Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Photo Critique Section
Red Fox
Page <prev 2 of 2
Jan 9, 2022 20:43:27   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
mcveed wrote:
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.


It's your image, your opinion is prime. You asked for feedback and all was giving in good-faith, including the need to properly output your files to the sRGB colorspace for use online.

If you open your image to the max full screen, then turn your head away and turn back, where do your eyes go? Don't worry about what aspect ratio was used. Follow your own eyes and consider where they go. Do they naturally fall / go to the most important part of the image? Mine keep going to the center, making me then wonder what am I seeing at the center. This observation drove all my questions about what happened there, as I looked at the details where my eyes fell. That observation also influenced ideas of how to re-crop to change the details that naturally fall at the image center of this composition, not all compositions, this composition.

Reply
Jan 9, 2022 21:50:59   #
bertloomis Loc: Fort Worth, Texas
 
I really like this photo, in spite of all the 'suggestions'.

Reply
Jan 10, 2022 00:59:20   #
Delderby Loc: Derby UK
 
bertloomis wrote:
I really like this photo, in spite of all the 'suggestions'.


I think we all liked the photo - which has nothing to do with the "suggestions" requested by the OP.

Perhaps we should include visuals of suggestions for better interpretation of their impact - for better or worse. So....


(Download)

Reply
 
 
Jan 10, 2022 11:06:02   #
Orphoto Loc: Oregon
 
Delderby wrote --. I would think a much faster shutter and a better DOF from, say, f16 - even if this meant increasing the ISO by several stops -

If you are trying to show wildlife in their environment deep dof is desirable. With a close up in fading light you generally want to isolate from the background by rendering it unobtrusively blurry.

Reply
Jan 10, 2022 11:52:12   #
Delderby Loc: Derby UK
 
Orphoto wrote:
Delderby wrote --. I would think a much faster shutter and a better DOF from, say, f16 - even if this meant increasing the ISO by several stops -

If you are trying to show wildlife in their environment deep dof is desirable. With a close up in fading light you generally want to isolate from the background by rendering it unobtrusively blurry.


Absolutely - but you have quoted me out of context, and haven't shown where the quote ends and your post begins. In any case, does not my edit of the pic already show what you say?

Reply
Jan 12, 2022 15:28:40   #
mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
It's your image, your opinion is prime. You asked for feedback and all was giving in good-faith, including the need to properly output your files to the sRGB colorspace for use online.

If you open your image to the max full screen, then turn your head away and turn back, where do your eyes go? Don't worry about what aspect ratio was used. Follow your own eyes and consider where they go. Do they naturally fall / go to the most important part of the image? Mine keep going to the center, making me then wonder what am I seeing at the center. This observation drove all my questions about what happened there, as I looked at the details where my eyes fell. That observation also influenced ideas of how to re-crop to change the details that naturally fall at the image center of this composition, not all compositions, this composition.
It's your image, your opinion is prime. You asked ... (show quote)


Tried your suggestion. My eyes go right to the white face and the eyes.

Reply
Feb 1, 2022 16:11:33   #
dustie Loc: Nose to the grindstone
 
This is a nice clear pic of the fox, well-done in waning light. The wind, the movements you describe, the type of surface photographed all play a big part in what is shown, looks like.

The responses from the highly experienced photographers may possibly be correct, however, I'd like to make an observation as one who has far more experience with canines than with cameras.

The "blurry" areas appear to me as though the camera did an exceptionally good job of recording that canine double coat exactly as it is, and in the two dimensional image may seem to be blur.
Where the longer guard hairs in that double coat lie flat upon one another, they will not show the same apparent texture and density as where the camera sees them more at an end view of the hair rather than a side view of the hair. Those differences are even clearly visible in a direct view without a camera when in close proximity to a canine with that type of soft, medium length double coat.
The longer guard hairs in the bushy tail and in the neck and shoulder ruff / mane are where it would be anticipated the flat position of the guard hairs would be highly noticeable with the animal in that position and viewing angle.
Think carpet pile as viewed from directly overhead just after it has been fluffed by the brush roller on a vacuum compared to the way it is seen in a flattened down position in a high traffic area.

Not to divert this thread by a tangent about canine double coat, there is information online about it. Seems most sites are geared toward pet care and show dog prep, but this one is one example which deals more with explanation of the coat characteristics, though not specifically from a photographic emphasis: - https://janedogs.com/dog-coat-terminology/

Reply
 
 
Feb 7, 2022 13:27:35   #
rcarol
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
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?
The colors and pose are nice. br br Feedback 1: t... (show quote)


I think it is a lovely image of a lovely animal. Nuff said.

Reply
Feb 7, 2022 13:33:22   #
Hip Coyote
 
mcveed wrote:
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.
Thank you for your comments. If you read my reply ... (show quote)


the idea of a safety shot is a good one. Something I had not though of...

Will add that to my bag of tricks.

Happy shooting.

Reply
Feb 12, 2022 14:00:12   #
mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)
 
dustie wrote:
This is a nice clear pic of the fox, well-done in waning light. The wind, the movements you describe, the type of surface photographed all play a big part in what is shown, looks like.

The responses from the highly experienced photographers may possibly be correct, however, I'd like to make an observation as one who has far more experience with canines than with cameras.

The "blurry" areas appear to me as though the camera did an exceptionally good job of recording that canine double coat exactly as it is, and in the two dimensional image may seem to be blur.
Where the longer guard hairs in that double coat lie flat upon one another, they will not show the same apparent texture and density as where the camera sees them more at an end view of the hair rather than a side view of the hair. Those differences are even clearly visible in a direct view without a camera when in close proximity to a canine with that type of soft, medium length double coat.
The longer guard hairs in the bushy tail and in the neck and shoulder ruff / mane are where it would be anticipated the flat position of the guard hairs would be highly noticeable with the animal in that position and viewing angle.
Think carpet pile as viewed from directly overhead just after it has been fluffed by the brush roller on a vacuum compared to the way it is seen in a flattened down position in a high traffic area.

Not to divert this thread by a tangent about canine double coat, there is information online about it. Seems most sites are geared toward pet care and show dog prep, but this one is one example which deals more with explanation of the coat characteristics, though not specifically from a photographic emphasis: - https://janedogs.com/dog-coat-terminology/
This is a nice clear pic of the fox, well-done in ... (show quote)


That you very much for your input. I appreciate your detailed explanation of the 'double coat' and the image it presents to the camera. I am well aware of the double coat but was reluctant to go into it in detail as it might seem that I was just trying to defend a blurry picture. Cheers.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 2
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 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.