Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Polar bear in late golden light

  1. #1
    Wildlife Moderator Steve Kaluski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in the world
    Posts
    20,688
    Threads
    1,296
    Thank You Posts

    Default Polar bear in late golden light

    Attached Images Attached Images
     
    Our little vessel was parked up in the pack ice as this Polar bear just walked by, catching the strong, late afternoon light. They do come incredibly close, but in doing so you can get caught out with shooting angles, so you need to plan and take what comes. A while to wait to get back with these guys, but always great fun and as always, with a great crew.

    Thanks to those who posted or viewed the previous thread.


    Steve

    Subject: Polar bear (Ursus Maritimus) head shot in golden light
    Location: Svalbard
    Camera: Canon 1DX MKI
    Lens: 500f/4 MKII with 1.4MKIII HH
    Exposure: 1/2500s at f/8 ISO640
    Original format: Landscape, very slight crop, FF width
    Processed via: LRCC & PSCC2018

  2. #2
    BPN Member Stephen Earle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    A, A
    Posts
    597
    Threads
    158
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Strong detail and nice light makes this. The perspective is not ideal, as you say.
    Stephen Earle Photography
    Facebook page

  3. #3
    Lifetime Member Rachel Hollander's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    14,320
    Threads
    929
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi Steve - Yes, those shooting angles on the boats can be tough with lots of things to get in one's way. The detail here is beautiful. Love the light hitting the very fine fur/hairs along the bottom of the chin. This is also a good example of an image where a few detail-less hls (e.g. the rim of the closer ear) don't matter. I would be curious to compare if you captured an image a little earlier where the face was more in that warm light. There seems to be a halo/edge along the top of the snout.

    TFS,
    Rachel

  4. #4
    Macro and Flora Moderator Jonathan Ashton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    17,287
    Threads
    2,653
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I'll give it 95%, boy that is magnificent.
    I know you will disagree but I wonder if you could reduce the highlight son the rime of the ear just a little without them turning fuzzy/milky??

  5. #5
    Wildlife Moderator Steve Kaluski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in the world
    Posts
    20,688
    Threads
    1,296
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Can't see any halo Rachel, only two lines on the front of the nose.

    I know you will disagree but I wonder if you could reduce the highlight son the rime of the ear just a little without them turning fuzzy/milky??
    Jon, you got me finally to move to 1600 px, I think that is the only thing I will concede on as it's a size we would work on as being industry standard for PI . Seriously though, if I do it will go grey and not reflect the conditions, I will leave it as I like the harsh rim light.

  6. #6
    Macro and Flora Moderator Jonathan Ashton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    17,287
    Threads
    2,653
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Kaluski View Post
    Can't see any halo Rachel, only two lines on the front of the nose.



    Jon, you got me finally to move to 1600 px, I think that is the only thing I will concede on as it's a size we would work on as being industry standard for PI . Seriously though, if I do it will go grey and not reflect the conditions, I will leave it as I like the harsh rim light.
    Sure that's fine it was an investigative comment really, if it would affect the true colours/brightness I would agree leave as is.
    As for the size I have to put my hand up, I promoted 1600px wide but that often results in images 1200px tall and that's a little awkward for me so I have been posting to 1000px tall. I decided not to change my screen just yet, the simple reason is I cannot see any appreciable difference between my sRGB and an Adobe SRGB screen on the Tiff and of course on the jpeg. I have looked on a Eizo CG and a Ben Q, my pal convinced me I am chasing something that is measurable not not readily discernible, after he showed me the data and compared images on screens simultaneously. I thought I was missing something - maybe I am but I cannot see it readily. That left me with changing my screen because others were posting too large for me to see readily, .....I decided to sit on it for a while.
    Last edited by Jonathan Ashton; 04-27-2018 at 02:03 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Web Analytics