Prairie Dog family

[Nancy Bell]

I thought I had a nice spot for photographing prairie dogs until an angry woman came up to me and accused me of being the police and spying and taking secret pictures! Yikes. I pointed out the prairie dogs and she stalked away in a huff.

Took this early evening as a storm was approaching, from the (locked) car.

Canon 1D-Mark IV, Canon 400 f4 DO IS, ISO 800, f9 (to hopefully get the entire family in focus), 1/200, exp. comp. +1/3

C & C most appreciated.

[Ofer Levy]

This is very nice! When openned in photoshop I noticed the image wasn't saved as sRGB and it looks a bit oversaturated.
Converted to sRGB, slightly de-saturated and cropped off top and bottom. WDYT ?

[Ian Cassell]

Wow, Nancy, what a story! I like this one very much with the little critters all in good focus. Maybe it's my crummy monitor here at work tonight, but Ofer's image actually looks more saturated than yours. I might take a bit off the top to move their heads up in the frame.

[Ofer Levy]

Wow, Nancy, what a story! I like this one very much with the little critters all in good focus. Maybe it's my crummy monitor here at work tonight, but Ofer's image actually looks more saturated than yours. I might take a bit off the top to move their heads up in the frame.
Hi Ian, nancy's image wasn't saved as sRGB this is why it looks flat on your monitor. If you open it in photoshop you'll see the correct colours.
In the repost I have de-saturated the colours a bit but saved as sRGB which is the correct colour space for web and the colours look as they really are in photoshop.:w3

[Hilary Hann]

The things we have to put up with to get or photos, but well done for persevering Nancy.

I like the alert pose of the little animals and the way they are encompassed by the green vegetation. I like Ofer's repost with the changed crop. Very nice.

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Nancy, good sighting and a bonus to get so many.

Nancy your OP does look saturated and Ofer is correct in that the image was not saved correctly, it looks high in greens/yellows in the overall depth of colour I feel, chocking the detail within the image. Canon can be on the warm side and depending if you have set your camera with any particular Picture style settings this might also compound things. Cropping as per Ofer's RP also reduces a lot of dead space and gives the subject more focus IMHO, in fact I had actually done the same prior to reading the whole thread. Sometimes I find that if you reduce the Red & Yellow channels in saturation Red being more than yellow it does help. Not saying this is right and it certainly is more subdued, but perhaps it might give a steer?

TFS
Steve

[Ofer Levy]

Hi Steve, I like your even tighter crop! I think you went too far with the de-saturation though - colours look too dull on my monitor.

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Ofer, as per Hilary's thread, I hate to work off site and am just going with a gut feeling on this one. This might address your thoughts, and perhaps is more between your & mine, still avoiding the saturation factor, plus keeping the vegetation true I hope, but also conscious of too many reposts. :w3 If you think it works will leave it, if not will delete.

Hope this ALL helps Nancy :S3:

Steve

[Ofer Levy]

Yep, last repost looks much better to me.

[Rachel Hollander]

Nancy - it's a fun image and a good story about getting it. Good suggestions on crop and color by Ofer and Steve. I like the colors of Steve's last post the best but you'll know best.

TFS,
Rachel

[Dumay de Boulle]

I have never seen a prairie dog but the post in pane 6 looks most natural...Lovely to get them all looking in different directions. A very appealing image! Nice one Nancy

[Nancy Bell]

Thnak you, thank you everyone. However I am confused. When I "save for the web" I have "convert to sRGB" checked. What more should I do?

I really like the crop with less BG showing. I also struggled with the really green greens. Recent rains and early evening light added to the saturated colors. With work with the suggestions.

[Ofer Levy]

Hi Nancy,
I never use "save for web". I just resize as needed then go to EDIT- CONVERT TO PROFILE - select sRGB and that's it. Very simple and leaves no room for mistakes.:w3

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Nancy, can I ask, do you calibrate your monitor, as monitors need to be calibrated at least once a month as they drift off easily, plus if you are using a laptop you might like to read Arties article.

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/84540-Calibration-Strip-Tutorial

Taking on board that all is fine ie camera settings, monitor & colour settings & workflow then perhaps if you haven't already, may I suggest you take a look at this. This will ensure there is no colour shift which can happen, the correct profile is embedded and by 'Saving for web' it ensures that you get the best from your image, It is then correct for display ie web, projection etc, you can be certain that quality & compression is correct and it is portrayed exactly to the final file you have produced.

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/62351-Saving-for-Web-in-PS

Hope this helps.
Steve

[Ofer Levy]

Hi Steve,
Would you be able to explain what does "save for the web" do more than converting to sRGB and converting to 72 dpi (which I believe has no effect on the displayed image.)
I have never used "save for the web" and never had any issues with posting images exactly the way I want them to look.
Thanks,
Ofer :w3

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Ofer, in simple terms as I am not a geek, the plug-in is to allow you to produce a copy of your image that is optimised for Web use. This means that the image file will be as small as possible, and that the image will use only Web-safe colours. It also will have an embedded profile that avoids colour shifts or the browser using its own.

Simply it does the job with no issues to colour or image quality. Try it and see, I bet the file size will be smaller compared to your file, but quality is on a par. At the end of the day we use what we like and feel comfortable in and gives us the results we want, but if there is a tool designed to do a job right, why not use it IMHO. :S3:

Steve

[peter delaney]

Hi Nancy

You have a very nice image, the suggestions from Steve about calibration and "save for the web" are very important if you want consistency in colour from your work..


Hi Nancy,
I never use "save for web". I just resize as needed then go to EDIT- CONVERT TO PROFILE - select sRGB and that's it. Very simple and leaves no room for mistakes.:w3

Ofer, you could record it as an action and it would be even be simpler:S3:

[Ofer Levy]

Hi Ofer, in simple terms as I am not a geek, the plug-in is to allow you to produce a copy of your image that is optimised for Web use. This means that the image file will be as small as possible, and that the image will use only Web-safe colours. It also will have an embedded profile that avoids colour shifts or the browser using its own.

Simply it does the job with no issues to colour or image quality. Try it and see, I bet the file size will be smaller compared to your file, but quality is on a par. At the end of the day we use what we like and feel comfortable in and gives us the results we want, but if there is a tool designed to do a job right, why not use it IMHO. :S3:

Steve
Thanks Steve, will do.:w3

[Morkel Erasmus]

Lovely image of this family, Nancy. I feel Steve's last repost has the most 'punch' both in terms of composition and colour (though I stand to be corrected as I've never seen them). I like the alert poses.


Hi Steve,
Would you be able to explain what does "save for the web" do more than converting to sRGB and converting to 72 dpi

Ofer, I am also not a tech guy in terms of the backbone of image computing, but from my experience "save for web" also removes all EXIF and embedded information from the image (though I have set mine to include only copyright information), and this also helps to use the allowable image size (200kb) optimally and mostly for pixel data. :2:e3