Cantering Coyote

[Steve Canuel]

20D, 500/4 + 1.4xTC, f5.6, 1/250s, ISO 800, -1/3EC.

[Sabyasachi Patra]

I am not comfortable with the sharpness. It is to be expected as the Coyote was moving and you were shooting with a long lens. The lighting is nice. The dark patches in the background near the top is sligthly distracting.

I personally don't know what to do with images which are a tad soft. Earlier I used to delete ruthlessley. However, I was discussig with National Geographic photographer Ed Kashi and he said the cost of storage is nothing. If you don't like the shots today, tomorrow you may like some aspect of it. So I have stopped deleting those. But would like to hear from experts here about their views of shots that are slightly soft but has a good behaviour or nice mood. Thanks for sharing.

[peter delaney]

Hi Steve

i personally dont mind the image being a tad soft especially as the legs are motion blur...my nits are the left eye looks unnatural dont know how much work you have done to it....wud cop top with dark patches.... otherwise i like it...

[Alfred Forns]

Hi Steve I do like the look and feel of this image Get big marks form me for going with the flow !!!! Love that pose with the intimate head turn and raised paw !!!

I think there is a difference between a soft and oof/blurred image An image oof I will throw out since I don't like it today and will be unlikely to like in the future This does not fall under that category at all. Very soft light lends itself to this look

Keeping images becomes a problem the longer you shoot. What you keep is up to you storage is cheaper now but still I would be very selective

[Steve Maxson]

Steve, I'm OK with the softness in this case and I might also crop a little off the top. I see what Peter means about the coyote's left eye which, given the light angle, appears to be in shadow - and in that case wouldn't have a catchlight. On the other hand, I might not have noticed if Peter's comment hadn't drawn my attention to it.

[Robert Amoruso]

I looks to me that the light is from the left and the left eye (I am talking my left and not the coyote's) could have had that look w/o any post-processing affects adding to it. The head and eyes are sharp and to me that is what counts here. It looks like he is on the move when this was made and the rest is body motion so I am OK with that type of blurring.

[Ron Day]

A beautiful capture in sweet light. Nice implied motion in the blurred legs, and good sharpness in the face. Your processing it on the softer side makes it It looks like a painting to me. Nice work!

[Vincent Grafhorst]

I like the overall look of the image, the colours, the light. I don't mind the blurred legs at all, but I would keep it only if the eyes are really sharp. They look sharp on this presentation, but how they they look at 100%?

[Steve Canuel]

I am not comfortable with the sharpness. It is to be expected as the Coyote was moving and you were shooting with a long lens. The lighting is nice. The dark patches in the background near the top is sligthly distracting.

I personally don't know what to do with images which are a tad soft. Earlier I used to delete ruthlessley. However, I was discussig with National Geographic photographer Ed Kashi and he said the cost of storage is nothing. If you don't like the shots today, tomorrow you may like some aspect of it. So I have stopped deleting those. But would like to hear from experts here about their views of shots that are slightly soft but has a good behaviour or nice mood. Thanks for sharing.

Thanks for your comments Sabyasachi. I was curious to see what others thought about this particular image. He made an unexpected appearance as I was focused on another coyote that was further away. As for deleting soft images, I'm not an expert but I tend to keep many of those images if they have interesting actions, colors, or lighting. I'll try different processing methods for those times when I feel "artsy". Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't.

[Steve Canuel]

Hi Steve

i personally dont mind the image being a tad soft especially as the legs are motion blur...my nits are the left eye looks unnatural dont know how much work you have done to it....wud cop top with dark patches.... otherwise i like it...

Hi Peter,
I appreciate the comments. If your speaking left eye (as viewed) I would say I probably overdid the contrast on the eye which was exagerrated by sharpening for the web. I didn't add any catchlights to either eye but only performed contrast tweaks (a bit too much). The light in his left eye is very likely the reflection of a big thundercloud building up against the mountains just outside of town.

[Steve Canuel]

Hi Steve I do like the look and feel of this image Get big marks form me for going with the flow !!!! Love that pose with the intimate head turn and raised paw !!!

I think there is a difference between a soft and oof/blurred image An image oof I will throw out since I don't like it today and will be unlikely to like in the future This does not fall under that category at all. Very soft light lends itself to this look

Keeping images becomes a problem the longer you shoot. What you keep is up to you storage is cheaper now but still I would be very selective

Thanks Al. Gotta take 'em as they give 'em!

[Steve Canuel]

Steve, I'm OK with the softness in this case and I might also crop a little off the top. I see what Peter means about the coyote's left eye which, given the light angle, appears to be in shadow - and in that case wouldn't have a catchlight. On the other hand, I might not have noticed if Peter's comment hadn't drawn my attention to it.


Hi Steve,
Thanks for the comments. I believe that catchlight was from a reflectively lit thundercloud. This was taken in Albuquerque where the west side of town is flat and the east side has mountains. Late summer has a lot of afternoon thundrclouds build up on the east side of the mountains.

[Steve Canuel]

I looks to me that the light is from the left and the left eye (I am talking my left and not the coyote's) could have had that look w/o any post-processing affects adding to it. The head and eyes are sharp and to me that is what counts here. It looks like he is on the move when this was made and the rest is body motion so I am OK with that type of blurring.


Your right about the light Robert. He was heading east during the setting sun. As Peter pointed out I overdid the contrast on the eye and messed up the natural catchlight.

[Steve Canuel]

A beautiful capture in sweet light. Nice implied motion in the blurred legs, and good sharpness in the face. Your processing it on the softer side makes it It looks like a painting to me. Nice work!

Thanks Ron. I appreciate the comments.

[Steve Canuel]

I like the overall look of the image, the colours, the light. I don't mind the blurred legs at all, but I would keep it only if the eyes are really sharp. They look sharp on this presentation, but how they they look at 100%?

Thank you for your comments Vincent. Here's a 100% unprocessed crop.

[D. Robert Franz]

Lovely image well composed just the sharpness issue. Looking at the 100% crop it doesn't look to bad maybe a bit soft..

[Steve Maxson]

Well, it looks like we kind of nit-picked to death what is really a very nice image. Steve, thanks for taking the time to go through and address all the various comments. (and I retract what I said about the left eye) :)

[Steve Canuel]

Well, it looks like we kind of nit-picked to death what is really a very nice image. Steve, thanks for taking the time to go through and address all the various comments. (and I retract what I said about the left eye) :)

That's why I like posting here Steve. The different styles, levels of experience, and perspectives from around the world can't help but make you think a bit more before hitting that shutter. Now if I could just control the tears :)