Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Belding's Ground Squirrel at the entrance to the lair

  1. #1
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Sparks, NV
    Posts
    306
    Threads
    30
    Thank You Posts

    Default Belding's Ground Squirrel at the entrance to the lair

    Large crop, over 73% of pixel gone. Sharpening, lowered highlights, lifted shadows and color balance for adjustments.

    Canon 7D, EF 100-400 mk I, ISO 200, 1/1000 SS, 400mm, f/5.6

    Would love everyone's thoughts on the highlights on the fur and whiskers and how you would deal with them if at all. Not sure if they actually harm the photo or not as they bother me kinda one day but not the next. They were there prior to sharpening and quite noticeable. Processed the photo in LR CC only and used -100 on highlights and +100 on shadows. DPP4 shows a couple of very small spots to be overexposed just above the foreleg but LR does not.

    Name:  Belding's Ground Squirrel-1.jpg
Views: 53
Size:  342.5 KB

    This squirrel is 9-12 inches in body length. Found in the western US in the states of California, Nevada, Idaho and Oregon usually in the higher elevations. This one was found at 8700 feet.

  2. #2
    Lifetime Member Rachel Hollander's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    14,320
    Threads
    929
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi John - It's a cute squirrel but unfortunately the large crop has affected the IQ. Any time you crop that much it's going to negatively affect the IQ. The image is also a bit tight at the bottom. Personally, I never move the sliders that much and rarely open shadows more than +10-15 or drop the highlights more than 30-40 points at the most. If you are dropping the highlights that much, it may be better to reduce the overall exposure. Opening the shadows that much will introduce noise which has happened here. I'm not familiar with this species of squirrel. Is the chest and chin that grey? I'm also seeing a blue/cyan cast to the chest and chin. To answer your question, the highlights don't bother me.

    Perhaps post the RAW straight out of camera or a link to it in Dropbox and we can help with the processing.

    TFS,
    Rachel

  3. Thanks John Hackney thanked for this post
  4. #3
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Sparks, NV
    Posts
    306
    Threads
    30
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi Rachel,

    Here is a RP.

    I went back and changed crop to something a little less severe and did nothing to it other than applying lens correction and color balance in DPP4 and setting the picture style to faithful. OP was done in LR only with picture style of standard. I did change my color correction selection site from the white above the eye to a bright white spot on the chest.

    To answer your question about the chest being white or gray, it tends towards a gray color. IIRC the squirrel is facing almost directly into the light. I really wish I could have gotten lower but the grass really would have gotten in the way. At least I was able to kneel to take the shot.

    Name:  Belding's Ground Squirrel-1.jpg
Views: 31
Size:  393.8 KB
    Last edited by John Hackney; 09-05-2016 at 10:12 AM.

  5. #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

    Attached Images Attached Images
     
    Hi John, the OP looks really very dark and based on your info the exposure sounds way off (was the light harsh), likewise the colour also looks mixed?

    Processed the photo in LR CC only and used -100 on highlights and +100 on shadows.
    Not good work practice and I personally have never gone to this degree of adjustments, has anyone advised you on going so far??? When did you last calibrate your monitor? Why are you using both LR & DPP, keep to one or the other, but never mix, more recipes for disaster and ultimate confusion!!!!

    I much prefer the FF, however I would shoot the file over to Rachel, in the meantime this was my tweak to the OP.

    Steve

  6. Thanks John Hackney thanked for this post
  7. #5
    Lifetime Member Rachel Hollander's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    14,320
    Threads
    929
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Attached Images Attached Images
     
    Hi John - Thanks for the RAW. It is underexposed but the shadows are natural and there are no highlights that need drastic adjustment. Aside from being underexposed, the biggest problem is the severity of the crop. I took the ff RAW and made minor adjustments including opening the midtones and reducing the blues/cyans.

    Here's a rp.

