-
Wildlife Moderator
-
Lifetime Member
Hi Steve - There's a wispy look to this that works. Nice detail. I'm not sure about the choice to leave the other lioness in but not sure that you could have easily avoided her either. For me the one issue is that the bright bg draws the eye and sort of overwhelms the lioness. I would tame and darken it a bit if it were mine.
TFS,
Rachel
-
Wildlife Moderator
Hi Rachel thanks.
As the lions were under shade shooting 'through' I wanted that 'light wispy/etherial' look to the BKG to provide the separation. For me a darkish FG needs/requires a light BKG or vis versa. If I darken the BKG you loose the separation and both elements blend into one another, plus it's reflective of the time of day. 
I'm not sure about the choice to leave the other lioness in but not sure that you could have easily avoided her either.
As I mentioned in the intro, I wanted her in to add context IMHO to the capture, otherwise it's just another 'head' shot and I like the contrast of looking/tranquility.
-
BPN Member
I would leave more of the sleeping lioness. The eye if you had it. Very nice detailed look and a lovely HA. BG works for me.
Will
-
Wildlife Moderator
I would leave more of the sleeping lioness. The eye if you had it.
Sadly that's it on the bottom trim Will, but there is always next time. 
-
Hi Steve,
A beautiful portrait! I love the soft light you have with the shaded side of her face and the contemplative look. And the head angle seems to me just right. Very beautiful indeed!
The brightness of the background doesn't bother me in the slightest - she can hold my attention.
Thanks for sharing.
-
So much to like here, Steve. Your skill as a nature photographer really shows through in this. Love the pose you have captured and I also like the foreground sleeping lioness. I understand the lighting situation you were in and think it's been handled very well in the way you've rendered it. Composition really works nicely for me. Only thing that I picked up was the shadow on the animals has resulted in relatively flat tones on them. I had a quick play: hope you don't mind? All I did was to move the black and white points in for the in focus lioness. WDYT?
-
Nice one. I have always loved images with the subject in shade and the background in the sun. Great detail on the lioness.
-
Lifetime Member
Lovely frame, and I like the lower female. Perfect world would have had just a little more separation between the pair, but no deal breaker. The tones look a little thinner the I would have expected, but you were there.
After reading your comments on another thread, I'm interested on your thoughts as to why you've not flipped this one
Mike
-
Wildlife Moderator
Only thing that I picked up was the shadow on the animals has resulted in relatively flat tones on them.
Thanks Glenn for the feedback & RP, however the tone was a bit flat and I dd not wish to push them as everything was very 'muted' in tones, plus the fur was incredibly smooth. I feel in the RP they are pushed a bit too much for me, remember what Contrast does and Clarity, both totally different, that's if you used either.
After reading your comments on another thread, I'm interested on your thoughts as to why you've not flipped this one
Simply Mike that I felt it 'sat' OK in the frame and did not need flipping, as each image is based on it's own merits and subjective - it's all about presenting it to its best potential and whether it is coming in from the left or right is incidental to me, it's what looks best.
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Macro and Flora Moderator
Excellent detail and I quite like the slightly usual composition. I think Will made a good observation regarding the eye of the lower lioness.
-
Hi Steve -- I think the OP works as presented and you done extremely well to get the kind of details one expects from you even in a tricky lighting condition . Again will agree with you on inclusion of the FG lioness though not very ideal but gives a different feel the tight head shot. nicely done .
TFS !
-
Originally Posted by
Steve Kaluski
Thanks Glenn for the feedback & RP, however the tone was a bit flat and I dd not wish to push them as everything was very 'muted' in tones, plus the fur was incredibly smooth. I feel in the RP they are pushed a bit too much for me, remember what Contrast does and Clarity, both totally different, that's if you used either.
Sorry for slowness in responding. Have been a bit distracted with other things lately. As mentioned in my RP, all I did was move the black and white points closer together (this is the rough equivalent of boosting contrast). But I'm a little confused by your response Steve. While the scene may have been very 'muted' and flat - as I'd expect in that lighting situation - and while it is clearly a matter of choice of the photographer about how an image is presented, one thing I have picked since joining this forum is the importance of rendering shape and form on the subject through tonal variation. Have I missed something fundamental or is this simply a case where you (and others) have preferred a flatter look this time around?
