Wild dog stare

[Tobie Schalkwyk]

I was lucky to enter the wild dog camp just behind the 4x4 carrying foods for the wild dogs at a nature reserve closeby. It was 8h30 in the morning on a Tuesday so no other visitors around. That caused the dogs to be much more relaxed and curious than when surrounded by cars. This dog came so close that my lens eventually could not focus on it anymore and I realised that it was planning on sniffing my right elbow! I pulled it back into the car, just in case...

I love the curious (intimidating?) look and the focus on its eyes. I'm not sure how far to crop as I actually like the 'napkin' formed by the hair on its chest. Crop to just under the 'napkin'? Composition OK? There's a little redish reflection from the red dirt road we were on so I might have to reduce the vibrance a bit. All comments appreciated.

Nikon d600, 1/250s, f6.3, ISO 100, 150mm, Sigma 150-500mm. Beanbag for support.

(PS: how do you guys get the icon to display in the thread list?)

[Steve Kaluski]

Tobie can you please check in the camera EXIF data, what was the WB set to.

The thumbnail should be available as a member status, I ill ask Peter.

Thanks
Steve

[Rachel Hollander]

Tobie - are you uploading your image to the BPN server or is it hosted elsewhere? I think only images uploaded to the BPN server show thumbnails.

As for the image, if I understand your intro, this is a captive wild dog. If so, we ask that you place a (C) in your title to let people know that. Steve's point about wb is a good one. I took your posted image into PS and applied a couple of adjustments because I think there is a strong red color cast even recognizing the red dirt and as with your prior image the red channel is blown. Here's a rp in which I dropped the overall red saturation by -50 in hue/saturation, applied a luminosity mask at 35% to just the red channel to bring it back a bit and finally I opened up the midtones slightly. I thought it was still skewing red and dropped the reds another -25 in hue/saturation. WDYT?
TFS,
Rachel

[Tobie Schalkwyk]

Rachel I think you're spot on and your version agrees with mine when I decreased saturation slightly a little earlier in LR, after following Steve's lead and changing the WB from shade to sunshine (it was a heavily clouded morning, therefore the shade setting). Thanks for that!

Interesting that two of my images so far had the reds clipped.

Peter had two creditworthy theories about the thumbnail: 1. page cacheing from pages before I've joined BPN. 2. that it's not loading the thumbnails if the image was brought in using the [img] tag. After getting home this afternoon, it was working without me having done anything (it's also working on my home laptop on which I have not even cleared the cache). So either Peter fixed it somehow or it's using your version of the image for the thumbnail (unless you've also used the [img] tag). Bottom line: it's working so I'm happy! To answer your question: the image was loaded to and displayed from my BPN album.

Thanks for telling me about the (c) for captive animals. I'm looking forward to the teething stage of joining BPN is behind me...

[Rachel Hollander]

Hi Tobie - When I first joined BPN someone (I think Steve) told me to always shoot on AWB. WB is one of the easiest things to change in the RAW processor so since then I have always shot on AWB and then made tweaks afterwards but I never choose the prefab settings such as "Cloudy", "Sunny" or "Flash." I find that I prefer either "As Shot," "Auto" or a "Custom" setting.


Rachel

[Tobie Schalkwyk]

Thanks Rachel. Ironically I DO always shoot with AWB but for some reason I had it preset that morning. It's a month ago so I can't remember why, but I was actually surprised to see that it was on shade. The only exception is when I work under fluorescent lights and when using flash in which case I prefer to preset it as I know from experience it's highly likely to guess it wrong on AWB.

[Steve Kaluski]

Tobie, are you using LR to do your RAW conversion? If so I have a suggestion.

Keep your WB set to AWB, I do, as you can always change it later when you start your PP.

[Diane Miller]

I rarely post in Wildlife so don't usually comment, but a couple of points here:

The easier one: the preset WBs in LR / ACR are often not good. They are just slider positions for WB and Tint. Don't be afraid to tune each to taste. The WB gray eyedropper is a good place to start IF there is an area in the image that should be neutral gray. Failing that, as Rachel and Steve said above, try the Auto setting. Forget the other presets. The WB set in the camera is only a suggested starting point shown in LR -- you can change it as much as you want with no degradation to the image.

Now, the more complicated one, re Rachel's comment about the red channel, and this is important stuff: The image is in sRGB and tagged, as it should be. My PS working space is ProPhoto, but the same thing would apply to anyone using Adobe RGB. When I open an image that has a different color space tagged I get a profile mismatch warning (if you don't get it go to Edit > Color Settings). You have two viable options there: to use the embedded space or convert to the working space. If I choose the former, the red channel in the histogram shows as horribly blown, but the image's appearance doesn't change. If I choose convert to the working space, the histogram shows a red cast but is not blown. That latter choice is the way to see the correct histogram to show what is really in the image. Then if you tweak the image and re-save, convert it back to sRGB first.

