Canon 1DX Canon 500mm f4 L IS Auto ISO 800 1/1000 sec f5.6
This stag was taking a very laid back approach to the rut, not even bothering to get on his feet.
Canon 1DX Canon 500mm f4 L IS Auto ISO 800 1/1000 sec f5.6
This stag was taking a very laid back approach to the rut, not even bothering to get on his feet.
Hi Jon, is this local or at BG Park?
Very much like the Autumn backdrop, nice and rich, although some may have liked (if possible) that they had extended into the top LHC too for continuity. I also like the framing, perhaps if you have it, a tad more below, but the dangling tongue less so. I wanted that face of a bellowing stag calling to his females. What was the subject distance here Jon, 30-35m, as I think you needed more DoF and more SS. If I'm right, then f/7.1 - f/9 with 1/2000 and or you need to AFMA to pull things forward a bit more??????, just basing it on shooting Musk Ox.
I'm hoping to perhaps get out in about three weeks time if I can find them up north once the builders move in, fingers crossed, but look forward to see more from your trip.
TFS
Steve
Wonderful capture, dear Jon!
Those BG colours are stunning, interesting calling pose from the stag, antlers superb.
I tend to agree with Steve on the need for a bit more SS. Framing works for me although I am quite tempted to flip horizontally:)
A very pleasing image overall and well processed too, perhaps my favourite from what I have seen from you lately - lovely work, hope to see more
Kind regards,
Gabriela Plesea
Too cool love this frame. Great background the tongue hanging out is great.
Thanks Steve & Gabriela glad you like it. Now regarding shutter speed I do have some similar images at 1/2000 sec (this is why Auto ISO is so convenient) Do you think the image is soft? I appreciate logically one at 1/2000 has to be sharper than 1/1000 but where do you see the shortcomings? I am asking 'cos I have my new glasses and it looks ok to me
I understand you saying a bit more DOF wouldn't hurt but then I would start picking up more of the irregular background shapes and I wanted them less defined.
Steve sorry you weren't keen on his tongue, I chose this one because I thought just a little different. ..... will post later 1/2000 and no tongue.
Forgot to mention images taken at Tatton Park I would guess about 10m distance
Last edited by Jonathan Ashton; 10-14-2017 at 10:48 AM.
Jon, would need to see the RAW, but my impression is that it's sharper towards the back of the head & rack.Thanks Steve & Gabriela glad you like it. Now regarding shutter speed I do have some similar images at 1/2000 sec (this is why Auto ISO is so convenient) Do you think the image is soft? I appreciate logically one at 1/2000 has to be sharper than 1/1000 but where do you see the shortcomings? I am asking 'cos I have my new glasses and it looks ok to me
More DoF will reduce speculars i.e. f/14, shooting f4 - f/5.6 will high light them more. To me there was enough space between the subject & the backdrop and with the compression of the 500 you would be good.I understand you saying a bit more DOF wouldn't hurt but then I would start picking up more of the irregular background shapes and I wanted them less defined.
At 10m Jon you needed more DoF for nose to the rack.Forgot to mention images taken at Tatton Park I would guess about 10m distance
[QUOTE=Jonathan Ashton;1167919]Thanks Steve & Gabriela glad you like it. Now regarding shutter speed I do have some similar images at 1/2000 sec (this is why Auto ISO is so convenient) Do you think the image is soft? I appreciate logically one at 1/2000 has to be sharper than 1/1000 but where do you see the shortcomings? I am asking 'cos I have my new glasses and it looks ok to me
Dear Jon - I think even 6.3 would have made a difference, to me the nose and ears are slightly softer than I would like them to be, interesting to know where the FP is (I assume it is on the eye or very close to the eye?).
I understand you saying a bit more DOF wouldn't hurt but then I would start picking up more of the irregular background shapes and I wanted them less defined.
Steve sorry you weren't keen on his tongue, I chose this one because I thought just a little different. ..... will post later 1/2000 and no tongue.
I do understand your choice of DoF here and reasons. I tend to do the same because I like a soft BG and my subject should stand out but I often regret not playing around more with DoF, it is sometimes just not enough:)
Gabriela Plesea
Hi Jonathan -- Loved the BKg Colours and the tongue sticking out pose , looks fantastic against that backdrop . I also would agree with more DOF , it is best to play safe , IMO it wouldn't have spoilt the BKG. The antlers look slightly more sharper than the face . As said above a bit more space at the bottom would have been even better. But I thoroughly enjoyed this image . TFS !
Thanks everyone for your comments. I have just checked where the focal point was and it was on the area around the right nostril, the part where is little hair.
Jon, a really interesting frame. The background is a standout and the stag looks pretty good to me, even opening the image and zooming in a bit. But I always find it hard to pick issues with detail/sharpness on these small images. Your composition looks pretty good to me but I also think a touch more at the bottom may have benefited this shot. It looks a little abrupt at the moment. Your tone and colour looks great. I'll be keen to see your other shots.
Hi Jon pretty interesting frame .
I like the overall fall color and tone ,the hanging tongue is looking a bit odd but makes the difference for me . Framing does look ok to me and no need for more space at the foot,i just might burn the left ear as viewed slightly.
I think the others might be right on the DOF and you had lots of Iso to play with .
Like this one a lot , TFS Andreas