lazy leopard

[Tom Graham]

This taken in Serengeti in Feb of 2011. Early morning, a pretty little female leopard about 10 feet up on a tree branch. We were first to see her but word got out and in an hour there were over dozen vehicles on road nearby trying to see her when she came down. Anyway, when we saw her she was mostly asleep and paying little attention to us. Thus the dreamy eyed look. Which considering her general lazy body posture works for me. That is, not looking at camera. The light is interesting, she being basically in shade but some soft sun coming in from back right. This is big crop, using about half of total pixels (maybe cropped to tight??). Post processing to bring out some color and contrast. And noise reduction using Noise Ninja.
Nikon D200, 1/500, f8, 250mm on a 70-300mm zoom. ISO 1600 and 1600 is big problem for D200, should not use it above 400 for best IQ.

111863

Tom

[Gerald Kelberg]

That is a seriously "cool" cat! The softness of the light and the totally chilled out expression make this really work for me, irrespective of the noise/ISO issues. Thanks for sharing, Gerald

[Mark Wiseman]

Hi Tom,
I like the detail, pose and POV. A very nice portrait.
Thanks for sharing and best wishes,
Mark.

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Tom, I think it's good to get a happy balance between posting comments & posting images, rather than one or the other, as it helps build the Forum and promotes interaction, so thanks for posting.

I like the restful gaze and the image of contentment. Can't really comment on the camera or how it performs with high ISO, however:
- Looks like you have lightened the left ear and towards the back of the neck, as there is more noise coming through and looks patchy
- Would look at some of the colour along the tree, has an almost 'greenish tint/hue' in parts, also not sure if you have softened or blurred the gnarled part towards the RHS at the foot of the image & then below the elbow on the LHS?
- Personally if you have used Velvia I might ease off a tad, as I feel/think the saturation is a little too much, but all personal
- Lightening the face in Curves a tad more I think helps
- The ISO & crop perhaps has not done the clarity and sharpness any favours sadly, but it's quite nice overall
- Think I prefer the look away from camera rather than a look to camera on this one
- Would look at applying some more NR to selective parts

Just my take here Tom. :w3

TFS
Steve

[Tom Graham]

Thanks all.
Cropping indeed does not help the noise issue. Probably should pull back 10%?
I did no selective lightening nor coloration anywhere. In places her fur looks bit strange or ruffled like just back of her head. The tree below does have a green/cyan cast due to I think moss/lichen. Which means a cool part of the tree and maybe that is why she likes it? I thought about taken its color (green) away but decided I liked its contrast with her color. At the time I keep wanting her to look at camera, she never did, would just close eyes. But I'm very happy with her pose. Note, it appears she has no long whiskers on her right side mouth because they are flattened in by her arm under her !!! Yes I did use Velvia action, the "original" color is very flat. Big question during PP was how much color and contrast?? FWIW, here ia a jpg made directly from the NEF/RAW, no PP. Not sure what it shows us except the cameras "negative" needs work!!! BIG difference from my OP!!!! You're welcome to play with it if you wish.

111884

Tom

[Rachel Hollander]

Tom - I took a shot at processing it. For me the OP looks much too cooked (sorry) and the noise is a problem. I think the crop really hurt the IQ too. I used mostly levels adjustments, first applied to the entire image and then a second adjustment selectively to the leopard. I also down the red channel on the leopard slightly (-10), applied a curves adjustment selectively to the leopard (actually a bit too much contrast for my taste but I know you like your colors and contrast amped up a bit), selectively sharpened the leopard, and applied NR selectively (1 round to all but the leopard and one round to just the bg excluding the leopard and the branch it is sitting on). Finally I selectively sharpened the leopard and then applied the sharpening action posted by Morkel to all at (40%). I also converted to sRGB before posting. I still haven't gotten my shot of a leopard on a branch in the open so I'm jealous. Hopefully, my next trip. Let me know what you think.

TFS,
Rachel

P.S. See you do still take the shot even when the light isn't at its best angle. :S3:

[Tom Graham]

Thanks Rachel. I like your noise reduction. Still believe the original needs some cropping, especially RHS, and bit LHS, but then becomes rather square.
I have about 4 versions with different color saturation, and I do think now my OP is a bit overcooked. Once more, drives me crazy trying to PP then viewing on internet. But I do try, doing Photoshop PP then saving as jpg and viewing with a jpg viewer (Irfanview). Anyway, I just now flipped between the original jpg and how it appears here using Firefox browser. Here, BPN, the Firefox jpg looks bit more saturated. (All sould be sRGB). I'll keep working on viewing consistency, at least for my monitor. Perhaps I'll first load jpg to another site and view it from there and that will tell me how it will look on BPN and then I can go back and tweak it??? Or maybe life is too short for such :S3: .
Thanks again Rachel - Tom
ps - yes I take a lot of shots when light is not what I want, in this case I lucked out, it was not that bad overall. I love light at extreme angles, my middle name is "backlit" :S3:

[Steve Kaluski]

Well, looks like you have started something Tom with your image, so hopefully it will prove an interesting thread. :w3

Firstly, I would disagree about the 'moss/lichen', as both your original & the following RP have not 'greenish' colourations. Re colour, I guess that is down to you and how you and your camera recorded it, I quite often use 'Faithful' as that has NO setting applied ie saturation, contrast, sharpening etc so you just get the data with no additional input, but that occasionally changes, but of course you can change that to a certain extent in the RAW conversion. Adding Contrast can choke areas that are very dark almost black and I now try to avoid doing that and use half tone settings within Curves to adjust the B&W's.

