Lions & Tigers & Bears; Oh My

[Andrew Merwin]

I shot this yesterday in YNP. She has twins. I like this one because of the raised paws of both bears. This cub is the one with the blond face & chest. The other one has a darker face & chest & both have a white collar around their necks. In all my frequent trips to YNP, this is a first for me. It is a very minor crop to remove some space from the LHS. A fellow photographer commented that "finding a sow with twins in good light was very special & that we should all go to church." It was a truly special experience for me.
Andrew

Mrk3, tripod
Exposure Mode: Auto exposure
Exposure Program: Aperture priority
Exposure Time: 1 / 249
FNumber: 5.6
Focal Length: 700
ISO Speed Ratings: 400
Metering Mode: Pattern
White Balance: Auto white balance

[Sabyasachi Patra]

Hi Andrew,
Nice sight. Watching them in the wild would have been a great moment. Would like to visit Yellowstone before I am gone for good. :)

Can you please share your post processing?

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

[Andrew Merwin]

Oops, I forgot. A very minor crop from the left, sharpened, with a very slight adjustment in curves.
Andrew

[Tom Graham]

Moms face/eyes looks sharp but cub does not. Not enough DOF?
Tom

[Steve Kaluski]

Andrew I think you have added some additional blur in the BG and have masked the mother, but forgot the little cub as there is detail in her fur on the same plane as the cub. Therefore, the cub should have a bit more detail than indicated in the image?

Steve

[Andrew Merwin]

Except for very minor adjustments, this is the image directly from the camera. For me, only the sow was the focus. When a wild grizzly with 2 COYs is coming directly at me in the wilderness, DoF is my last consideration. Also, I was slightly to the left of the griz when I snapped the shutter so the CoY is a bit further away from me than the sow. I did not mask the sow. I did not blur the BG.

[PeterCollins]

i think its just the perils of shooting at 700mm with f5.6

thin DoF

excellent capture though

[Tom Graham]

So, use it as a "learning opportunity"? Perhaps use f8 as your pre-set and ISO 800? And change that if situation allows. Certainly would not lower SS any, you did good for 1/250.
Tom

[Arthur Morris]

Love the look on the face of the mother and the tiny baby. Going to f/8 would have done very, very little for the d-o-f. Too bad the little one wasn't walking faster...

[Arthur Morris]

Andrew I think you have added some additional blur in the BG and have masked the mother, but forgot the little cub as there is detail in her fur on the same plane as the cub. Therefore, the cub should have a bit more detail than indicated in the image? Steve

Steve, With all due respect it looks to me that the cub is even with the rear half of the adult and that the rear half of the adult does not have much sharply focused detail at all... It all looks as I would expect.

[Tom Graham]

Ok, if f8 would not be enough what would be the difference between the f5.6 used and if f11?
Tom

[Arthur Morris]

If we assume a distance of roughly 75 feet to the subject d-o-f at f/5.6 would be about six inches past the sharpest focus (on momma's eyes). At f/8 about 9 inches past there. And at f/11 about a foot past. None of those would cover the cub's eyes. (Date from here: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html)

Folks do not understand how limited d-o-f is with super-teles and the closer the subject the worse the d-o-f.

[Alfred Forns]

Dof for that combination at 75 feet is 9.12 inches at 5.6 and 13.44 inches for f 8.0

Artie judging form the side of the mother, the cub should be sharper? .. think the cub was run over by the masking !!

Strong image with mother and cub in good position, just wish the little guy was a little faster !!!

[Arthur Morris]

Alfredo, I am not seeing that at all. And Andrew states that he did not mask or blur anything. Andrew, can you post a JPEG that represents the original capture?

[Tom Graham]

So "rule of thumb" is, halve aperture, say f5.6 to f11 and the DOF doubles. Double the subject distance and and the DOF quadruples (x4). Andrew does not give his distance to bears, wonder what it was? For the image size at lens 700mm I'd guess he was more than 25m away. But don't have calculations to work backwards and show distance, camera to subject, with 700mm focal length with diagonal of 5m(?).
Tom
ps - "halve" is not a good word to use here is it. True 5.6 (5.5) is half, 1/2, of 11, but in light it is 1/4 intensity. (It's all related by area, the square root of 2, 1.414, but that also doesn't help for a clear unambiguous understanding). Help!!!

[Andrew Merwin]

Here is the original capture. When I captured the bear & cub, they were within 100 feet of me. I was standing on the road about 10 above the bears when I tripped the shutter. That said, I was concerned that the bears would soon be within the minimum focus distance of the lens. The bears were constantly moving toward & away from me. Anywhere from 300 feet away to 30 feet from my position. Andrew

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks for posting the ORIG. Unfortunately, the distance data in the EXIF is often inaccurate.:)