Hopefully, I've just made it in time before the theme closes for the month... if not, please ignore 'Theme'. The final for now in my series of giraffe images. This one was taken in Timbivati private reserve in South Africa (Kruger area) early in the morning. I liked the two similarly posed animals and the apparent eye-level view (can't remember how that came about though). Note that I tried a more contrasty version of the foreground animal but liked this more subtle-toned version. These giraffes were quite pale on the spectrum of giraffe colours. This is full frame horizontally with a bit taken off the top of the original.
Thank you for taking the time to look and for any comments you are kind enough to share.
Technical: Canon 80D with Lens EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM at 400mm handheld. Manual exposure 1/125, f7.1, ISO 1000 (light was obviously poor so I was pushing my luck here). Processed in Canon DPP 4 (digital lens optimiser @ 50, Sharpness = 3, crop, lighting adjustments, default NR) then exported 16 bit TIFF to Photoshop Elements. Modest Neat Image NR applied to foreground animal and stronger to rest of frame. Sharpened foreground giraffe only (sharpness function: remove Gaussian blur, radius = 0.3 pixels, 50%) after final size reduction.
Glenn, the color and repetition are very nice here. As a personal preference I prefer poses where the attention of the animals are clearly elsewhere - the ears here of both are very focussed on something to the right - but a very nice image nonetheless.
Greg
Hi Glenn - You were in for the theme with plenty of time to spare. It seems like you have good sharpness despite the slow ss but this isn't really working for me. Mostly it's the comp that's not working with too much overlap of the giraffes. The in focus giraffe also looks a bit gritty and I'm not sure if that is due to the camera or the pp (the old 7D would sometimes have that look if the exposure was just slightly off). If it were mine, I would crop from the top to eliminate the slight amount of sky. Sorry, looks like tough conditions but it's really the comp that for my personal taste isn't working.
Been looking at your giraffe frame for some time tonight. This is something I would normally attempt to capture as well, and in my experience it works beautifully with portraits of some species like the big cats. I am trying to figure out what does not work so well here, thinking maybe the giraffe at the back is a little too prominent? I tried a couple of things like decreasing contrast on the one subject and a closer crop. Tried to open up the eye of the main subject too, WDYT?
Otherwise, tonality works for me as well as colours. Sharpness is there. I would have liked the whites a tad brighter (but just a tad). Let us see what the others think, I look forward to more comments...
One more thought, I wonder what this would have looked like if you framed vertically...
Love experimenting, we must never stop
Thank you all for your comments - most kind of you to take the time. It seems this one is not appealing to most although I quite liked it. No worry. We all see things differently. I appreciate your efforts to work and this and repost Gabriela. I think your version looks good and I quite like that too but feel I'm too close to the image to say which I like best at this time, although I do think the lightened eye is a plus.
As for a vertical, Gabriela, this could have worked but I didn't try that and honestly can't remember what was below and whether it would have given a pleasing image. Definitely good advice though to take multiple versions and see what works best later.
Originally Posted by Rachel Hollander
The in focus giraffe also looks a bit gritty and I'm not sure if that is due to the camera or the pp (the old 7D would sometimes have that look if the exposure was just slightly off).
Rachel
Rachel, I can't see any reason for a gritty appearance other than that's how the animal was. I've never seen the effect you mentioned. Sometimes nature looks 'strange' but grateful you made the observation. I did notice some odd looking fur and skin in other giraffe shots from different times and places too.
Hi Glenn, I think this typify's a very early exchange we had re ISO/SS and the limitations of the camera. As presented then resting on a bean bag or camera bag to aid support rather than HH would IMHO have been better, however, when importing the file and making some tweaks, you do see detail, but it's ultimately the RAW that counts...
My first impression is that the NR is too much, as the contrast between the smoothness and the detail really jars, I also am not a fan of the second Giraffe being so OOF and with the nose being hidden, but not much you can do. However I very much like the symmetry of the head, both aligned nicely. Albeit on the laptop the 'black' of the Contrast appears a bit to much, I would back it off. When you start to reduce Blacks, Contrast and open the shadows far more detail comes through an the image doesn't appear 'heavy', look at that eye now!!! You then begin to see far more detail and sharpness coming through, nothing has be added here in the RP. Getting colour into the backdrop also helps IMHO and to me, this is where you 'apply' some artistic license and park the 'reflective time of day/as I remember' . If you have added any Red, or Orange in the mane, then I would again reduce it.
Steve, thanks for your time to provide detailed comments and your efforts with the repost. Your comments have prompted a few thoughts and require some explanations from me:
On shutter speed and ISO, I agree I should have tried for more SS. I could easily have increased ISO somewhat and gained a bit more SS. Simply put this down to inexperience. However, the detail on the RAW is good and would certainly cope with a much larger image or print from this frame.
Regarding NR, I think we have had these discussions before. If there is any detail present, Neat Image will preserve it very well in the way I'm using. You'll have to trust me on that as I've spent a lot of time working with it and setting it up so it behaves in a controlled way for different images and ISO settings. Not sure if you are familiar with Neat Image or use it yourself but Andreas does so maybe he can comment too on this? So what you are seeing as smoothness is simply the result of lack of focus on all but the foreground animal. If I had not done any or much NR, all I would have is some noise there with no detail and that's not something I would be happy with. But I accept that the smoothness and lack of focus is not to your taste regardless of why it came about.