    Rachel

  8. Thanks John Hackney thanked for this post
  9. #6
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Sparks, NV
    Posts
    306
    Threads
    30
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Kaluski View Post
    Hi John, the OP looks really very dark and based on your info the exposure sounds way off (was the light harsh), likewise the colour also looks mixed?



    Not good work practice and I personally have never gone to this degree of adjustments, has anyone advised you on going so far??? When did you last calibrate your monitor? Why are you using both LR & DPP, keep to one or the other, but never mix, more recipes for disaster and ultimate confusion!!!!

    I much prefer the FF, however I would shoot the file over to Rachel, in the meantime this was my tweak to the OP.

    Steve
    Thanks Steve. I am trying to figure out which I like best. I am leaning to DPP so I think I will keep going there unless it can not handle blown highlights. It seems to have much less headroom in highlights than LR.

    Yes lighting was harsh as this is at an elevation of about 2700 meters. Monitor was calibrated a couple of weeks ago. I do not like bright images as my eyes are quite sensitive to light so I tend to go overboard there.

  10. #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

    I am leaning to DPP so I think I will keep going there unless it can not handle blown highlights.
    John, blown highlights is purely down to the operator and no software can deal with blown highlights, as there is no data to recover. You need to learn in how to use your Histogram, understand this and you will avoid 99% of all blown highlights, although there are times where it cannot be avoided, i.e. water spray in bright light. Obtaining a well exposed image is the cornerstone IMHO to any image, this will ensure a great file to work with, minimal time in PP and ultimately - your images will look good.

    BTW If you are going the DPP route, then buy Artie/Arash's DPP Guide, it will help you to work through the Modules in a logical manner and you will know what to use & what not, within the Software.
    Last edited by Steve Kaluski; 09-05-2016 at 04:25 PM.

  11. Thanks John Hackney thanked for this post
  12. #8
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Sparks, NV
    Posts
    306
    Threads
    30
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Kaluski View Post
    John, blown highlights is purely down to the operator and no software can deal with blown highlights, as there is no data to recover. You need to learn in how to use your Histogram, understand this and you will avoid 99% of all blown highlights, although there are times where it cannot be avoided, i.e. water spray in bright light. Obtaining a well exposed image is the cornerstone IMHO to any image, this will ensure a great file to work with, minimal time in PP and ultimately - your images will look good.

    BTW If you are going the DPP route, then buy Artie/Arash's DPP Guide, it will help you to work through the Modules in a logical manner and you will know what to use & what not, within the Software.
    Thanks Steve. I have bought the guide and found it to be quite helpful.

  13. #9
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Nagpur, India
    Posts
    3,837
    Threads
    245
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi John -- A very useful post in terms of learning ! I find the original frame much better rather than the large crop and also it showcases the environment of the little creature . So IMHO i would have never opted for such a large frame and rather gone with the ff .

    TFS !

  14. Thanks John Hackney thanked for this post
  15. #10
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Sparks, NV
    Posts
    306
    Threads
    30
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Thanks Haseeb. Actually the second one I did is a 50% crop.

    I have gotten so used to bird photography where you try to get it as tight as reasonably possible or maybe a little more. I am working on backing off on the crops to get a more environmental look when I have that kind of shot. Just need to get it in my head to not crop.

  16. #11
    Lifetime Member Rachel Hollander's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    14,320
    Threads
    929
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    John - Whether the subject is birds or other wildlife, it is always preferable to get closer/shoot tighter with good fieldcraft or longer lenses than with heavy cropping of an image.

  17. #12
    BPN Member Morkel Erasmus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    14,858
    Threads
    1,235
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Can't add much more here, John, except that the amount of adjustment on those sliders was way too much, and you received some good advice on fieldcraft.
    I think Rachel's crop and treatment resonate the most with me, we all have our own tastes.

    Steve, you would actually be surprised but a well-known SA photo safari operator teaches ALL their guests on this method of -100 HL and +100 Shadows - Lord knows where the heck they came upon that "recipe"?
    Morkel Erasmus

    WEBSITE


  18. Thanks John Hackney thanked for this post

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