Results 1 to 30 of 30

Thread: Red Fox

  1. #1
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Wyre Forest Worcestershire
    Posts
    4,096
    Threads
    557
    Thank You Posts

    Default Red Fox

    Attached Images Attached Images
     
    Don't get much exiting stuff in the UK !!
    About the best I,ve got so far. Country fox - not a townie !
    Done from a hide justv outside my garden
    Reworked rom the archives.
    Late Evening Sunset on trees in back ground.
    D200
    800 ISO
    125th@f7 Sigma 100-300mm
    Nearly full frame.
    Levels/Hist adjust in Paint Shop Pro.
    Cheers
    JohnR

  2. #2
    Lifetime Member Marc Mol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Somewhere else in the World
    Posts
    4,797
    Threads
    708
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Love the quizzical look on this little guy with the small flowers enhancing the garden scene.
    Would tone back the cyan on the chest and the white flower highlight ULHC here John.
    TFS


  3. #3
    Forum Participant edwardselfe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    South Luangwa, Zambia
    Posts
    701
    Threads
    26
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi John.

    This is a beautiful scene which you captured expertly. I really like the contrasting depth of field effects on the left and right, and the flashes of colour given by the flowers. The only thing I'm not so keen on is the muddy effect on the cub's fur. I've played with the image in LR and I've managed to lift those muddy whites a little using a selective brush tool, but I wonder if the muddiness came from use of highlight and shadow tools? Did you have to lift the cub because it was heavily in shadow, or reduce the whites because they were blown? It might be very interesting to see the original raw if you don't mind sharing, as I think this is a couple of tweak short of being a winner. Perhaps see what others say and then let us know what you did to the image.....?

    Hope you don't mind my direct approach.

    Ed

  4. #4
    Wildlife Moderator Steve Kaluski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in the world
    Posts
    20,551
    Threads
    1,285
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Firstly John the image needs to be sRGB for any web presentation, as the colours will not be true and may cause colour shift giving the appearance of being very saturated at times and not portraying the image to it's best. The inquisitive look is nice, but being centrally place for me, isn't ideal, the look and placement of the subject needs to be more left, especially with the slight tilt of the head. The green is way too saturated and as Marc pointed out, dropping either the Cyan and or the Blue would improve things. Unless you are rock stead, HH at 1/125 sec is not ideal, so cranking up the ISO on a Nikon is not an issue to gain more SS which this needs, as the image does look soft, the subject is not sharp. The black in the dark, shadow areas, i.e. nose and stomach also need lifting as in parts they are choked, likewise dropping the highlights too. Surprised at the noise creeping in, especially in the FG, but a simple remedy with some selective NR will address that. The summer flowers enhances the image, but I would remove the white 'blob' in the BKG which is distracting.

    Steve
    Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.

  5. #5
    Lifetime Member Rachel Hollander's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    14,320
    Threads
    929
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi John - I too like the setting and the inquisitive look the fox gave you. You've gotten some excellent advice and suggestions above. The color and muddied effect on the chest as well as the noise are the biggest issues for me.


    TFS,
    Rachel

  6. #6
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Wyre Forest Worcestershire
    Posts
    4,096
    Threads
    557
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Thanks all
    I will rake out the original . This one was a screen shot off another forum. The chest colour on all my 800 or so pics of foxes especially cubs, is as it is on this one. I agree there is some cyan there, but not much brightness. If I brighten it which is easy enough it starts to go away fom the very late evening sun backdrop to the shade area at the front, and our foxes here anyway don,t have bright chest bits..There is just a hint of light on the ears. The sun had actually gone 2 minutes after this was taken. Noise wise I agree but the D200 over 800 ISO is not good. Easily sorted. I agree about the white Achillia flower head in the back -that can come out. In fact this shot has been published and used many times, and thats the only alterations any of them did.Not sure what is meant by the "muddled" look on the chest. One forum poster said the chest was over sharpened when in fact no extra sharpening was done. As a matter of interest, I don't shoot raw., I haven,t got photoshop, and everything I do is sRGB -from camera to end product. I,ll get around to taking on board the suggestions later. Are the comments based on the shot "as seen " at normal viewing levels or dowloaded and blown up ? Good thing about forums - you end up going around in circles !
    Thanks for your interest.
    Cheers
    JohnR
    Last edited by John Robinson; 01-11-2014 at 09:34 AM. Reason: spelling