As for interpreting the image, I think a long discussion could ensue here about reflecting reality versus artistic treatment. The options for artistic interpretation are very wide and subjective. I often go for accuracy based on my recollection but not always. That was the case here and I guess I just settled in a different place to where you might but do appreciate your view and the depth of your experience here which is far greater than mine. In the case of the tones, I should have worked on the blacks particularly the eye of the foreground animal. An oversight on my part (I do miss things quite a bit so apologies for this one and the furture bungles I'm sure to make!). Overall, the tones on your repost look to thin and pale for my taste so it's not a place I'd take the image. Colour is a different matter. I like what you have done on that front. BTW, I did not do any global or selective 'fiddles' with colour for the original post other than to set the WB to achieve an result I though was neutral. It was a dull, colourless morning from memory.
Hope that helps with my thinking on this and furthers all our learning experiences.
Hi Glenn, many thanks for the extensive reply as it great to exchange thoughts, views and more info relative to the image. I've tried also to add, but these are my views below so distill them, when required.
In relation to SS, I think there are still two camps of thinking, a) to keep SS relative to lens ie 500mm 1/500 and that you also keep ISO and SS low b) with the advent of the new camera bodies & IS that are designed to allow folk to capture images that previously were unable due to ISO quality in low light condition. Plus the fact PP has come a long way in processing high ISO images. To me you can toggle between the two, but providing you have good technique in HH at low SS, but when light allows, just keep that SS high, as so many times I see RAW files soft because of low SS and that it could easily have been rectified if the person had raised their ISO/SS just a tad more.
Regarding NR I agree, but NR does play a part, however I'm really surprised you need to apply any at ISO1000. I guess it's another topic we need to add to our list when we meet up and thrash out a lot of these pointers raised over the time.
Artistic license I'm with you, but as the 'creator' there is a certain amount of input we do need to put into our images. Many folks also follow that trail, but I would then ask why they would then apply a 'Picture style' to an image because that changes the capture ie Standard - and adds for example a certain amount of Saturation, Contrast... So to me the capture isn't as reflective, hence why I prefer Neutral or Faithful because all I want is the 'capture' and those 'Picture styles - Neutral' have also been zeroed too, so all I have is a capture that looks as flat as a pancake where upon I can then take the direction I wish without any additional input, if that makes sense. And yes, you can of course change this this in the Convertor.
Having to work off-site with the laptop is not great, plus working with a 256 colour JPEG too, so I know it might not be as good as perhaps on 'Whopper' with two much larger, calibrated monitors, if you want to Dropbox the Raw to me, I do have to go back for a 'site' visit to see how the building work is going and could have a go at the file if you like, but then bring it back up to the other house later as we have no internet currently on the house rebuild, rather nice at times. If you used LR and shared a file we might have been able to work something out together in real time??? BTW when did you last calibrate the monitor?
Glenn always a good exchange albeit brief, cheers.
Thanks for your input again and your time to spell out thinking. Sounds like you are in the middle of some very disruptive building work at home. I hope for your own comfort that this is sorted out soon. I'm sure it's no fun living in temporary arrangements and away from your familiar environment and computer setup. Given your circumstances at the moment, and given the comments I've had on this image, I don't intend to put any more work into it as I think it's not worth it. So I won't take you up on your kind offer to have a look at the RAW... but a future image maybe and once you are back in more settled circumstances.
On shutter speed, I think I read on Arash Hazeghi's blog that the old 500mm, 1/500 sec 'rule' is really a hangover from film days and not very useful now. Putting that aside, I think it comes down to being familiar with one's gear, developing good technique for particular photographic situations (esp where handholding needed) and knowing what you can get away with and what you can't. It will be person- and gear-dependent to a significant degree. In general though, I fully concur that faster SS = safer and better.
On artistic interpretation, I am happy to apply my interpretation. I was simply indicating that more often than not, my intent is an accurate representation of the scene as I remembered it. That still leaves a lot of room for subjectivity given how human vision works and how our vision does make a lot of 'auto' adjustments - without us realising it - when we look at a scene.
As for my monitor, it is basic but I do calibrate it visually using inbuilt calibration tool in Windows 7. I don't have a hardware calibration tool. So it's possible my monitor may be out a little but I don't think to a significant degree. One test I apply regularly is to look at the many other posts on BPN and look at the comments from those who are more likely to have well calibrated setups to see if I can see what they can regarding casts, tone issues etc. Invariably I can see those things so am reasonably confident that that side of things is working well at my end. BTW, when doing more detailed tests of ability to distinguish tones at the extreme white and black ends of the tonal range, I was quite surprised how well my monitor did. It all show, I think, that technology is getting better and better.
More giraffes
Reply With Quote
?
Originally Posted by Rachel Hollander
. If you have added any Red, or Orange in the mane, then I would again reduce it.
too, so I know it might not be as good as perhaps on 'Whopper' with two much larger, calibrated monitors, if you want to Dropbox the Raw to me, I do have to go back for a 'site' visit to see how the building work is going and could have a go at the file if you like, but then bring it back up to the other house later as we have no internet currently on the house rebuild, rather nice at times. If you used LR and shared a file we might have been able to work something out together in real time??? 
