-
Lifetime Member
-
BPN Member
-
BPN Viewer
I downloaded OP and Morkel's repost and flipped between them. I see just a tiny bit of difference, "subtle" as Morkel says, Morkel's being slightly darker, which I prefer. But not enough to get excited about.
Tom
-
Lifetime Member
First of all, the grimace is priceless!!!! Great IQ and details. Either version works for me as they are so close, but it never hurts to learn and hear about other's thoughts. Interesting to note the blood or minor injury on the cub's forehead and the cut ear. Those 2 little details are nice added elements.
I wonder if there is a small stick in the cub's mouth and if that is saliva that I see dripping down in the photo?
-
Lifetime Member
Thanks Morkel, Tom and Marina. Morkel - it's funny, I had originally processed it slightly darker, almost identical to your post and then decided I liked it a little lighter
.
Marina - He does have the tip of the branch in his mouth but I think what you are seeing is the whisker that is hanging down. As far as I can tell on the images the blood above the eye may be from the impala kill rather than the cub's.
Thanks again,
Rachel
-
Lifetime Member
Love the quirky grimace here Rachel, excellent quality on this cub as well, with Morkel's RP enhancing nicely.
TFS
-
Wildlife Moderator
Hi Rachel, Tom, IMHO when you start getting to this level of imagery & PP, 'subtlety' is absolutely key, 'it is attention to detail that separates good from great'. Personally I would go towards Morkels, as it has a cleaness about it, and it enhances the clarity, sharpness & detail capture in the OP, however we all see things differently and have different objectives is how we 'judge' images.
Perhaps pulling back a little, so the leopard wasn't quite 'in your face' may have been better, as it does fill the frame for me, however, again, it's whatever the creator wishes to convey & capture. Techs looks good and from the 7D
and your handling of the backlit situation is very well done, congrats on achieving everything what you have here. You could lose a little off the LHS, but again, all personal choice.
I see just a tiny bit of difference, "subtle" as Morkel says, Morkel's being slightly darker, which I prefer. But not enough to get excited about. Tom
Tom, you make a statement/comment, yet you don't back it up with any advice/feedback on how you would improve the image, therefore it would be helpful if you could expand on your reply, as we are all interested in what other possible enhancements & direction this image could take to bring it 'up a notch'.
TFS
Steve
Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.

-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Lifetime Member
Thanks Marc and Steve
-
BPN Viewer
I said - "But not enough to get excited about."
Then Steve replies- "Tom, you make a statement/comment, yet you don't back it up with any advice/feedback on how you would improve the image, therefore it would be helpful if you could expand on your reply, as we are all interested in what other possible enhancements & direction this image could take to bring it 'up a notch'."
I suppose I should have not mentioned getting "excited". Should have just left it with the usual - "somewhere between the two".
But to explain further, and dig myself in deeper
, I do not like wildlife images with burned out sky. (Exception maybe being a B&W print). So the only way to bring it "up a notch" for me would be to "replace" the blank sky with a thin overcast/cloudy/blue sky. But this would not be worth the work for me. An artist could do it, if the image is worth the effort.
Tom
-
Wildlife Moderator
Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.

-
BPN Viewer
Yep, does look un-natural to me.
I looked at the 50(?) thumbnails that come up this forum on a page (for me) and 5 of them had nice skies, not blown. (most do not have sky as background).
Here is a leopard in a tree with a lot of sky, my shot, nothing special. I'd put image here but not allowed so here is link -
http://tomgraham.smugmug.com/Other/TEST/4378018_gNkGR2#!i=2188745742&k=GGdJRC9&lb=1&s=O
".. .but I think you could miss out on some great images in the future."
You're telling me that the back lit images I have already posted here were not great?!?!? 
Here's a composite of six of them that I recall off-hand, but admittedly three of them are not back but strong side light -
http://tomgraham.smugmug.com/Other/TEST/4378018_gNkGR2#!i=2188846479&k=DSHhrn9&lb=1&s=O
Tom
Last edited by Tom Graham; 11-02-2012 at 12:31 AM.
-
BPN Member
-
BPN Viewer
"......the camera tends to capture that quite as well as your eye sees it."
You need to learn a LOT more about what "seeing" is.
Start here at BPN - http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...tical-illusion
I'll also try to limit my postings this forum to once a week.
Tom
-
BPN Member

Originally Posted by
Tom Graham
"......the camera tends to capture that quite as well as your eye sees it."
You need to learn a LOT more about what "seeing" is.
Start here at BPN -
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...tical-illusion
I'll also try to limit my postings this forum to once a week.
Tom
Tom,
1. I meant that it would be good seeing your own PHOTOS posted at least once a week, instead of very intermittently as you are doing now, given the kind of comments you are soliciting...I certainly did not imply that you need to limit your postings on the forum, merely that we would like to see more photos posted as well.
2. Do you not agree that a overcast/washed out sky in reality will translate to looking like that on the actual photo? Do you have a way to prevent this besides 'not photographing against such a backdrop'??? 
3. Interesting thread, but irrelevant as this is not about similarity of colours or illusion of 3D space.
4. Watch your tone please.

Last edited by Morkel Erasmus; 11-02-2012 at 05:06 AM.
Reason: rethunk an emotive response...
-
Lifetime Member
Thanks Steve and Morkel - I've made this point to Tom before about shooting even if the conditions or light angle aren't perfect but he still hasn't really answered. Afterall, as we all know wildlife doesn't always cooperate and pose facing the light. We also can't always have sunny days with bright blue skies. Some days are overcast, some skies are cloudy, sometimes it rains, etc. I should have said that the sky in this shot is not blown. That's the color it was on that day at the time of the shot. Most of my photography is done while I travel, I shoot what I see, in the conditions I see it. I don't have the time or inclination to wait for all the stars to align and have the perfect light on a subject with the perfect bg (though I would be happy if it did). I won't substitute a blue sky for one that was overcast. I don't know how to shoot a leopard up in a tree and not have sky in the bg whatever it looked like that particular day.
Personally, the 2 of you have taught me a lot about optimizing my images both in the field and in pp. I'd rather have a sharp, properly exposed image with an overcast sky than a softer, incorrectly exposed image with blue sky. BPN is a big reason why I now have much more of the former than the latter.
Tom - I think both Steve and Morkel are right that you need to post more of your own images. If you are capturing images with perfect light angle and gorgeous bg, I for one would enjoy seeing them. It would also make your comments more credible.
Thanks again,
Rachel
Last edited by Rachel Hollander; 11-02-2012 at 07:05 AM.
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
BPN Member
-
Lifetime Member
Thanks Anette, welcome back!
-
Besides my personal bias towards any Leopard image, I simply love it. Morkel's PP is very nice and surely brings out more details on the already detailed Leopard 
Cheers and thanks for sharing!
-
Lifetime Member
-
-
Lifetime Member
Thanks Jamie