I have tried to keep it simple as I like the almost minimal colours and just adjusting it slightly I feel gives the sense of early morning. In doing so you get the subtle colouring from the sun coming up and keeping both tree & BKG I think more faithful, but again just my take. As you say Tom, it's all about how we perceive things and our interpretation of how things look. Obviously not ideal with the limited data in the post, but perhaps these RP may give food for thought. I kept it to the size you posted to avoid anymore loss in IQ.

Steve

[Tom Graham]

Thanks Steve for you work with this.
About the green moss/lichen -
Here is screen capture when I open Nikon NEF in Photoshop -
111888

Green is there, why? I have not a clue as to how Phootshop handles NEF.

Here is screen shot same NEF opened in Bibble 5 -
111890

Image overall has green cast.

Perhaps I have default processing parameters wrong for NEF? Would appreciate correction from anyone knowing what might be going on.

Tom

[Steve Kaluski]

Sorry Tom, can't help as I'm Canon, perhaps Morkel can as he has jumped to the 'Dark side'. :bg3: Thought the K would be lower than 5948? Based on this, it doesn't look a big crop.

[Tom Graham]

FWIW, which admittedly may not be much, when taken this photo I had the D200 record both NEF and JPG.
I went and pulled up the out of camera jpg and into Photoshop. It is very flat - here it is - no changes made in PS
111904


Then if in PS I do a simple saturation adjustment of +80, it looks like this -
111905

Yes this much saturation over cooks it. But does show green moss. So wonder why when using the NEF file the green/cyan is more pronounced??

Tom

[Morkel Erasmus]

Thanks for posting this one, Tom.
Looks like a super sighting, and you captured a nice pose.

I won't rehash the other critiques given above.

Let's tackle the green cast /WB issue...what do you normally set your WB to when on safari?
I have found that the Nikon auto WB tends to introduce cyan and green casts VERY easily. I avoid that setting and most often shoot on 'sunset' even when the sun is not shining. I adjust WB later in RAW processing (LR3.6) if it doens't reflect the scene as I remember it. Coming from Canon I am used to a 'warmer' tone to my images, and that's how I achieve it with the Nikons.

That being said - remember that the camera sensor sometimes picks up green casts from (near-invisible-to-our-eyes) reflected light off green foliage. Hence our subjects might have a tinge of green in them when photographed in a very lush environment.

I like Steve's repost but might brighten it a touch and add back some midtone contrast.

I have one question for you - pardon my bluntness :t3 - time and time again you lament the capabilities of your D200. Why not upgrade? Even if you perhaps can't afford the D4s and the D800s of this world (though I would say skip out on one safari and you can purchase one of those :w3), cameras like the D7000 offer you a MASSIVE upgrade from the D200 in terms of sensor technology, high ISO performance, resolution, the whole shebang - at a VERY competitive price. It might be worth your buck to do this - given how often you seem to be on safari. I would hate to visit the places you frequent and not being able to make the most of every photographic opportunity. Just my 2c. Use it, don't use it. :Whoa!:


Hi Tom, I think it's good to get a happy balance between posting comments & posting images, rather than one or the other, as it helps build the Forum and promotes interaction, so thanks for posting.

I fully agree, Steve. :5

[Tom Graham]

Thanks Morkel for you many good questions.
The WB for this image was set at 5600K. That's not extreme either way, but is I think as you say leaning on the blue side. 6500K would probably be better since I also like the image warmer rather than cooler. Shooting in "sunset" setting like you say would I think require more color temp adjustment in PP than using 5600K but can't say I've actually investigated the difference. Which should be meaningless anyway in RAW. Much more difficult adjusting/correcting jpg

Yes I lament on the D200 before someone else does :S3: . In this image the problem was not the D200 but ME!!! I'm surprised no one has picked on it. Why did I shoot at shutter 1/500 (which required ISO1600) a -sleeping- leopard?? 1/125 should have worked and thus used ISO 400!!! Here the D200 was capable of much better IQ, MY fault for not letting it.