  7. #7
    Wildlife Moderator Steve Kaluski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in the world
    Posts
    20,551
    Threads
    1,285
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    One forum poster said the chest was over sharpened when in fact no extra sharpening was done.
    The chest is marginally sharper than the head, so the focus point was probably there rather than between the eyes. All digital images require selective sharpening, not Global sharpening, fact. To what degree is down to the image and should only be applied after cropping, at the stage of output, you sharpen at the final size.

    everything I do is sRGB
    The image indicates that it has an untagged profile and therefore it does not have an embedded sRGB profile, somewhere in your workflow you are missing something.



    Good thing about forums - you end up going around in circles !
    Not here John, our members go forward and up, building on what they learn and implementing their knowledge into their images.
    Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.

  8. #8
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Wyre Forest Worcestershire
    Posts
    4,096
    Threads
    557
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    The out put in PSP is set to sRGB - always has been so if this one is wrong then every image I have ever posted on the internet is too. The camera is sRGB , the output in PSP is sRGB, printer is sRGB so the web site must be changing it then ? A small proportion of my stuff has had selective sharpening. The reason I am going around in circles is --
    This same image has been on sevaral forums as you well know . It has had a total of 1400 views and haven't worked out yet how many comments. It recieved POTW, won two competitions and has been published several times in magazines ,/as greetingcards/ posters , and sale prints etc.
    There have been a few comments about the white blob, but not one mention of colour, over saturation,noise,sharpness ,positioning etc. Hence my circular movements.
    Cheers
    JohnR

  9. #9
    Wildlife Moderator Steve Kaluski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in the world
    Posts
    20,551
    Threads
    1,285
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Attached Images Attached Images
     
    Hopefully John this will clarify my point. I have no idea what PSP is, or how it works, I like 99% of people here use Photoshop and to Save for web is a two step process which takes less than three minutes and ensures the image has the correct embedded profile. The version on the left indicates an untagged profile, your post. The version on the right has the correct sRGB profile applied. As I said, somewhere in your Workflow something is not set correctly.

    What other Forums do and the number of views is incidental, however when an image goes to print the file is converted to CMYK. With over 27 years in Design and Advertising John, I know one or two things about the world of print.

    I trust you get thing sorted soon.
    Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.

  10. #10
    BPN Member Andreas Liedmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Dortmund / Germany
    Posts
    10,906
    Threads
    1,196
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi Johnny,
    like the cocky look of the fox with the tilted head, gives him a sweet touch.
    Agree about the comments you got about comp , colors , flowers and the BKG from the others. As Steve said image is untagged so no true representation of colors on all various screens and machines, so color management could not really work.

    Took the liberty to download three other images you posted in avian --- all of them are untagged , so for good color representation , think you should think about your workflow………
    The guys over in Avian are not looking very close from time to time.

    TFS Andreas

  11. #11
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Wyre Forest Worcestershire
    Posts
    4,096
    Threads
    557
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi Andreas. I can't do anything about it as PSP does not keep tagged images after I have altered them at all even though they show up in the exif as sRGB.. As I say I have been posting exactly the same way for 7 years and all my stuff comes out of Paint shop pro as sRGB even though they are not tagged. After two hours on the phone to various people tonight I have been told that the untagged images will default to sRGB in most browsers. So although they are not tagged they are still sRGB. I can't do anything about it anyway as I am stuck with PSP so I,ll just have to take up another hobby . I don't feel people need to look that close really . As one person said tonight even if they were not sRGB the colouur could still be right, and if people were not able to tell if they were or not could make no difference. Surely its what the image looks like. and what you are saying really is that allmy images are not tagged so they can't be right !- the interest in the image as natural history seem to be lost these days. Its all beyond me.
    Cheers
    JohnR
    Last edited by John Robinson; 01-11-2014 at 03:19 PM.

