rock-wallaby

[greg cowle]

Mareeba Rock-wallaby, found only in a small range on the Atherton Tableland. This girl is about 30cm tall, they only grow a bit bigger.
Canon 5D MK IV Lens 400f/2.8 400mm, f3.5, 1/2000, ISO3200.
Shallow depth of field, in part because that is what I like, but also rapidly failing light with an approaching storm.

[Steve Kaluski]

Greg I have just added the Camera and lens to the techs for those who might be interested.

[greg cowle]

Steve, that is OK. I prefer the critique on the image, not the gear I choose to use, but that is a comment more on what happens in Avian rather than Wildlife.

[Steve Kaluski]

I prefer the critique on the image, not the gear I choose to use, but that is a comment more on what happens in Avian rather than Wildlife.

Hi Greg, rarely is the kit in question, it's just part of the BPN posting 'Guidelines,' where we ask folk to add as much info about the shot as possible, including kit, which in turn, adds hopefully for better feedback and at times can be, more 'encompassing' so to speak. :S3:

And so to the image:

Personally I find it way too tight at the foot, you don't say if this is FF or cropped, but if it's cropped and you have the content, then a more 'looser' crop I feel would help the subject at the foot. If you reduce the blue and balance the Contrast/Blacks then the finer detail is exposed and the sharpness in the eye comes back, albeit a tad more USM has helped. Again, personal choice shooting wide open, here I think it's worked because the eye and paws are in focus and so the rest can just drift off. ISO3200 for the 5D4 isn't an issue and subject to exposure you can go even higher, but I find it's not as good as the 1DX MK2 in higher ISO's, but then the 1DX MK2 isn't as good at retaining sometimes the 'finer' detail at times, so for me, it's a balancing act in which to shoot with, but subject to the subject & scene IMHO.

Subject to ethics, I would remove the two black 'blobs' on the RHS and perhaps the 'rusty' line on the LHS to offer a cleaner backdrop to the subject, as I think helps for better standout, but as I said, all person preferences.

TFS
Steve

[John Mack]

It's pretty neat looking wallaby. My first thought was this would have made a good vertical. Details look good.

[greg cowle]

Steve, if you check the guidelines, Clause 21 does not include kit, but does have settings. In any case it did not stop me getting a comparison of 2 bodies from you!
So to the image critique, which is of more interest to me! I did crop a small amount from the bottom and sides, the top is not cropped. I chose that crop as I wanted a smaller gap from the animal to frame at the bottom than there is from the ear to the top. I often go for a 1:2 ratio. Actually for me, because the foot is out of focus I don't find my eye lingering down there, but we all see things differently. The line is a crevice in the granite, the black is from the rock. I like the line as it breaks up the empty space a bit, I could see it without the 2 blobs.

John, just played with a vertical, it does work, but I have to go to a 3x4 aspect ratio otherwise it will be too tight. Also eliminates the line and the blobs.

[Andreas Liedmann]

Hi Greg , good to see some variety .
These guys are quite interesting , the whole family is ....
I do like the overall clean look of the image , i am ok with the natural distractions that Steve mentioned but understand his point about a cleaner look of the frame . But might look too sterile at times , as always a matter of taste .
Regarding the techs and the tones i do agree with Steve , and with hindsight shooting portrait would have been better .... but always easy to say afterwards :bg3:.

TFS Andreas