Eeyore - The Roan
One sorry looking Roan from the herd that had been chased by the pack of Wild dog about 20 minutes earlier.
Thanks to those who posted or viewed the previous thread.
Steve
Subject: Roan (Hippotragus equinus)
Location: Botswana
Camera: Canon 1DX MKI
Lens: 500f/4MKII with 1.4x MKIII HH
Exposure: 1/2000s at f/8 ISO800 EV +0.67
Original format: Portrait, slight crop
Processed via: LR Classic CC & PSCC2018
Hi Steve - He must be young because those horns aren't very long. He does look thin and a bit bedraggled. Looks like the light was a bit harsh but you handled it well. I am on the fence about the comp and might consider coming up from the bottom and eliminating the partial legs but I like the wispy grass in the llc.
TFS,
Rachel
Hi Steve, the couloirs and subject look good with detail and sharpness, those long ears are something! I like the grass sticking out from the mouth. Worth trying another comp if it permits though.
Sure looks like very bright light but still the whites look ok so well done on that,I too am not sure about the composition but there again can't see a lot better way of doing it,like the sticky out grass.
Keith.
Hello Steve:)
You already know how I feel about this frame. Incredibly cute little fellow and the pose makes me smile from ear to ear - I never realised this species has such long ears?!
BG is superb. I too like the grass stem this youngster is munching on. As expected - good DoF, super SS, image well exposed. Comp works for me. Thought about a square crop for a moment but then changed my mind, I like those grasses too muchYou put so much thought into your images, Steve - I wish I could do that every time I process mine
Enjoyed this a lot, thank you so much for sharing,
Warmest regards,
Gabriela Plesea
A difficult one to compose, I'm sure but I can't suggest anything different. Also interesting to get the back story on this as the look could also be interpreted as cute too. I also like the like the grass in the mouth and the wispy grass inthe foreground. Overall, the tones look a bit thin to my eye but I suspect it is just a result of showing a relatively small version of the image here. I'll bet this looks spectacular at larger size as there must be tons of detail visible in that fur.
Thanks folks.
Hi Glenn the light is bright so colours like the WD will be lighter and the brighter they are the lighter they become, compared to say the 'Golden light' time of day. Remember I don't allow the camera to make any colour choice, my raws are completely flat as a pancake and I don't want presets to colour my judgement.Overall, the tones look a bit thin to my eye but I suspect it is just a result of showing a relatively small version of the image here. I'll bet this looks spectacular at larger size as there must be tons of detail visible in that fur.
Posting bigger will not bring any more tonal range back into the file. I am refraining in posting to the new size because and critique can be done at this size, going bigger IMHO will only make people focus on is it sharp, rather than options on angles, techs, colour etc, just my take.
What a lovely pose from such a rare antelope. I have only seen them twice in my life and both times it was in this sort of bright harsh light
Thanks Basil, yes they are amazing, would also like to bag a Sable too.
Hope to see you posting some images too Basil, don't hold back, I'm sure there are some 'treasures' in that vault.
Thanks for that Steve. My point was really that I'd expect to see the 'micro' tonal variation that is inherent in the fur detail, and that would change the impact of the image for me. So, I think size does matter in that regard but accept that you have thought about this and chosen to stay smaller... and I do appreciate you outlining why you are still posting smaller images as I was wondering but had not gotten around to asking!Originally Posted by Steve Kaluski
Thanks folks.
Hi Glenn the light is bright so colours like the WD will be lighter and the brighter they are the lighter they become, compared to say the 'Golden light' time of day. Remember I don't allow the camera to make any colour choice, my raws are completely flat as a pancake and I don't want presets to colour my judgement.
Posting bigger will not bring any more tonal range back into the file. I am refraining in posting to the new size because and critique can be done at this size, going bigger IMHO will only make people focus on is it sharp, rather than options on angles, techs, colour etc, just my take.
As for how to render/process the tones, again, you have great experience and have thought about this a lot more than I have. I have no argument with the way you have presented it but am simply reflecting the aesthetics and visual impact it has on me personally. Everyone is different. I am more inclined (as I'm sure you've noticed) to move at least partly away from a literal and accurate rendering of tone to achieve the kind of visual impact I want. Perhaps over time I'll change my view?
I am avoiding looking at previous comments so I hope I am not repetitious.
Instant impression bright - but it was. Tonal range well controlled, focus and DOF just about ideal maybe the tips of antlers slightly off but it doesn't matter to me.
Awkward shape but I see you have pretty much filled the frame, in this instance I think it works, i.e. you homed in on the cute face and big ears - exemplified in the title - right?
