Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Photo Critique Section
Red Fox
Page 1 of 2 next>
Jan 8, 2022 15:39:56   #
mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)
 
Red Fox, Churchill, Manitoba. Canon R5, 100-500mm lens


(Download)

Reply
Jan 8, 2022 16:39:25   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
The colors and pose are nice.

Feedback 1: the posted image has an undefined colorspace. Instead, output as sRGB.

FB 2: The details look nice, but what happened in the blurred areas? That is, the fur behind the right foreleg through the neck and even at the front base of his right ear. It doesn't seem like this is just 'blur' outside the sharp DOF. In the original image vs the processed results, what happened in these areas?

FB 3a: Was ISO-20000 needed? The lens is wide-open, but with the IS support, could you have shot this static pose at a slower shutter, say 1/100sec instead?

FB 3b: Could you better smooth the background noise? I'm drawn to the eyes, but the grain catches my eye on the way in.

FB 4: Could you better position the fox within the frame? Find the vertical center line of various crops / aspect ratios. Is there a version that places the fox's right ear, or right eye, or the center between the eyes on that vertical line of the frame? Do any of these repositions / crops improve the image?

Reply
Jan 8, 2022 17:36:46   #
Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona
 
I really like the photo but I am only a picture taker not a photographer.

After Paul's response I don't know what to say. I don't check metadata so I would have missed the lens info but was the background so bright that you needed the fast shutter speed. Could you have lowered the ISO to allow dropping the shutter speed? I would think that you could hand hold at least 1/500 with your gear.

Reply
 
 
Jan 8, 2022 18:27:52   #
Hip Coyote
 
In your neck of the woods, you probably see these every day!

A great moment to see a fox in the open, sitting. Like Canon, I agree that the fuzzy/out of focus area on the animal is distracting. I see that you shot that lens at 500 mm, is it possible that the focal plane (if that's the right term) was so narrow that the curved part of the animal not on that plain was out of focus, but the parts of the fur that were on the plane withe the face are tightly in focus? I see bits of the ground in focus near the tail but the tail out of focus...cant figure out why. On a fox, in that shot, the tail is an important part of the shot. It needs to be in focus, IMO.

The background is the background, it does not bother me. I would try to crop some of the foreground to get rid of the out of focus pebbles. Trying to manipulate the back ground, making it darker, or the subject to bring out the animal a bit more might help. LR and PS select subject might help in this regard if that is what you are using.

I am a fan of using slight darkened vignette to make some shots more eye catching...I did a bit on this and I think it helped the shot. To each his own on that notion, but I like it.

ISO 20,000 mentioned is quite high. As canon noted, maybe a lower ss since the beast is not moving.

Here's my preachy point...IMO, if an animal is not doing anything, running, hunting, mating, fighting, hiding, then the pic has to be absolutely perfectly in focus...if there are out of focus parts, they have to make sense and not detract from the shot. I this case, the out of focus fur is an eye catcher. The tail has to be in focus as well.

This is a great moment to capture. I think a few tweaks might improve the shot a bit.

As always, thanks for sharing this with us. I know from looking at your photographs you are a very good photog and I appreciate the opportunity to look at your work.

All the best,

Reply
Jan 9, 2022 07:15:41   #
Delderby Loc: Derby UK
 
IMHO critique should be about the picture as presented - not about the method of arriving at it. Which means that in this case the picture is simply blurry, and composition could be improved with cropping the left side to make a square.
However - the obvious is not very helpful. So - are you pushing that lens at 500mm full stretch? and at a shutter speed of 1/512 are you risking camera shake (not knowing the details of your IS). I would think a much faster shutter and a better DOF from, say, f16 - even if this meant increasing the ISO by several stops - could have nailed it.
It was still a good catch - and could have been off the cuff. If I've got it wrong - I'd appreciate being pointed in the right direction.

Reply
Jan 9, 2022 10:55:38   #
MWojton Loc: Yardley, PA
 
I really like this section of the UHH. There is so much to learn from some of you. Some good points are brought up that I don't even notice until I go back for a second look.

Reply
Jan 9, 2022 13:17:43   #
Hip Coyote
 
MWojton wrote:
I really like this section of the UHH. There is so much to learn from some of you. Some good points are brought up that I don't even notice until I go back for a second look.


Exactly. IMO better than the gear head talk of the main discussion area. I often go back to some of my own pics and re do to make ‘em better.