  12. #12
    BPN Member Andreas Liedmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Dortmund / Germany
    Posts
    10,906
    Threads
    1,196
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hey John,
    we all have different targets , you and me and all others .
    I like if people look closely to my images and tell me their thoughts , good or bad , all welcome. I do not post / photograph for natural history just for fun, but in all that fun i have a serious target ------ it should be good in the end.

    If you feel people should not look closely and giving their thoughts about IQ etc, think you should tell in the intro if you just want to hear , oh what a wonderful image ……...

    Then i ask why do post here ? if you follow the threads in this forum, you should have seen that WE here make suggestions and giving tips for improving our stuff…..

    Just my honest thought, hope you can stand it, i accept your point and will for sure not add any comment , because i look close.

    Sad to hear that you are stuck with your tools.

    Cheers Andreas

  13. #13
    Lifetime Member Ashleigh Scully's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    241
    Threads
    49
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi Mr. Robinson, you did a great job capturing a wild country fox in its natural setting with an awesome look and a beautify setting. I think this is one you should be proud of!
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/awscully/

  14. #14
    Wildlife Moderator Steve Kaluski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in the world
    Posts
    20,551
    Threads
    1,285
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    John there are plenty of social media sites out there where, back slapping, nice image, good stuff, great image is the standard fodder and this has no real/true value and ultimate does not help those who want to progress and have a thirst to learn. 'We' (Members & Mods) take everything on board when viewing and critiquing images and endeavour, where possible to give a fair, concise and informative feedback, good or bad. If it's posted within a critique forum then certainly we do our best to provide that.
    Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.

  15. #15
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Wyre Forest Worcestershire
    Posts
    4,096
    Threads
    557
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I have no problem with critique at all=- I was reared on it !- and I,ve had plenty.
    The isuue here is the sRGB question. I have been told that if my pics are saved in sRGB then that's what they are.- full stop. They are certainly not Adobe RGB and never will be.
    "Tagged " is only an attached word that my programme unfortunately does not save. I can't seem to get that through. I will get an answer somehow.
    John

  16. #16
    Wildlife Moderator Steve Kaluski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in the world
    Posts
    20,551
    Threads
    1,285
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I will get an answer somehow.
    Great.
    Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.

  17. #17
    Forum Participant edwardselfe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    South Luangwa, Zambia
    Posts
    701
    Threads
    26
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi John,

    Apologies if I made critique comments where they weren't wanted, however people are not simply being pedantic about the sRGB thing, because "it's the rules". They are encouraging you to ensure that it's sRGB so that we are all seeing the same thing on our screens. That way, when people make comments about your image, you know that they are based on the same view that you are getting.

    There are very many images posted on this site which are truly excellent in content and timing, and members usually come for help with improving the final touches, or their own technique, rather than simply to be told that their image is excellent. Your image is also very good - as I said in my review - and perhaps we took for granted that you also knew that. We should have made more of the beautiful scene and nice setting, but that is not constructive in improving the image at all. It just makes the photographer feel better, although there is merit in that, and we all enjoy good feedback.

    I don't think that you should dismiss the fact that this is the only forum where people have made critique comments and assume that we are all nit-picking and missing the point of a beautiful wildlife image. We aren't and we haven't. This forum is wholly more constructive than 500px for example, where people trade compliments to try to increase their 'peak' rate or whatever it is. That is merely an exercise in self-promotion, whereas this is a forum of free exchange of ideas and skills. People who have developed their own methods of image capture and processing are generous enough to share them with people they've never met. And many of the photographers in this forum are truly excellent and they take joy in seeing each other's images of nature, and helping them to improve for the next time.

    Your image is certainly a candidate for an 'image of the week/year' award, but that doesn't mean that with the collective expertise of 15-20 good photographers, it couldn't be improved in some way.

    I am going to have the audacity to attempt a repost, and see if I can illustrate the comments that people have been making about the cyan tinge on the chest and the muddiness on the fur - it's not perfect by any means, but I hope it helps. Also keep in mind that there are many people in this forum who are much better than me at this!!! (And please ignore the slight crunchiness which is showing on the chest - a result of trying to sharpen a small jpeg).