I am a little surprised you didn't apply a luminosity mask on the antlers bringing the highlights down just a tad to reveal some more detail there.
Nibbling the grass adds a little extra interest.
I know you wouldn't but I would bring down the brightest highlights just a little. Probably just me but I am finding bright areas difficult to handle, I don't think they are faulty just a little bright to my eye.
This is especially the case on larger images posted, some of the shots in Avain for example are 1900px and very bright - I don't get it - just not easy on my eyes. The thought of a 27" bright image a couple of feet in front of me doesn't ring my bell. Sorry being a grumpy old man now!
Glenn, Jon, thanks for your reply.
Hi Glenn, I think no one here on the Forum (and I mean as in 'the whole') will probably tackle the raw in the way I do, perhaps Andreas, but I'm very specific in the first steps and that is just me, but it's how I've been taught over the years and the advancements of software, purely down to the files Canon produce & LR. I want to control the whole file from the start and therefore there will be stuff within your file that I have managed within mine and so some of the 'basics' will define the overall look & feel. Also we are all so used to looking at our own images and I think whether it's intensional or not, things like Saturation, Contrast you may either leave or boost, I don't, I also want to ensure I get the most 'mid tone' from the image as there is where all your lovely detail is. I also endeavour to keep the file as 'open' as much as possible, trying to get as much tonal range as possible, but also this may change subject to the shot, or how I wish to portray it.
I 'render' my images, like we all do, to how we see it, if you viewed this image on my monitors in the same environment, or as a print, then it might well address your thoughts, concerns and wishes, feedback, but also you are viewing a 256 colour sRGB image rather than a hi res Tiff with millions of colours. However there are images posted that retain a lot of what you are referring too, so perhaps the image needs to be reviewed again with a fresh pair of eyes and taking onboard your thoughts.My point was really that I'd expect to see the 'micro' tonal variation that is inherent in the fur detail, and that would change the impact of the image for me.
I'm not sure if this answers your question or has gone off at a tangent again, as this stuff would be great to discuss again on a one to one to add greater dialog, but also if you were next to me with the file open 'directing' the changes and where you can see the changes in real time with greater control, to bring the image more in line with your thinking???
Hi Jon, in essence you should be seeing the image close to what I see as we have the same brand of monitors and I think set up too. As in my reply to Glenn, perhaps the HL's do need to reduce a sliver more, but to what degree is probably again very subjective??? Glad they are not faulty.I know you wouldn't but I would bring down the brightest highlights just a little. Probably just me but I am finding bright areas difficult to handle, I don't think they are faulty just a little bright to my eye.
We both know we see things slightly differently in the various exchanges of Raw files and discussions which is great, perhaps I need to produce an A3 print for you when I get back in a couple of weeks to see if the file still requires a tweak?
Thanks again Steve, I think these exchanges are helpful and instructive so I appreciate you taking the time with them. Yes, it would be wonderful to sit next to you while you edited (and vice versa... not that I expect to teach you anything but to simply show how I look at and treat and image and why I do some of the things I do). I certainly have no wish or concern about your image though. As in my previous post, just letting you know what impact it has on me personally! It is yours and you must treat it the way you think is appropriate - but I'm telling you things you already know here. Thank you again for your efforts.I 'render' my images, like we all do, to how we see it, if you viewed this image on my monitors in the same environment, or as a print, then it might well address your thoughts, concerns and wishes, feedback, but also you are viewing a 256 colour sRGB image rather than a hi res Tiff with millions of colours. However there are images posted that retain a lot of what you are referring too, so perhaps the image needs to be reviewed again with a fresh pair of eyes and taking onboard your thoughts.
I'm not sure if this answers your question or has gone off at a tangent again, as this stuff would be great to discuss again on a one to one to add greater dialog, but also if you were next to me with the file open 'directing' the changes and where you can see the changes in real time with greater control, to bring the image more in line with your thinking???
I'm pleased, it's nice to have these exchanges and it may provoke people to think, or ponder, but ultimately its good to exchange views, thoughts and ideas, all constructive and where we can all learn and sometimes it can happen that we sometimes don't 'see the woods for the trees'.Thanks again Steve, I think these exchanges are helpful and instructive so I appreciate you taking the time with them.
Gotta love those ears. I'm not often a fan of square crops, but this one seems to work for the subject. I would also vote for a touch less on the highlights, but with that said, I think you handled some tough lighting reasonably well. If we limited our shooting to the golden hour, we would miss a lot of opportunities.
Cheers Bill, BTW I was hoping you may have some Wildlife too that you could share with us, having been to Bots as well, as I doubt it was purely Avian.
Trust you had a great time.
Steve
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote