Another image from Etosha. I thought about adding 'theme' to this one since it has a backlighting element but I think it is better described as 'mixed lighting' as there is a lot of reflected light illuminating the springbok. I have done a canvas extension on the top of the frame as it was a bit tight for my taste originally. Hope it doesn't look too clunky and not something I usually like doing. This is a vertical crop from a horizontal frame and essentially full height of the frame + extension. Posted at 1400 high.
Thanks for looking and any comments you may have.
Technical: Canon 80D with Lens EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM at 400mm handheld. Manual exposure 1/1600, f7.1, ISO 640. Processed in Canon DPP 4 (digital lens optimiser @ 50, Sharpness = 3, crop, lighting adjustments, default luminance NR) then exported 16 bit TIFF to Photoshop Elements. NR to background. Lighting adjustments to animal and background selectively. Sharpened subject only (sharpness function: remove Gaussian blur, radius = 0.6 pixels, 50%) after final size reduction.
Hi Glenn - You handled the mixed light well and I do like the backlit bg. If it were mine I would give the springbok a little more punch with a curves adjustment(s).
Well Glenn, (in an ideal world ) this is where I would have like to have seen a comparison between the Raw YOU shot and then shooting the same image based on the Histogram, as I find the image very 'contrasty' irrespective of the light, but this may be also highlighted even more via PP.
Obviously I am making my assumptions based on the posting, and so I could be off in my thoughts, I just find it 'pushed' and where the Blacks/Contrast just dominates the image. The techs look good with some nice SS and perhaps it's a bit of heat haze that is within the pattern of the BKG, but cropping vertical from landscape is just throwing good data away and so making the right choice in format is so key. There is a partial 'jagged' line on the LHS about 2 inches from the top????
Pulling back the Contrast, Shadows and some Blacks instantly begins to show detail within the horns, a gentle Curves midtone will help on the side of the neck, but control of key colours will also change in part some of the brighter/darker colours to. You have the soft look in the pale coat, you just need to bring some depth back in. You can still have the BKG bright, but again, just dropping it back a fraction helps the juxtapose between subject & environment.
I would have preferred a less steeper angle, more at eye level, so I guess the Impala came close and you were higher, having more distance between you and the subject would have help. Having the left ear 'vertical'(as per the right) rather than jutting out would also have been more appealing I feel, albeit probably partially hidden by the horn, but the blown rimlight would have also been lessened 'visually'.
Hi Glen -- I will agree with Steve , infact very enlightening for me as well . You have done well on the field to get the capture but proper PP work has benefited this frame immensely which is clear from Steve's RP. nice image .
I bet you have enough images from Etosha to last you for another six months or so Lovely Springbok portrait and the framing works with added canvas.
Great advice from Steve, his RP brings lots of detail and adds depth where needed. Indeed a busy BG and perhaps heat haze was present too, but such is the environment, looks just like my Kalahari
Thank you so much for sharing Glenn, I enjoyed viewing, not much for me to add after Steve's comprehensive feedback (err...hope to share with you some Springbok images of my own, soon!)
Well Glenn, (in an ideal world ) this is where I would have like to have seen a comparison between the Raw YOU shot and then shooting the same image based on the Histogram, as I find the image very 'contrasty' irrespective of the light, but this may be also highlighted even more via PP.
Obviously I am making my assumptions based on the posting, and so I could be off in my thoughts, I just find it 'pushed' and where the Blacks/Contrast just dominates the image. The techs look good with some nice SS and perhaps it's a bit of heat haze that is within the pattern of the BKG, but cropping vertical from landscape is just throwing good data away and so making the right choice in format is so key. There is a partial 'jagged' line on the LHS about 2 inches from the top????
Pulling back the Contrast, Shadows and some Blacks instantly begins to show detail within the horns, a gentle Curves midtone will help on the side of the neck, but control of key colours will also change in part some of the brighter/darker colours to. You have the soft look in the pale coat, you just need to bring some depth back in. You can still have the BKG bright, but again, just dropping it back a fraction helps the juxtapose between subject & environment.
I would have preferred a less steeper angle, more at eye level, so I guess the Impala came close and you were higher, having more distance between you and the subject would have help. Having the left ear 'vertical'(as per the right) rather than jutting out would also have been more appealing I feel, albeit probably partially hidden by the horn, but the blown rimlight would have also been lessened 'visually'.
TFS
Steve
Thank you Steve (again) for taking such time and effort to look at work I've done here and rework it. I see what you are doing here. Perhaps my choice was inappropriate but I did want to 'acknowledge' the lighting situation: being a mix of backlighting and some good reflected light. So I left the animal a little more 'inky' and dirty looking than I otherwise might. Your version brings out a lot more in the animal but to me it looks somewhat flashed. Andreas has commented on some of my other shots that they look a bit HDR. Maybe that is a description that would apply here but I don't know what his view is on this one. Of course, this all comes down to how the image is interpreted in processing. Your skill clearly shows through in your repost even though it is a different place to where I was thinking. In hindsight, my thinking may have been inappropriate as I liked showing the animal off and this was more difficult while still trying to reflect the lighting situation. Regarding your point on contrast, I accept that the original is perhaps a bit too much. That was simply my attempt to keep the animal a little darker looking but not really flat so I could show of the animal a bit more. More selective lighting adjustments on different parts of the animal may have helped. Either way, I have attached a screenshot from DPP of the original RAW with the histogram showing in case that helps you in any further commentary you might be kind enough to provide.
I agree the POV wasn't ideal here. In terms of portrait versus landscape, that's one thing I need to practice more. In the field, I'm often not sure how I will finally present a shot and that is part of the problem. The only fix there is experience, I think. As for whether I would have gained more from going portrait, as I was at full zoom, it would have given me more pixels above and below to play with (and avoided the canvas extension) but I would have still be discarding almost as many. If I'd had a longer lens, the story would be different. But I have gone on for long enough! Apologies for such a long explanation.
Looking at both your OP & my RP they are not a million miles away, mine is perhaps just opened up a bit more with the control of the darks. Again, to me this comes back to having a monitor calibrated and the 'environment' we view the image in. I fully appreciate this is an old 'chestnut' but for me it is a crucial part of PP, however, again I fully respect that folk may not have the option. In addition, even if we both had the same monitors and set-up, both our interpretation and viewing environment would not be the same and therefore we will always see things differently.
In addition, a few years back when I was trying to push folk to push their ISO as the cameras they had could take it without question, I raised this question. You look though the viewfinder and dial in the techs in on the camera you 'think' are right for the conditions, but the ISO/SS is too low, but think, at what ISO are your eyes working too? There is so much variation and to think about when shooting and PP, from the techs, how you envisage PP prior to shooting, the crop/framing, colour/B&W, clean or moody... many of these things comes to a degree with time, however shoot in the format you want, then change if the subject has not moved, nothing to loose apart from a few frames and tad of card space, but what you could gain....
But I have gone on for long enough! Apologies for such a long explanation.
Never Glenn, because discussions like this are IMHO, good, but rare and I wish other folk would also interact as much because it's all about exchange, thinking, learning, developing, please continue to do so although I appreciate typing so much can often chip a nail.
Looking at both your OP & my RP they are not a million miles away, mine is perhaps just opened up a bit more with the control of the darks. Again, to me this comes back to having a monitor calibrated and the 'environment' we view the image in. I fully appreciate this is an old 'chestnut' but for me it is a crucial part of PP, however, again I fully respect that folk may not have the option. In addition, even if we both had the same monitors and set-up, both our interpretation and viewing environment would not be the same and therefore we will always see things differently.
Agreed Steve, the two are not that much apart. On reviewing both the OP and your repost today having not looked at them for a day, oddly, I still prefer the OP. Perhaps your repost was more illustrative of what can be achieved but, and without wishing to offend, it has taken it a bit far for my liking. Perhaps my tastes will evolve and change over time although I have spent many years on bird photography and have a good feel (I think) for what works. It is not a huge leap to more general wildlife photography.
As for monitors, calibration and room lighting, I do calibrate but visually using the inbuilt windows tool (and I've also tried some much more comprehensive web-based tools - there are some very good ones out there). I don't think my calibration is out by much having looked at lots of other images on BPN (here and Avian) and seeing the comments from others. I can see the same issues on my screen. As I've mentioned before, my main issue is controlling room lighting and there's no simple fix for this one in my case. The best calibration is going to be wasted, as you would know, if the room lighting can't be controlled. So my compromise here is to look at an image in different lighting conditions and I've also worked out roughly what the lighting conditions need to be like to be to get a reasonably accurate view of an image.
Originally Posted by Steve Kaluski
In addition, a few years back when I was trying to push folk to push their ISO as the cameras they had could take it without question, I raised this question. You look though the viewfinder and dial in the techs in on the camera you 'think' are right for the conditions, but the ISO/SS is too low, but think, at what ISO are your eyes working too? There is so much variation and to think about when shooting and PP, from the techs, how you envisage PP prior to shooting, the crop/framing, colour/B&W, clean or moody... many of these things comes to a degree with time, however shoot in the format you want, then change if the subject has not moved, nothing to loose apart from a few frames and tad of card space, but what you could gain....
One of the curses for me is my resistance to taking a lot of frames. Even though it costs nothing except a bit of storage on the card, I find the job of going through shots and culling at the end of the day or whenever to be quite tedious so try not to fire off willy-nilly and create a painful job for myself later. Like choosing the right settings and framing in the field, I think the right balance only comes with experience especially the punishment inflicted on oneself from a great missed opportunity.
Springbok portrait
Reply With Quote
) this is where I would have like to have seen a comparison between the Raw YOU shot and then shooting the same image based on the Histogram, as I find the image very 'contrasty' irrespective of the light, but this may be also highlighted even more via PP.
Lovely Springbok portrait and the framing works with added canvas. 
Originally Posted by Steve Kaluski
