Wild Dogs Playing in Water II

[Rachel Hollander]

Another image from our sighting of the large pack of wild dogs (25+) playing in the waterhole in the Timbavati Game Reserve, South Africa.

Canon 7D
300 II
1/1600
f7.1
ISO 800
Beanbag from safari vehicle, slight crop from left and below for comp, levels, curves, luminosity mask, selective color adjustments, sharpened in CCPS. I decided to leave the partial dog in this one at the top because cropping it out would make it too tight.

C&C welcome and appreciated. Thanks,

Rachel

[Neil Burton]

Jealous. In 3 trips to Africa I still have not seen a wild dog. I too would leave in the partial dog. Excellent shot Rachel.

[Andreas Liedmann]

Hi Rachel , you got so lucky with this sighting ........
Great playing scene ,i can almost feel the joy they had in the water . I mostly like the one on right hand side with the cocked ? look and expression in the face.
The splashing water is a great bonus.I like this processing more than the previous , more clarity and contrast , as far as i remember .
I only think the dog in the BKG has to go :eek3:.

To illustrate .... my RP , done very sloppy but you get the idea .

TFS Andreas

[Morkel Erasmus]

Great action, light and expressions/poses Rachel! Very green about this sighting... :5
I don't mind the dog at the top...but Andreas did a good job of removing it if you so wish

[Rachel Hollander]

Thanks Neil, Andreas and Morkel. Yes, I could get rid of the dog in the urc but I generally don't clone except for dust spots and in my more artsy images where I have already substantially strayed from the scene as I saw it.

Thanks again,
Rachel

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Rachel, it certainly was an excellent sighting and great to see the interaction.

To me the colour looks better compare to the previous posting and more closer to the scene. With hindsight and in an ideal world zooming out to include the WD above would have been better, but unfortunately with a fixed lens this cannot be done, a trade of I guess. Personally I prefer the posting without the WD and the image is cleaner and all you see is the interaction, but respect your views. I wonder if going for say f/5.6 to gain a bit more SS may have helped, again I think the previous image is sharper. Taking all things into account I like the comp and placement within frame, a great day for rue.

TFS
Steve

[Andreas Liedmann]

Hi Rachel , i surely respect your view of not cloning/ removing big stuff out of an image , i just felt the doggie kind of disturbing the scene :bg3:.

Cheers Andreas

[Arthur Morris]

When you cut an animal in half the the frame edge it is a huge distraction usually punishable by beating with wet noodles..... This I like the repost.

[Steve Kaluski]

Just picking up on the conversation had between this and Artie's Iguana posting.

From my POV, the image is clearly better without the truncated dog, however these are moments capture which sometimes are not 'quite' ideal with situations like this and hard to avoid when pressing the shutter, you get the action or miss it. Therefore we either run with it as is, or edit as per Andreas RP, but the decision is with the owner and how far their ethics allow them to go. Just my take. :S3:

[Gabriela Plesea]

Hello Rachel,

Catching up with your recent posts:tinysmile_shy_t:... shall not miss one, even though I am so late...To begin with, your processing here is great and all techs are in place: sharpness, colours, everything is spot-on. I have a very "soft spot" for these painted dogs and to see them enjoying themselves like this and playing in the water is just wonderful, well done in capturing this moment! Love the fellow on the right, what a cute and mischievous expression on his face, and that tail in the air!

Because I know and respect your views on cloning/altering an image, I can only say that if this were mine I would have cloned out the wild dog at the top because I would want my viewers to focus only on the playful happy threesome in the water. Not a big distraction though, this is still one of the loveliest, fun images of wild dogs I have seen on this forum and it will stay with me for a very long time-congratulations!

Warmest regards,

[Rachel Hollander]

Thanks everyone for the comments and suggestions. Good discussion. It will be interesting to see when Steve finally gets around to his images if he shot this same grouping and whether he zoomed in to 400 or out to 200:w3.

Thanks again,
Rachel

[Steve Kaluski]

Who knows... we will have to see, all I can say is, we all see things differently, that is what makes the forum! :S3:

[Arthur Morris]

Who knows... we will have to see, all I can say is, we all see things differently, that is what makes the forum! :S3:


True Steve, but I do recall someone saying this: " From my POV, the image is clearly better without the truncated dog"

:)

[Andre Pretorius]

Well, with or without half a dog it still is a stunning moment captured!

:cheers:

[Steve Kaluski]

True Steve, but I do recall someone saying this: " From my POV, the image is clearly better without the truncated dog"

And yes, the image is clearly better without the truncated dog Artie, no question! :S3:

My point is when taking the shot we 'capture a moment' and at the time within the capture we sometime include something that is not ideal within the image i.e. a truncated animal, a tree, something in the BKG that is distracting, a highlight within the overall image, therefore the 'author' has to make the choice depending on their ethics, leave it in, or remove/clone/mute the content. I think we all aspire to the ideal/perfect image, however how often can we achieve it without some manipulation? It can be very frustrating when we review and edit our images, what we think we have nailed, something at times gets in the way, therefore we have the dilemma in what we do, leave or edit. However a critique IMHO is there to help, advise, suggest, educate etc in either improving the existing image as it stands, or to provide 'food for thought' for the author to perhaps think about for the future.

Artie I still have a huge amount to learn from others, and yourself and can only base my reply on my own interpretation and this is why in part, I often ask people for their rational & thinking behind the image to get a clearer understanding of the image, likewise why a particular medium, style, approach was taken in portraying the image, i.e. B/W. As you said I think in another thread, without knowing the full facts of an image or actually being there, the reader/viewer can only make assumptions, this is why I think what is suggested in the Guideline about when posting an image can be so crucial, even the smallest element can make all the difference.

Not sure if I have answered this correctly, but very much enjoy the exchange and thinking of ideas, rational, and vision of others, something we can ALL build on. :cheers:

[edwardselfe]

Hi Rachel - this is a stunning capture and I love the interaction. It's very special to see this and I've only once seen it, but in a place where I couldn't get the right side of the light, and all the shots are nothing more than records.

All has been said about the truncated dog, and I won't add anything there.

But I feel that the image looks a little like the shadows have been lifted. I don't know if they have, but the shadow on truncated dog is underneath it, suggesting that the light was quite high in the sky. So I would expect more darker shadows on the subjects. In this case, where the action and the interaction are the crucial and excellent part of the picture, I wouldn't mind more natural shadows even if it approaches black in some areas. I also think that it looks a tad yellow/warm for me, but I wasn't there.

This is a beautiful image, and I just wondered about the shadows - that's all.

Thanks for sharing with us.
Ed

[Martin Dunn]

When I first looked at this post my immediate thought was that the dog in the BG should be cloned out. Then I saw that Andreas had done it. It does look much better without that distraction.
The interaction of the dogs in the water is great and there is lots of detail. Super shot Rachel.