-
Wildlife Moderator
Hi Glenn, no worries, I have enough on my plate, so like you my responses may be not instant.
As mentioned in my RP, all I did was move the black and white points closer together (this is the rough equivalent of boosting contrast).
Indeed it is, but all you are doing is compressing the Histogram and by doing so you increase Contrast as you said, which in my book is something I avoid and have done for the last few years, as I hone, tweak my workflow with stuff I have learnt, or developments in Software etc. For me it just pushes the Blacks & Whites which I don't like, but folk still like to do this. If the Exposure is right then generally I do little within LR's Exposure module. Yes, I do run a small 'recipe' after importing because I don't like LR doing stuff behind the scenes prior to any development work and I like to keep my files 'open'. Canon files do carry lots of Contrast and if you use any of the Picture styles and DPP you are just adding more (just look at the presets) and yes, I much prefer Nikon NEFF files because they are so clean.
John Whaley was commenting that his files which I saw earlier, were starting to look crunchy, but seeing his Fox as the RAW file, it was all good, it's just folk need to understand what each adjustment does.
How we process an image is, at times personal and yes there are some basics that are a given/standard and personally I like to maintain as much Mid tone as possible, but I will build my files where necessary with Channels, RGB Channels, Blending Modes, Layers and Masks, Curves, Levels, Saturation etc giving me far more control and I can also 'sculpt' the form so to speak using where applicable the light ie as I did on one of your earlier lion cub images. But it's not just a simple adjustment because you have various other options at your disposal to hone that specific adjustment. You could use also Opacity and or Fill too to added the adjustment. It's all about 'building' your file and I can always go back at anytime to hone, rifle or change any adjustment at a later date without having to remember what I did. Simply using just Contrast will not give you this and will provide a far more 'contrasty' image and can amplify a 'crunchy' look IMHO. Often controlling Contrast in may of the posted images improves the overall look. For those who use LR or ACR knowing what Contrast & Clarity does is one of the basic elements, as each are individual and can change things in a fundamental way and if you do this without understanding the two, it will be embedded in your tiff as you build it and your image can take on a different look perhaps.
Glenn, this is just my take, others may choose to agree or disagree. LR has just had another upgrade and there is a feature which some folk may feel is the 'silver' bullet and to a degree it does work, but to me you have to take each image on it's own merits and not 'blanket' process every image and just because I've used one method in a process a second image may need another route.
Not sure if this clarity's your question, but Contrast will not give you the 'Tonal range' you referred to because of the nature of what it does.
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Thanks so much for taking the time to provide such a detailed explanation Steve. I greatly appreciate your patience with my questions and learning. I take your points about contrast but using that is only an issue if tonal information is lost through clipping at either end of the tone curve. I moved the points in this instance so that was very minimal and inconsequential (based on examining the clipping warnings in PSE). Shifting the black and white points to just outside the range of the tonal information in my workflow at least with DPP then Photoshop Elements via a 16 bit TIFF file actually maximises the subtle tonal information because I'm working with TIFF data that is expanded to 16 bits between the black and white points that I've set when I export from DPP. It's like applying a magnifier to the tonal information. So when I make changes in PSE on the 16 bit TIFF, PSE is able to generate more subtle tonal variations than if I'd not moved my black and white points in. The real question though is whether that level of subtlety makes any noticeable difference... I have doubts, but it certainly does no harm. I don't know what happens in Lightroom as ACR is integrated: what happens when ACR 'hands over' the file to Lightroom proper to work on? I'd be surprised if it was functionally different to what I manually do with DPP and PSE though.
But I have diverted from my fundamental question which was not about techniques to use but why your thinking led you to a relatively flat looking tones across the lioness. If it was nothing more than 'it felt right', then that's fine. It's your image and prerogative. What benefit did you see from going this route rather than rendering some greater tonal range across the lioness, which would have given her more form and (personally) visual appeal?
-
Story Sequences Moderator and Wildlife Moderator
Reply With Quote
