-
Wildlife Moderator
-
Story Sequences Moderator and Wildlife Moderator
-
Like the composition here and the raised foot. Exposure looks spot on.
-
Lifetime Member
Hi Steve - The raised paw and intense stare add so much to the frame. Looks like the light was a bit strong but well handled as usual. The comp works really well for me and so does the pov.
TFS,
Rachel
-
Macro and Flora Moderator
-
Wildlife Moderator
Hi Jon, light was quite bright, albeit at +1 to get the data. Looks like you have made the mud shoreline a bit flatter as it's lost the detail??
Cheers
Steve
-
Macro and Flora Moderator
Originally Posted by
Steve Kaluski
Hi Jon, light was quite bright, albeit at +1 to get the data. Looks like you have made the mud shoreline a bit flatter as it's lost the detail??
Cheers
Steve
I was more interested in the dog the mud didn't hold much fascination for me I am afraid
-
Wildlife Moderator
It's probably a bit too subtle to see on the LT, thought you liked messing about in mud and getting close to the water's edge 
-
I like the intense stare and muddy feet in this. As noted, the light is quite harsh in this and like Jon I did think the dog looked a bit thin tonally. Otherwise, the composition works well for me. I'm hoping you have a few others you might share. Have you been to Botswana again recently or is this from your archives? Not that it matters, just curious (I have missed a bit on this forum in recent times).
-
I think both images are fine depending on your taste. Steve's original is closer to the "subject as viewed in the viewfinder I suspect". I don't mind the brightness of the environment because I think it is closer to what Steve saw. This is not really a "portrait" shot , so I'd go with Steve's post. Loi
-
Hi Steve -- I really liked the pose and the water in the BKG is complementing well to the scene . You have handled the light quite well and at the same time getting all the details in the subject . Superbly done . TFS !
-
Wildlife Moderator
As noted, the light is quite harsh in this and like Jon I did think the dog looked a bit thin tonally.
Hi Glenn, for me when the light is bright colour goes thin, you don't get the same depth/tone with more subdued lighting, more evident in the colouration of the water which is a pale blue juxtapose to a deeper blue. An option at point of shooting is to use a CPL drop in filter. It's from last year, just getting round to processing some more images.
When I'm back next week I might try one think in PP that may reflect the thoughts and no it's not adding Contrast, Levels, Exp, or Blacks 
, but until I'm home I'm holding back as I need to know how it 'actually' looks with the adjustment and to what degree is required.
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Wildlife Moderator
I think both images are fine depending on your taste. Steve's original is closer to the "subject as viewed in the viewfinder I suspect". I don't mind the brightness of the environment because I think it is closer to what Steve saw. This is not really a "portrait" shot , so I'd go with Steve's post. Loi
Cheers Loi, I try to keep it reflective, but as I mentioned to Glenn, I have one option I can try which may be for the better or not, but feel the posting at present is true to capture. I personally avoid allowing both camera & Adobe to make choices for me, 'clouding' my judgement, staying clear of using Contrast, Black & Saturation, thus retains more detail and greater colour range IMHO.
-
Wildlife Moderator
Cheers Haseeb, the only 'bug bear' was that as the Body was straight of the production line it was requiring constant AFMA, a real pain, but all seems good at last, the 100-400 is razor sharp, and will definitely in the kit bag this year.
How are you getting on, issues reducing???
-
Originally Posted by
Steve Kaluski
Hi Glenn, for me when the light is bright colour goes thin, you don't get the same depth/tone with more subdued lighting, more evident in the colouration of the water which is a pale blue juxtapose to a deeper blue. An option at point of shooting is to use a CPL drop in filter. It's from last year, just getting round to processing some more images.
When I'm back next week I might try one think in PP that may reflect the thoughts and no it's not adding Contrast, Levels, Exp, or Blacks
, but until I'm home I'm holding back as I need to know how it
'actually' looks with the adjustment and to what degree is required.
Thanks for the thinking behind this. Everyone has their own philosophy on how to handle processing and 'enhance' as scene and I'm now getting to understand yours more simply by looking at more of your work and reading comments like this. Very helpful and a good insight so thanks for taking the time to outline this. I'll look forward to seeing what your 'one thing' is on this (guessing 'think' was a typo).
-
Wildlife Moderator
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Macro and Flora Moderator
That's better.......you're getting close now... just keep an eye on that mud
Last edited by Jonathan Ashton; 03-28-2018 at 02:53 AM.
-
Originally Posted by
Steve Kaluski
To Glenn & Jon, reflecting back I still am happy with the overall colour & tonal range in the OP, but here is a small tweak just to add a bit more 'punch & depth I think you were looking for. Subtle yes, but these adjustments need to be IMHO.
cheers
Steve
Yes, this looks better to me. What did you do to change it in terms of specific manipulations (if not a trade secret!).
Glenn Pure thanked for this post
Reply With Quote