[Tobie Schalkwyk]

Thanks for your valuable input, Diane - it's a reminder to me that I need to do a nice course on PS.

As far as WB goes: I shoot on Auto WB (on camera) 99% of the time and hardly ever need to make WB adjustments in LR (only in case of flash and 'funny' lighting scenes such as fluorescent - in which case I change WB on camera).

Interesting that the LR histogram does not always show overblown reds (except in the case of the pic used in this thread), but PS does. I'll hardly ever pick this up because I do 90% of my work in LR and only go to PS when I need to remove objects / create HDR shots. Life's too short to double check every photo's channels in PS - but perhaps I need to consider that for my photo's usd for serious stuff, like this forum with its seriously sharp critiques!

Thanks again - your input is highly appreciated!

[Rachel Hollander]

Diane - Steve and I were suggesting to shoot on AWB and then make adjustments in post. Interesting about the shift in the histogram. When I critique I leave the image in sRGB since that is what we are seeing on the web/monitors.

Rachel

[Diane Miller]

Rachel, leaving it in sRGB is only half of the equation. If you are going to look at the histogram, convert it to the working space. The appearance will be the same but the histogram will not be accurate until you convert. (I need to do a tutorial about that.)

[Tobie Schalkwyk]

Rachel, leaving it in sRGB is only half of the equation. If you are going to look at the histogram, convert it to the working space. The appearance will be the same but the histogram will not be accurate until you convert. (I need to do a tutorial about that.)

You've got my vote on that!

[Steve Kaluski]

Time to get back to the Critique boys & girls.

[Tobie Schalkwyk]

Time to get back to the Critique boys & girls.

Steve my last version of the pic was basically identical to Rachel's version. The only thing I have not received feedback on is the cropping so I presume it can also be left as is. So as far as I'm concerned this thread is resolved. Unless someone has something to add.

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Tobie, I no worries, I just want to reel it back to discussing more about the image, yes things can go in techs as well, but it has to be couple with also talking about/critiquing the image too, otherwise it starts to enter into another arena.

Looking at the image, although I'm Ok 'ish' on the crop, I think perhaps a portrait format may have been better, and encompassing the whole subject. In addition, upping the ISO would have helped to gain more SS again, I just feel it's a little low as I have mentioned before, however I guess this was taken a while ago. DoF looks good as you have sharpness from the eyes to the nose and off images fall short, easily done.

I think now Tobie, with the advice give both on & off the forum your images should be moving on quite a bit, so looking forward to see the next few postings as they take shape.

cheers
Steve

[Tobie Schalkwyk]

Steve, here's the vertical crop (after applying your earlier camera calibration recommendations). Within the same dimensions it might be a bit tight (the OP was not cropped at all so I did not have much space to work with)?

[Steve Kaluski]

Tobie can you reload the image so the max height is 900px, that is the max you can go, 1200px is the max width, but overall image looks good. Can't comment on colour as I am, as you know, now away so will leave it to others like Rachel & Mork.

[Rachel Hollander]

Hi Tobie - it's a little bit tight around if you stick to the 4x6 ratio so you could go a little wider if you wanted. I think you still have too much red and yellow in the rp and didn't bring back the highlights enough especially above the left eye.

Here's a version using your repost where I dropped the reds and yellows and did a luminosity mask.

Rachel

[Rachel Hollander]

Here's a repost where I just cropped my repost from pane #3 into the 4x6 portrait ratio so you can see the difference. My original adjustments went farther than I did in pane 18. I still prefer the coloring in pane 3 and this pane the most but you were there.

Rachel

[Tobie Schalkwyk]

Rachel, I'm trying to stay out of PS to fix this as LR must be able to solve it. Here is another attampt after reducing the reds and highlights in LR:

[Rachel Hollander]

Tobie - not sure why you want to stay out of PS. If you've done all you can do in LR a luminosity mask will quickly tame the highlights.

Rachel

[Tobie Schalkwyk]

Tobie can you reload the image so the max height is 900px, that is the max you can go, 1200px is the max width, but overall image looks good. Can't comment on colour as I am, as you know, now away so will leave it to others like Rachel & Mork.

Steve this was a flickr pic. I could not edit the post anymore so I've deleted it from flickr but it's still showing. Not sure how to get around that...

[Tobie Schalkwyk]

Tobie - not sure why you want to stay out of PS. If you've done all you can do in LR a luminosity mask will quickly tame the highlights.

