Wild dog in habitat

[Sanjeev Aurangabadkar]

A WD female at selous GR, TZ.
1/250
f/6.3
ISO 800
7D II
100-400 II @ 255mm

[Rachel Hollander]

Hi Sanjeev - I like the pose with the head turn towards you. Looks like she recently gave birth and is nursing the pups. To me, the browns in the fur look a little muddled. I would also reduce the blues in the blacks. Finally, I would tame the highlight in the grass in front of the tail.

TFS,
Rachel

[haseeb badar]

Hi Sanjeev -- Nice pose and good that you get her in the open ! You have handled the light quite well . I agree with Rachel's suggestions especially the browns they look a bit odd , I also wish that rock was not obscuring the view of the back leg .

TFS !

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Sanjeev, nice light with this one, plus I also like the warmth the image conveys. I also think the framing is good, with the face to camera and those lovely, alert ears, constantly monitoring the habitat, nice amount of room to the left. I don't have an issue with the rock, likewise to me, the blacks look good and again, hard pushed to see the Blue both Rachel & Haseeb are referring too???? The browns also to me look fine, I just feel it's where the light hits the 'coat', colour will change. I know you will at times remove elements, so the grass across the stomach should go, the warm highlight across the rear is a bit more problematic and could stay, I'll skip the SS. If you were to revisit the image then I would above all, just add a bit more Exposure (Burn) it back a bit for continuity.

TFS
Steve

[Gabriela Plesea]

Hello Sanjeev,

First of all, thank you for participating with so many wonderful images this month. This thumbnail grabbed my eye, and the first thing I noticed when opening was the sweet light - well seen and captured, my friend.

I will avoid elaborating on topics already discussed above - overall this is a lovely frame of many qualities ( I like the pose from the subject, environment, colours, this is sharp despite low SS:w3). I have a question though: considering the amount of shade on the WD's face, do you think it would be a good idea to lighten the eyes, but not to an extent that the subject begins to look odd? This question also goes to Rachel, Haseeb and of course, Steve.

Warmest regards,

[Steve Kaluski]

considering the amount of shade on the WD's face, do you think it would be a good idea to lighten the eyes, but not to an extent that the subject begins to look odd?

Hi Gabriela, good to expand the thread. Personality I would not, to me the light is coming from the left, albeit perhaps a fraction behind, if that makes sense? The face is therefore to me, forward to the light and as viewed, the RHS would be slightly more in shadow. I think the only way to make any decision would be to see the Raw and only then, if I felt any 'lifting/lightening' was to be done, then it would be a very subtle tweak and at this size I'm not sure it would be noticeable. Plus, it's also 'how' you make the adjustment too, it's not just a S/H adjustment. :w3

[Rachel Hollander]

I also would not lighten the eyes. Lightening the eyes as a selective adjustment is something that I never do these days. I did it often about 3 years ago at a very low opacity but decided that it rarely improved an image. I too prefer the way natural light and shadows fall on a subject.

My $.02

Rachel

[Steve Kaluski]

Lightening the eyes as a selective adjustment is something that I never do these days

I think it depends on the image Rachel, as it can bring 'life/a bit of sparkle' back into the image, personal choice, but I would never dismiss it. :S3:

[Rachel Hollander]

I prefer to have it there naturally.:w3