    Name:  140112_.jpg
Views: 116
Size:  399.0 KB

    All the best,

    Ed

  18. #18
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Munich
    Posts
    390
    Threads
    23
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Don't worry John, can't tell how focussed it is from a small jpg nut I have a sigma 120-300 that regardless of focus point manages to focus where it wants :) PSP and colour profiles, yep Photoshop is great but is costing me 12€ a month....

    Nice shot though, not all great shots are sharp as razors and I still have no decent foxes...

  19. #19
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    2
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi John

    "Tagging" is a word I wish folk wouldn't use in this respect for the simple reason that, as you have, they get it mixed up with Alt tags and keyword tags etc:

    The CORRECT way of addressing your problem is to say that your image lacks an "embedded colour profile" .

    From what I can gather, PSP is somewhat notorious for not embedding colour profiles in images that may be classed as "off site" - in other words images NOT being displayed/rendered on your system.

    Have a look at this page http://www.cranburydigitalcameraclub...ing_images.php - 3rd section down - it might help.

  20. #20
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Wyre Forest Worcestershire
    Posts
    4,096
    Threads
    557
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Edward
    Yes I can see the improvement an as I said mine was a screen shot which I didn't realise at first. My issue is wih the business about sRGB. Even though my images are nnot "tagged" (and never have been in 10 years) the browsers default to sRGB so there shouldn't be a colour problem therefore. Why it should suddenly come up on this pic is beyond me. If this one is wrong then they all have been wrong. Do you see my point ?
    Thanks
    JohnR

  21. #21
    BPN Member Bill Jobes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,275
    Threads
    91
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    This has been an outstanding thread discussion.

    It's a beautiful image, John. While I understand your pique on the attention paid to the sRGB issue, the color profile really does matter when translating image files to the web.

    The suggestions to improve your outstanding image are all well-intentioned, I am sure. Ed's RP was quite excellent, IMO.

    But to be sure, none of the dialogue detracts from what I perceive as universal appreciation for your OP photograph.

    I'm a huge fan of fox photos. Yours here is without question one of the best, most engaging, I've ever seen.
    Bill Jobes



    www.billjobes.com

    My BPN Gallery

    Walk Softly and Carry a Big Lens

  22. #22
    Forum Participant edwardselfe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    South Luangwa, Zambia
    Posts
    701
    Threads
    26
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Yup I see your point, but I guess they were all "wrong". But perhaps the guys on this forum are just more precise and want to give the best advice that they can, so they check that the colour space is the same across all images.
    Ed

  23. #23
    BPN Member Bill Jobes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,275
    Threads
    91
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi Ed,

    If you're implying that my comments suggested that the critics of John's OP were 'wrong,' then your assumption is incorrect. I'd appreciate a clarification on that point.

    A consistent embedded color space is a good practice across a forum, but it in no way confers the oft-held mis-impression that the colors presented are accurate.

    Color space only presents the color characteristics that the photographer/artist created and concluded with in the editing process.

    While its advisable to present web-destination photographs in sRGB for the technical reasons we all know about, having done so is no assurance that we all see the same thing on our monitors.

    Some are calibrated; some are not. Different brands convey color temperatures in proprietary ways.

    While the goal usually is to present the image 'as-seen' in the wild, the fact is that in-camera menu settings, raw transfer algorithms and the myriad choices we make in processing all come into play.

    Thinking of John's fox photo, I can't help wonder how the work of three other photographers would compare to his, if all four captured the same image at the same time, went their separate ways to process the image, and then posted it to the forum.

    It's a pretty reasonable assumption that each would differ in some ways from the others.

    My point was that use of a consistent color space is useful in a critique forum, if only so other participants can together see an image the way the photographer intended.











    Quote Originally Posted by edwardselfe View Post
    Yup I see your point, but I guess they were all "wrong". But perhaps the guys on this forum are just more precise and want to give the best advice that they can, so they check that the colour space is the same across all images.
    Ed
    Bill Jobes



    www.billjobes.com

    My BPN Gallery

    Walk Softly and Carry a Big Lens

  24. #24
    Wildlife Moderator Steve Kaluski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in the world
    Posts
    20,551
    Threads
    1,285
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Why it should suddenly come up on this pic is beyond me. If this one is wrong then they all have been wrong. Do you see my point ?
    Hi Bill, as far as I can see Ed was replying to Johns comment above, not yours and things crossed over.