Rachel

Rachel I don't want to jump between LR and PS every time to fix photo colours, unless it's really necessary (as this case might be). I just have a gut feeling that LR can solve this, I'm just missing something somewhere. Don't be mistaken - I really value your assistance. What are we saying - that LR can really not handle this?

[Rachel Hollander]

Tobie - I never use LR so someone else will have to tell you how to do it in LR. Although I have LR, I've never liked it. I prefer to work in ACR and PS though rarely I'll use DPP.

Sorry,
Rachel

[Andrew McLachlan]

Hi Tobie, I like this portrait on the dog...very nice...I like Steve's repost best with his WB adjustment. I also do the majority of my white balance adjustments in ACR.

[Diane Miller]

Strictly for colors, LR / ACR should be all you need. LR and ACR are the same engine, just a different interface. What you can do in one, you can do in the other. Try taming the color with WB (auto, then tweak the 2 sliders), or if that isn't enough, go to the Camera Calib tab and try different camera profiles to get close, then back to the Basic tab to tweak further. (The default Adobe Standard calibration can be less than perfect in some cases, wonderful in others.)

For tonalities, try adjusting Highlights and Shadows sliders, then balance Exposure if necessary. There is Curves, too -- I usually go with the Linear one, as I'm usually intent on reducing contrast rather than increasing it.

That will usually do it, but if that doesn't give enough detail (tonal depth) in highlights, then a quick trip to PS for a Luminosity Mask (often a 2nd or 3rd order one) will fix the problem. (Also works for shadows.) But LR / ACR will usually do it for me. Or Nik's Detail Extractor will often work wonders to get more shadow and highlight detail. I'll try it before resorting to a luminosity mask, and if I do go there, I just use it to mask a Curves adjustment layer.

[Tobie Schalkwyk]

Thanks guys. I usually spend about 30 sec's per pic in LR unless I need to do something out of the ordinary (like removing large objects etc) in which case I'll jump to PS. Life's just too short to do it in any other way!

Andrew, Steve's BG colours looked the best but (with all respect) the dog's colour is unnatural. I still like your last version the best, Rachel. I just need to figure out how to achieve that with LR. Having said that: I'm quite happy with my last attempt. I think that's the closest to the colours as seen by the naked eye on the day of the shoot.

You guys are great (Rachel, Steve & Diane I've already learned so much from you in the last few days!) and one of the main reasons why rookies like myself need a forum like this to grow in photography! Thanks guys!

[Steve Kaluski]

Andrew, Steve's BG colours looked the best but (with all respect) the dog's colour is unnatural.

Just to clarify Tobie, I was just showing you that a simple change within the LR/RAW converter parameters, nothing more, how you can make a simple change with quite a dramatic change to the overall appearance.

Diane, would be really great if you could also post some wildlife images too, to counter balance the theory, so people like Tobie can get an overall, more 'rounded' POV and see how the two elements dovetail together, as it's all about having fun and enjoyment at levels that these guys are at.

Tobie the main goal for you is to do as as much 'in camera' as possible, in that way the image will be far better and so less time is required in PP which can, if you are not careful, move an image far from the vision/original capture, it's that powerful. I know you are limited to the software programs/budgets you have and so a lot of what is suggested may not be achievable, but get the basics right, then once you have the understanding and grasp of what the elements can do and the cause & effect they have to the image, only then would I suggest you start to look at additional Third party software bolt-ons, otherwise you will be like a rabitt caught in the headlights of a SUV, not knowing which way to turn. Understanding LR & PS is an uphill journey and at times, quite steep, but as I said to you, very few people use the full potential, so don't worry. Look into what I have suggested, it maybe easier on the pocket and you will have everything at your grasp.

[Tobie Schalkwyk]

Steve, I hear you and I agree with you 100%. Maybe I'm just stubborn but I believe that the issue with overblown reds should not be too much to solve in LR and thus I want to solve it there (you actually helped me prove that point with your excercise). Jumping out to PS during pp is cumbersome (perhaps I'm just lazy!) and I want to avoid it as much as I can. The fact that PS shows reds out of bounds and LR not, does not really help much - and which one is actually right?

Getting things right in camera is certainly one of my highest priorities but it's not going to happen overnight. Just to give you background: I bought my first DSLR (d7000) in January last year and replaced it with a d600 in November. I'm still trying to get used to its differences, never mind increasing my DSLR knowledge and experience! I've already taken about 7,000 photo's on the d600 so I'm trying!

Other than that I'm relying on this site and its mega-experienced members as an invaluable tool for me to achieve my goals in the shortest possible time!

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Tobie, just to conclude, as the thread i feel is getting way off topic, but.

