A shot from an entirely different sighting of Lions this time after a witnessed kill in Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania, 7th July 2012
EOS 1D MkIv
300mm F4
F6.3, ISO 400, 1/640
A shot from an entirely different sighting of Lions this time after a witnessed kill in Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania, 7th July 2012
EOS 1D MkIv
300mm F4
F6.3, ISO 400, 1/640
I really like your lion images Ken. This one with the bloody faces & mom's tongue licking her cub is really cool. I like the interaction between the two lions & the back story that the bloody faces tell. Well captured. TFS.
Andrew
+1
Ken you have gone from muddy to bloody
I also want to give credit for interaction. Love that, and the creamy background.
Maybe it could be an idea to put a bit more light on the faces and eyes, perhaps doing the Morkel way.
Is this full frame? I can see that comp going tighter or wider could be interesting to test, but this works very good as is.
Cheers, Gregor
Fantastic shot, amazing detail Ken. Really like the interaction here.
Sanjeev
Thanks everybody for your comments, they are much appreciated.
Gregor,
I really do prefer to keep my images reflecting the actual light, obviously using fill flash would have brightened the subject as well, but I am afraid that I really do not now approve of the use of flash on wild animals.
I have cropped from the RHS as viewed as I could not get all of the cub in I removed a bit of the back, which in my view added nothing much to the image.
Last edited by Ken Watkins; 08-07-2012 at 09:35 PM.
Yikes, a wow image for sure.
Chas
Mom, quit liking me like that! It's embarassing, everyone is looking. That man over there is watching. It's OK honey, I will go kill him next! LOL. Great image Ken!
This is a WOW image, as Chas said. Congrats, Ken!!
I know I am probably flogging a "dead horse" as it were, but please explain to me how the camera can capture the "actual light"?? All cameras capture the "actual light" - it's a combination of how long you keep the shutter open at what aperture and which ISO setting that determine what the camera does with the "actual light".
By merely adjusting your EV to +0.33 or +0.67 you would have gotten BETTER detail and exposure on the faces without clipping the BG (I'm postulating, but bear with me).
Here's a repost where I dodged the faces very slightly, added a very slight round of sharpening and then darkened the BG somewhat selectively.
Please tell me why this is not a better representation of the OP?![]()
Again, for easier comparison, the 2 side-by-side (my repost on the LHS)...
![]()
Morkel,
This constant fascination with lighter images, which do not reflect reality, is frankly quite puzzling to me, but it is your choice![]()
I feel Morkel's repost provides subtle changes that (a) still clearly show the animals in subdues dappled lighting and (b) enhance the shadow details.
The reality of the situation Ken, with regard to the recording instrument (DSLR) is that such lighting records low in contrast, lacks dynamic range and can have muddy mid-tone values.
The other reality is that the human eye does not have a similar low range of perception. So by improving the image through some simple post-processing steps, a result closer to the reality of the eye can be achieved.
The reality here is you don't want to take the time or develop the understanding on how to do this. So you argue it is us that have some "fascination" with lightening images.
And as I have said before to you, this is a critiquing forum. The moderators, and others, understand how to process images to make them better (i.e. bringing out the detail, manageing the tones, contrast and dynamic range). It is not some perversue fascination with lightening an image. Expose Right!!!
BTW: Flickr is a good social media sharing forum if you don't want meaningful commentary on images.
Robert,
I can only repeat what I just posted on my other thread.
Whereas you have made it all to clear in PM's to me in the past that you do not like my images the endless repetition is hardly of use to anyone who use this forum.
You seem to forget that I was once a moderator on this forum, and chose to resign that position on a matter of principle.
I therefore presume that some people on this forum considered my images to have some visual merits.
Okay...I will be as gentle as I can here...
As I said before...as a sighting and record of a moment of natural history it's amazing. Well composed too. The problem is that it could be so much more with some careful processing...but you keep shooting down any attempt to show that to you. Almost like a father who will never know that his kid is an ace swimmer because he refuses to take him to a swimming pool.
Ken, you said:
Now, here are a few things that I find quite puzzling...Morkel, This constant fascination with lighter images, which do not reflect reality, is frankly quite puzzling to me, but it is your choice
1. How you could exactly say what it should have looked like when you open up the image some weeks after the actual sighting? I am willing to bet that your eyes saw detail in the blacks (due to our eyes having more dynamic range than the camera), but in your OP they look choked up. It doesn't make it look less natural to enhance details in the face.
2. How you can speak so fluently out of both sides of your mouth? On the one hand you dismiss slight selective lightening of tones in an image as not reflecting reality, yet on the other hand you don't squirm to clone out the tail of a lion cub or move the palm tree in a waterbuck image from one side of the frame to the other. You also claim that "technical perfection is not my goal" but you lambaste other members for their choice of settings etc. That's double-speak in anyone's book......
3. Furthermore you claim to not enter competitions because it's a "stroking of egos", yet I would support Robert's sentiment that it seems on the whole that you are here for exactly that...being told "great shot" instead of honest critique on actually improving the image.
You also said:
I would agree in this context: your images do have a lot of merit. As one who "envies" (in a good way) the frequency and varied locations of your safari-travels, I am always interested in what you saw, yet IMHO you are not always presenting the images in a way that does them justice...and when pointed in the right direction you laugh it off and make statements like the above. Your images in themselves have merit, but the attitude with which you meet comments that don't exactly say what you want to hear does not have merit here and isn't helping anyone.I therefore presume that some people on this forum considered my images to have some visual merits
I agree with Robert here:
And as I have said before to you, this is a critiquing forum. The moderators, and others, understand how to process images to make them better (i.e. bringing out the detail, manageing the tones, contrast and dynamic range). It is not some perversue fascination with lightening an image. Expose Right!!!
BTW: Flickr is a good social media sharing forum if you don't want meaningful commentary on images
Morkel,
You are of course entitled to your own opinion, and seem to have expressed it with some vehemence here
You have used as examples of my manipulation of images that in both cases were in response to the suggestions made by other contributors to the thread, I am therefore somewhat puzzled by your assertion that I do not respond to suggestions made by others.
That was my point - you seem to respond to suggestions about altering the content/context of the image, yet brush off suggestions for subtle changes that keep the context but make a big difference as well...
OR is it that you brush off suggestions by certain forum members???![]()
Morkel,
I really do not see your point, I was pointing out that I do sometimes do respond to suggestions which you inferred I did not, anything you read to wish to read into it, is of course your choice.
I must also apologise for not responding to the other point you made about "lambasting" others regarding their choice of settings, you did not provide any details of the thread which contained this, but I will presume that it was Andreas's High ISO Rhino, as it is the only one that I can remember in a long time. I believe my criticism of the settings used was both perfectly fair and a highly obvious statement, that I should be allowed to make, without retribution. As I recall some others agreed with me, I am all for experimentation but only when it is dictated by the circumstances.
Can we now end this, as I have to go way on business to earn some money for my next safari.