I use a DSLR how often - only once a year on safari!!! Other times around the house I use a Canon P&S. "Making the most of every photo opportunity" as you saw is interesting question. What do I do with my safari photos?? How do I use them and what does it require? A few 11x14 inch prints on the wall, photos and video clips put on a DVD to show on a TV to show to family and friends and anyone who asks about safari. This is not demanding of camera equipment. Any good P&S will do, a DSLR is overkill. Anyway, I would have been tempted by a D400 if/when it comes out. NO way am I interested in a bigger heavier body like the D800. If anything go smaller like the new 1 series. Who needs to hassle with big gear when traveling these days, not me. And I don't care to swing a 500mm lens around camp just so other guests ask me if I'm a professional photographer. FWIW, there is the old saying - Photographers who worry about equipment are amateurs. Photographers who worry about money are professional. And photographers who worry about light are photographers. :S3:

And more FWIW, in two weeks I will indeed be on safari, South Africa in the Timbavati Reserve. With the same camera kit I've had for last 6 years. Trying to use it best for its limitations and praying for good light and good sightings.

About balancing posting images and comments, I'd best not comment on that :S3:

Thanks again - Tom

[Morkel Erasmus]

Thanks Tom. Interesting reply. I thought I'd add some comments to your comments :bg3:.


Yes I lament on the D200 before someone else does. In this image the problem was not the D200 but ME!!! I'm surprised no one has picked on it. Why did I shoot at shutter 1/500 (which required ISO1600) a -sleeping- leopard?? 1/125 should have worked and thus used ISO 400!!! Here the D200 was capable of much better IQ, MY fault for not letting it.


Good point. Could've made a world of difference...:c3:



I use a DSLR how often - only once a year on safari!!! Other times around the house I use a Canon P&S. "Making the most of every photo opportunity" as you saw is interesting question. What do I do with my safari photos?? How do I use them and what does it require? A few 11x14 inch prints on the wall, photos and video clips put on a DVD to show on a TV to show to family and friends and anyone who asks about safari. This is not demanding of camera equipment. Any good P&S will do, a DSLR is overkill. Anyway, I would have been tempted by a D400 if/when it comes out. NO way am I interested in a bigger heavier body like the D800. If anything go smaller like the new 1 series. Who needs to hassle with big gear when traveling these days, not me.

I can certainly understand the sentiment of wanting to travel lighter. And yes - what we intend doing with our photos should determine what we are prepared to purchase and lug around with us. Note that I was not advocating a lens upgrade, merely an upgrade to a body that is effectively 3-4 generations newer in terms of technology, for not a very bad price. This would give you more options and opportunities even given your current lens setup to work the available light and maybe come back with a few 'keepers' more. Even if the end-goal is just for personal use, as photographers we should never be ashamed to admit that WE want to improve our chances to nail that keeper. :e3


And I don't care to swing a 500mm lens around camp just so other guests ask me if I'm a professional photographer.

mmhmm...funny statement...again I said nothing about a big lens you should obtain...and FWIW, I (and many others) carry around a 500mm because it delivers darn good IQ and allows me to get the kind of shots I am after personally, not for stroking egos or creating a certain kind of impression (though I know you do get those who like to fling around stuff that costs a lot of money just for the sake of it)...


FWIW, there is the old saying - Photographers who worry about equipment are amateurs. Photographers who worry about money are professional. And photographers who worry about light are photographers.

another interesting and bold statement...of course I agree that we need to worry about the light - we do paint with light after all...
other analogies can also be used to counter this...for example - you cannot excavate a gold mine with a garden shovel. The generic use might be the same, but the results will differ. I am the last one to advocate "gear lust". I was merely pointing out that it could be beneficial to your own photography if you invest in a newer camera body. Heck, even a D90 or used D300s will do wonders in terms of low light capability compared to what you are using.
Of course the best camera is "the one you have with you"...but which one you have with you is something you have some power of volition over. Again - I'm not saying sell your dogs and grandchildren for a D4, I'm merely saying that although we shouldn't focus on the tools themselves, only a fool would negate the value a great tool adds in terms of your confidence in getting the shot. I used an entry-level DSLR for a few years, pushing it to the limits and learning as much as I can with the tool at my disposal - but there was just a time when I knew that I had to move a step up in order to grow in this hobby-cum-artform. Even then I did not go right to the top of the camera-hierarchy, I merely stepped up from an entry-level to a prosumer model.

Alas - any further elaboration will go even further off topic and this thread is about critiquing the image. :tinysmile_shy_t:


And more FWIW, in two weeks I will indeed be on safari, South Africa in the Timbavati Reserve. With the same camera kit I've had for last 6 years. Trying to use it best for its limitations and praying for good light and good sightings.

Enjoy it - and I too hope you have good light and sightings...
:5

[Tom Graham]

Thanks Morkel for your views on all of this. I wasn't trying to be too testy, just whining a little I suppose :S3: .
I'll use the D200 for now, along with backup D40X. And be more aware of settings I'm actually shooting with. I have a (bad?) habit of using f8, 1/500 and auto ISO and not paying much attention except to focus.
And, I don't mind going off-topic, as all moderators at BPN know :S3: .

Thanks again - Tom

[Ken Watkins]

Tom,

I like the OP as the colours look perfectly natural too me, perhaps it is my monitor? Obviously both pupils would have been nicer:w3