    My point was that use of a consistent color space is useful in a critique forum, if only so other participants can together see an image the way the photographer intended.
    Bill we are all on the same Hymn sheet and totally agree with you. Without the correct embedded profile the image will look incorrect and this is why sRGB is the industry standard for web presentation as you know only to well and we endeavour here to ensure our members post images with the correct profile, hence the replies/feedback, plus, as you say, we have some consistence across the board for critiquing.

    Hope this clarifies things.
    Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.

  25. #25
    Forum Participant edwardselfe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    South Luangwa, Zambia
    Posts
    701
    Threads
    26
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I was agreeding with John when he said that if this picture was wrong, then all of his were wrong. But only wrong in they eyes of the very careful and committed team of critics on this forum, who take care to check that there's an embedded colour profile as part of their response to people's images. Absolutely agree that sRGB is important so that everyone sees as close as possible to what the poster intended. I hope this clears everything up and that no one thinks that I'm criticising anyone. I take is as a very good sign that everyone on this forum pays enough attention to their responses that they check for a colour space as part their critique.
    I think I've said enough but I meant no harm to anyone.
    Ed
    Last edited by Steve Kaluski; 01-13-2014 at 04:35 AM. Reason: Housekeeping

  26. #26
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Wyre Forest Worcestershire
    Posts
    4,096
    Threads
    557
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Just to clarify the issue of embedded profiles once and for all.
    I have had phone calls from several proffessionals in IT and graphics today who have confirmed that an image without a profile is given one by the browser and the default is sRGB. So as all my images have had the same workflow ever since I started posting picures on the web 8 years ago and have all been given an sRGB profile.
    As final confirmation have look at this - which is he HTML code fo rthis page. It is pretty plain to me but I have been un able to get through to anyone.

    < <metaname="keywords" content="srgb, tagged, people, images, image, tonight, psp, andreas, colouur, fox, cheers, feel, close, johnr, person, days, allmy, history, natural, interest, lost, make, difference, hobby, surely, years, stuff, paint, show, altered, exif, posting, shop, pro, browsers, stuck, i,ll, default, phone, hours, told, untagged, red" />

    That is all I have to say on the matter which has strayed far from a simple picure of a fox.
    Thank You
    John R

    PS This has ben confirmed by Calum Dickson and Andy Astbury.
    Last edited by John Robinson; 01-12-2014 at 02:23 PM.

  27. #27
    BPN Member Morkel Erasmus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    14,858
    Threads
    1,235
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I won't also jump in on the sRGB discussion, Johnny...lots has been said and I think it's a pity that there aren't more people on BPN who are conversant in PSP so as to create a way for folks to assist each other with that software and issues pertaining to it.

    I like the image composition and mood/story a lot.
    The blacks/shadows on the fox and particularly the face can be lifted a bit, there's some nice detail being lost there.
    I would also agree on removing the blue/cyan from the whites on the chest.
    Please do share more of your images - even delving into the archives can be a good thing.
    Morkel Erasmus

    WEBSITE


  28. #28
    Lifetime Member Marina Scarr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sarasota, FL
    Posts
    10,347
    Threads
    403
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    What an adorable fox image you have here, Johnny! I love seeing the fox surrounded by wildflowers and green is a super backdrop for the orange. Your fox doesn't look soft although I think it could use another round of sharpening. I have photographed birds at 1/15 of a second and succeeded at pulling off sharp images. Agree on the color cast. While I am not usually bit on centering my subjects, I find that in this case it works beautifully! I wish this were my image, and I wish this cutie-pie lived near me.
    Marina Scarr
    Florida Master Naturalist
    Website, Facebook

  29. #29
    Forum Participant christopher galeski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    ENGLAND LANCASHIRE
    Posts
    5,106
    Threads
    360
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Johnny, this is a very nice image,a touch of blue in the whites easy sorted,other wise magic shot.well done.

  30. #30
    Forum Participant Richard Unsworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Ourique, Beja, Portugal
    Posts
    2,115
    Threads
    495
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Simply a superb nature pic - whatever its profile is or isnt

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Web Analytics