Don't get hung up about the reds, this is a small issue that is easily resolved, but if you are wanting to do this right, then having PS at your disposal is the route to go. You can do a lot within the RAW converter, but software like LR/PS dovetail together and provide a seamless journey and both have elements different features, however you can also use ACR in PS to provide another RAW converter. It's basically the same engine as LR.

The best advice is to practice with your camera, get to know it, the pro & cons with it, the limitations it has, but also the great points too, in that way you then know what you can do. Composition, distracting elements, framing etc takes time and as you say, cannot be done overnight. But to achieve the finer points in drawing closure to your images in PP, you will need PS, as a lot of advice/feedback will refer to using some of the features within PS, i.e. Curves, Levels, Channels, Sharpening, Saving for Web etc.

[Tobie Schalkwyk]

Agreed - thanks Steve!

[Morkel Erasmus]

Woah, I missed a good thread here!
I was a bit swamped this week, Tobie, and only getting to some proper BPN time tonight. I would challenge you to try and explore PS a bit more. I use LR and PS, but use LR only for cataloguing and the RAW conversion adjustments, then always pull it into PS. If you know your workflow and you've got actions programmed for the most of your standard steps it shouldn't take more than 5-10min on an average, well exposed, no frills wildlife image from first view in LR to saving for web in PS.

I like the portrait and won't comment too much on what has already been said (vertical crop is stronger for me). From your description it sounds like this is one of the dogs at the Lion & Rhino reserve? If so, perhaps in future add a (C) for captive in the title, as that is our forum guideline for posting animals in captive and semi-captive environments .

Regarding White Balance on your D600 - I used to shoot Canon and preferred auto WB on Canon, but auto WB on Nikon is usually a bit cool/green/cyan for my tastes and I shoot mostly in Daylight WB these days.

PS: I'll send you a PM/email about a hands-on PS course I present in Johannesburg a couple of times per year.

[Tobie Schalkwyk]

You're right, Morkel - but the other guys kept me so busy with trying to get to a satisfactory result, I'm not sure I could handle one more! Just joking - there are a lot of great guys on BPN!

It's a fact that I need to up my PS skills, Morkel. This thread made me realise that more than ever. I'll definitely not use it for all my pics after a shoot, but I'll have to do it for any pic I place in this forum because the standard is extremely high (as it should be!) and one does not get away with anything, ha ha!

Thanks - Rachel mentioned the (C) issue to me earlier (I was not aware of that). Yes, it's one of the dogs at the Rhino & Lion reserve. I had an interesting shoot because I was the only visitor. It was dog feeding time and the lions came up to the fence after smelling the meat. It resulted in a back and forth challenge between dogs and lions and a few interesting shots (I would have placed them but I know I'm going to get negative comments re. the fence appearing in the scene). The dog in this thread was highly interested in this photographer invading their space and came back (and closer) time and again to investigate what I was doing.

Ken Rockwell recommended a color preset (specifically for lowering green just a tad) for the d600 in his d600 preview and I've applied that to my camera. I'll google a bit re. color issues with the d600. Maybe there's another preset or two I can try out. Otherwise your daylight setting might be a good idea, I'll do that in the mean time. Thanks for that.

I've replied to your mail re. the PS course, thanks!

[Diane Miller]

It took a while, but I have put up a post in Eager to Learn (at the top, in the Stickies) with the details about the histogram issue raised above.

[Tobie Schalkwyk]

It took a while, but I have put up a post in Eager to Learn (at the top, in the Stickies) with the details about the histogram issue raised above.

Thanks so much for this, Diane! I take my RAW files from LR straight into PS and never had a mismatch warning, but I think as you said in your pdf - the necessary radio button is probably not ticked to report such miusmatch. I'll rework this (wild dog) image over the weekend using this document, just to make sure that the red channel is not overblown.

[Diane Miller]

It's not a problem for a RAW file coming into PS -- it's converted automatically by LR, according to your PS working space. It's just a problem when someone pulls a file off the internet (or opens one from email or the like) and opens it in a working space that doesn't match its profile, as occurred early in this thread with an incorrect conclusion that the red channel was blown.

There was a red cast, but not a blown channel. It's an image worthy of working on, both as a learning tool and just for its own sake.

[Tobie Schalkwyk]

It's not a problem for a RAW file coming into PS -- it's converted automatically by LR, according to your PS working space. It's just a problem when someone pulls a file off the internet (or opens one from email or the like) and opens it in a working space that doesn't match its profile, as occurred early in this thread with an incorrect conclusion that the red channel was blown.

There was a red cast, but not a blown channel. It's an image worthy of working on, both as a learning tool and just for its own sake.

Aaaah! OK, now I understand. I was just going to post and ask why you reckon the red channel was blown in PS but not in LR, within the same colour space. But you've just answered that question. Thanks Diane!