don - certainly a good head on view and eye contact. Looks like the light was sweet too. Portrait comp was a good choice here. The bg is a little cluttered and distracting but unfortunately that's often the way it is with wildlife. I'm not sure what pp program you use or what adjustments you may have done. The deer is a little soft so I would definitely apply some more selective sharpening. I would also open up the midtones and reduce the reds slightly though not so much that you lose the warm feeling to the image. I'm sure others will have more pp suggestions. Finally, something to think about in the field is leaving more room below for the virtual legs.

TFS,
Rachel

[Sid Garige]

Dandy buck Don. Excellent suggestions by Rachel.

[Don Thompson]

Thanks Rachel and Sid. I will reprocess to try and open the mid-tones. I agree that the background is a little cluttered.

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Don, the techs look fine and Rachel has made some very good and valid points worth pursuing, however in situations like this, there is very little you can do with the BKG, just go with the flow. If possible, try to get a lower POV too and it creates more interest to both viewer and author.

My only addition would be that your focus point needs to be, in this instance, bang on between the eyes, not lower, or higher. If you get a side profile put the FP bang on the eye.

Hope to see more from you in the future.

TFS
Steve

[Don Thompson]

Here is a reworked version hopefully properly incorporating Rachel's suggestions.

http://www.pbase.com/dltphotography/image/147445358/original.jpg

Steve - I also attached a photo showing the focus point
http://www.pbase.com/dltphotography/image/147445374/original.jpg

Thanks for the suggestions.

[Rachel Hollander]

Don - nicely done, do you prefer it?

[Don Thompson]

I do. I think both changes, while very subtle, did improve the image.

While I haven't said so until now, I do disagree with the virtual feet and the lower POV. I realize that both points are personal preference, but I intentionally cropped the feet to leave extra room above the antlers. As for the POV, if the deer were not looking at me, I would agree. But he is looking straight at me, therefore, I achieved the same results, direct eye contact, yet I have also shown the back of the deer too, whereas a lower POV would not.

Again, personal preference. Either way, I appreciate everyone's thoughts. If you don't seek others opinions, you don't get suggestions such as yours to open up the midtones and to tone down the reds, which I think were both good suggestions, as was the additional sharpening. I thought I had applied plenty, but apparently in the conversion, it softened up a bit.

Again, thanks for the input. Very much appreciated.

[Steve Kaluski]

Thanks for that Don.

Personally based on the information supplied, I would have expected more detail, clarity & sharpness, providing this is almost full frame and not cropped or any camera movement. Don not knowing where you are on the Post Production side of things, but if its early stages then you may like to take a browse through this part too & the Exercise parts for for detailed info to build on developing your PP skills. Getting the PP side right is as key to taking the shot, as there is a whole wealth of information your camera has captured and to do yourself and the camera justice, honing these skills will bring your images so much to life.

Just remember, once you have cropped your image to the correct size ie 800 x 566 from your Master file, you will ALWAYS need to apply selective sharpening to the image prior to saving for web and posting. This may vary from one round to several. :S3:

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/forumdisplay.php/11-Digital-Photography-Workflow

[Don Thompson]

While I am no expert, I am also not a beginner. While the suggestions made and incorporated, did improve the image, I don't think I was so far off initially that it destroyed the image. As for sharpening, I apply sharpening to all my images, sometimes multiple passes, after sizing them for the web. In this case, I apparently didn't notice that it could use additional sharpening.

Steve - are you saying that the repost lacks "detail, clarity & sharpness"?

[Steve Kaluski]

Steve - are you saying that the repost lacks "detail, clarity & sharpness"?

Hi Don, IMHO I would say yes. For me, it lacks the detail and perhaps more, the clarity, as there is not much definition to build the form, especially in the face, but just my take.

[Gerald Kelberg]

Hi Don,

Im coming to this when it is mostly said and done - but for what it is worth, I really like the natural vignette that you have in the original capture - it draws attention into the buck's head and antlers, so I would be tempted to retain that feature.

Regards,

Gerald

[Don Thompson]

Thanks Gerald. I agree and to my eye, I still see the vignette in the repost.

Steve - I am still puzzled by what you are saying, particularly when you didn't mention detail or clarity in your initial comment. Sharpness, yes, but to me, that seems to have been taken care of with the additional sharpening. And what could I have done differently to enhance or capture the detail and clarity? Is it a function of the lens/sensor? I am looking for help as to what I could do differently next time.

[Steve Kaluski]

Don without seeing the RAW file it is difficult to expand on what I have already said, as it could be that you just need to tease more out of your image in PP, or, that the post is faithful to what has been captured. I may not have mentioned this originally, but like a lot of threads, these can grow on the feedback & replies made. Please feel free to forward the RAW file via Dropbox and I will gladly take a look at the image for you. In addition the 'softness' could be that the camera/lens requires calibration, but without seeing other images to compare, it is only a thought too? BTW as I said earlier, is this a cropped image, if so, by how much, as this too is another factor.

Let me know if you wish to send the file over the pond.

cheers
Steve

[Steve Kaluski]

Sorry Don, have been a little busy since we last corresponded.

I'm still not 100% sure the image is sharp looking at the RAW, however parking that to one side, this RP hopefully illustrates my points about trying to get detail, clarity and sharpness from the image, I've not looked at colour this is from the original. You will see there is a lot more within the face. Just with some localised adjustments in key areas like the face, ears where exposure, contrast, shadow %'s are adjusted, it brings elements back in, all done within the RAW image. OK, yes I have been 'gardening' too, just to give a bit more focus on the subject, but I just wanted to show that very often the information is all there, it just needs a little more coaxing at the front end of the processing module.

Was hoping to put them side by side as a comparison but then it would have meant the file being smaller, perhaps best to compare in PS.

Hope this helps Don.

Steve