Reply
 
 
Jan 9, 2022 19:47:37   #
mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)
 
Thank you for your time and detailed critique of this image. As to the high ISO used, it was late in the day and the light was waning. In addition, the fox was moving about at a brisk pace and only stopped for a moment for a scratch. I cannot fully explain the blurred areas except that they may have been outside the DOF since the fox was in a rather curved posture. It may also have been the gusty wind that we were experiencing. As to the composition, I am quite happy with it as is. Had the fox been facing to the right I may have been inclined to move him further to the left, but since he was nearly facing the camera I thought the eyes on one of the "rule of thirds" key points was conventional enough.

Attached file:
(Download)

Reply
Jan 9, 2022 19:57:57   #
mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)
 
Thank for looking and commenting. As to not being a photographer, I prefer non-experts to critique my images. I am really more interested in the immediate reaction of the layman, and comments on their reaction to the image particularly any emotional response, than I am to the sterile technical assessment of "experts". While I am interested in critiques of the experts and the description of the flaws, most of which I am already aware, because they help me to re-evaluate some of my decisions and improve my technique, I am more interested in how my images make the viewer "feel".

Reply
Jan 9, 2022 19:59:31   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
mcveed wrote:
Thank you for your time and detailed critique of this image. As to the high ISO used, it was late in the day and the light was waning. In addition, the fox was moving about at a brisk pace and only stopped for a moment for a scratch. I cannot fully explain the blurred areas except that they may have been outside the DOF since the fox was in a rather curved posture. It may also have been the gusty wind that we were experiencing. As to the composition, I am quite happy with it as is. Had the fox been facing to the right I may have been inclined to move him further to the left, but since he was nearly facing the camera I thought the eyes on one of the "rule of thirds" key points was conventional enough.
Thank you for your time and detailed critique of t... (show quote)


The cropped version you attached is a good re-use of the image. You might convert to JPEG and re-attach so it displays properly.

I looked at the blurred fur repeatedly, again today on a different and larger monitor. It looks manipulated, and then again, it doesn't. When I thought about it later, maybe the issue is the blurred area is in the physical center of the frame, right where my eyes look because of the overall positioning of the composition. With all this open space, that's where my eyes go, hence my suggestion to reposition the eyes or the dark patch of the ear onto the center vertical line.

BTW - remember to use <quote reply> to make specific / directed reply comments.

Reply
Jan 9, 2022 20:07:27   #
mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)
 
Thank you for your comments. If you read my reply to the other critics you will find most of the answers. As to the stationary animal photograph needing to be in focus, I agree to a point. This photo was one of a couple of dozen of this fox taken over a period of about half an hour. For most of that time he was moving about rather quickly in diminishing light, and he only sat down for a very few seconds for a scratch (which accounts for the curved body position). I did not really have time to follow my standard procedure which is to get a safety shot at high ISO then in subsequent shots to lower the ISO as well as reduce the shutter speed and/or the aperture.

Reply
 
 
Jan 9, 2022 20:24:27   #
mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)
 
As to your preachy point, The very short stop for a scratch came during a session where the subject continuously moved at a quick pace. My camera was set for the action shots and I didn't have time to adjust to a smaller aperture. Thank you for taking the time to comment.

Reply
Jan 9, 2022 20:30:36   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
mcveed wrote:
As to your preachy point, The very short stop for a scratch came during a session where the subject continuously moved at a quick pace. My camera was set for the action shots and I didn't have time to adjust to a smaller aperture. Thank you for taking the time to comment.


Again, you probably are meaning to use <quote reply>? Otherwise, Jack is going to think you're talking to / about him.

Reply
Jan 9, 2022 20:31:42   #
mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)
 
See my replies to others for most of your questions. I disagree that the picture is blurry. Agreed that some areas of the picture are blurry. Some wildlife photographers are of the opinion that "If you get the eyes sharp nobody will notice the odd flaw". So much for that notion! As to the composition, I wholeheartedly disagree. I find that square format images are suitable only for inanimate objects (my opinion only, of course). Thank you for looking and offering your opinion.

Reply
Jan 9, 2022 20:32:34   #
mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
Again, you probably are meaning to use <quote reply>? Otherwise, Jack is going to think you're talking to / about him.


Yeah, sorry about that. Guess I don't spend enough time here.

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Photo Critique Section
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2022 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.