I seem to be leaning on the cute factor again. These lions cubs were part of a pride that had made a kill the night before and were busy with that. These two and another had to keep their distance until the grown-ups had their share. So why not a bit of play while waiting? Cubs were on the roadside so no foreground problems. I liked the light here which I think has worked in my favour but I'm unsure about the composition - perhaps a tighter crop would have worked? Going wider is not an option as this is virtually full frame and pulling back on the zoom would have shown the road. Only a whisker left at the top and left that I haven't used. Location was Etosha National Park in Namibia.
As usual, thanks for taking a look and all comments appreciated.
Technical: Canon 80D with 100-400 MkII at 400mm handheld. Manual exposure 1/640, f7.1, ISO 640. Processed in Canon DPP 4 (digital lens optimiser @ 50, Sharpness = 3, crop, lighting adjustments, default NR) then exported 16 bit TIFF to Photoshop Elements with Neat Image NR plugin. Modest NR applied. Sharpened (sharpness, not USM) after final size reduction.
Hi Glenn a nice encounter and the playful bite with the cub looking to camera almost saying - 'I'm only playing' I do like. I'm OK with the comp too and the light doesn't look too harsh, although the grass highlight are a wee bit distracting, but not much you can do. Perhaps some more DoF, say f/9, to me you focused on the LH cub which is right IMHO, but the RH cub is a bit forward, not on the same plane of focus so hard to tell at this size if you had enough, looks or, but just a thought. Good to see you had more SS on this capture. I'm surprised you need any NR at ISO640, although I haven't seen any files or know the camera??? Are you applying it 'Globally or Selectively?
Glenn I'm not sure how far you are on PP so just some thoughts.
Overall the image has an even light, so darkening the BKG only and reducing the brighter highlights in the grasses helps, and gives the image a bit more depth. If you use Curves then getting some light back in the shadow areas of the faces also helps (but selectively), likewise slightly darkening the FG cubs body but avoiding the chest. What I'm trying to suggest is creating some more 'form' which adds again depth to the capture. Depending on you ethics I would remove the two highlights by the cubs nose RHS, or you could selectively tone them down so they are less visible and the eye isn't so drawn to them.
Overall it has that lovely cute factor and with, if possible, some simple adjustments it will elevate things IMHO as I've tried it . Seems you had some great encounters.
Glenn I come back to the Digital lens optimiser, it increases the apparent sharpening and increases noise, I think you would not have required Neat image had you not used it. The image looks good your final workflow looks a little "non standard" to me having said that the image does look good.
Hi Glenn - Definite cuteness factor here and Steve has made some good suggestions to take the image up a notch. It has been a few years since I used Elements so I am not sure if you can do all that he suggests in it. As for the crop, the only thing I see as an alternative is to go to more of a pano by cropping above the front cub's rear hip. I'm not sure I like it better than your op but you can look at both for a while and decide.
Thank you Steve, Jonathan and Rachel. I've reworked above as per Steve's suggestions although I'm not confident whether I've gone far enough... or too far with some of the adjustments. Such a subjective game! As for a change to the crop as per your suggestion Rachel, I tried it but don't like it so have not reposted that.
Regarding Jonathan's comment on digital lens optimiser and Steve's on use of NR in this shot, I'll post an item soon on the Digital Photography Workflow about my workflow in general so will not address it here.
So this is what I've done for the repost:
1. Selected background with some modest feathering and reduced highlights. This has pulled back the brighter elements and flattened the contrast. I usually find this more successful than simply reducing the brightness on the background.
2. Reduced highlights on front cub's body except chest.
3. Lightened shadows on the cubs overall (I didn't just do the heads).
4. Cloned out the OOF bright grass next to the right cub's nose.
As for DOF and use of smaller aperture, I've re-checked the original RAW file and both cubs are fairly and similarly sharp so I think a smaller aperture would have only had a minor detrimental effect on increasing the detail visible in the background. I must say, though, that I really struggle with selecting a suitable aperture for each situation even though I have a good grasp of the overall principle about when I should stop down or open up. I guess experience counts for everything here.
The re-post looks much better to me, the RH cub`s nose is now well delineated against the background. Very nice side lighting which complements the colour of the animal`s fur.
Hi Glenn, like the RP, but also the attached info/feedback/thoughts, excellent interaction, thank you. WDYT to the RP, has it helped, it it better, any drawbacks or concerns???
This was where I was going on the OP posting and probably somewhere between the two perhaps, but I think you can see what I meant about the FG cub and getting more 'form/definition' into the folds etc to create the depth and endeavouring to get more of 3D look from a 2D image. I hope it's all helpful stuff for future postings etc and something to build on. I added a tad more USM too.
With regard to the new thread I will need to leave that with Jon & Andreas as they are more up to speed with DPP, I'm LR and can't really say I would turn to DPP, I just find it clunky and not very friendly. Perhaps because I don't understand some of the features??? However, I think it's a valuable thread and hope others will chime in because it's a good learning aspect.
I am really enjoying your images, cuteness factor included. Love the playfulness here and especially mischievous look from the cub on the LHS of the frame.
In agreement with Steve's suggestions, and just like Rachel I am wondering whether Elements allows you to perform the changes he suggested. I also think cropping from the bottom for a more pano look would work rather well.
Looking forward to seeing more images from you, and sorry to be brief but there's so little to add after Steve's comprehensive feedback
Thank you all for additional comments and especially Steve for the repost which I think is an improvement over my efforts although I feel just a fraction too dark overall now. I don't think I went far enough when I reworked and reposted. I will have another go at it but won't put up yet another version. The exchange and the time you have all put into this is very helpful and I'm most grateful for the input from everyone.
For Gabriela, thank you for your encouragement. As for Photoshop Elements, it has all the necessary lighting tools although I've no doubt there are a few more options in full Photoshop. The problem was, I think, my lack of boldness in making changes.
Hi Glenn -- Nothing to add for me but i find your post quite interesting in terms of the moment and the related discussion by fellow members , quite informative . TFS !
More cute
Reply With Quote
. Seems you had some great encounters.
