Kruger National Park Safari: I accompanied my husband on a safari to Kruger and was able to capture this photo of a cheetah. My picture is better than the one my husband took.

Elaine Pugh

I accompanied my husband on a safari to Kruger and was able to capture this photo of a cheetah. My picture is better than the one my husband took.

luvmypets Loc: Born & raised Texan living in Fayetteville NC

Very nice!!! I love kitties!!

Dodie

UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT

Wonderful shot, Elaine!

philo Loc: philo, ca

we saw zero cheetah on our trip. did see one leopard.

NMGal Loc: NE NM

Isn’t the cheetah one of the fastest sprinters?

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

NMGal wrote:

Isn’t the cheetah one of the fastest sprinters?

Yes, they can run at something like 60 mph for a short time. Their claws don't retract, like most cats do, to give them better traction during sprints.

You got a very nice shot of a beautiful critter!

I hope you're okay with a little constructive criticism...

I'm guessing you're using a fairly standard, uncalibrated computer monitor to view your images. Most computer monitors are waaaayyy too bright to properly view and adjust photographs. As a result, many people end up adjusting their images way too dark and don't realize it. You won't notice on your own monitor, but if you make a print it will be quite dark and anyone else viewing the image on a calibrated monitor will also see it quite dark. This can be an ongoing problem because it encourages you to under-expose all your images in-camera. I see this happening with quite a few images shared here on UHH and elsewhere. There are calibration devices to help adjust one's computer monitor for a more accurate rendition, but even without one of those you can dial it in to some extent by making a test print to see how dark the image really is, adjusting the monitor brightness setting, then making another print to see if any further monitor brightness tweaking is needed. This is somewhat wasteful of paper and ink, of course. Particularly since monitors change brightness and color rendition gradually over time and re-calibration is occasionally needed. It's also difficult to calibrate the monitor's color rendition without one of the devices. In the end, a calibration device might pay for itself in savings of paper and ink, if you print much.

Your image appears to be about two stops underexposed. What you shared here is pretty low resolution (and is an 8 bit JPEG), so only a limited amount of adjustment can be done to it. But I wanted to give it a try because this is a great shot of a beautiful subject that deserves some attention.

I used Photoshop to brighten the image quite a bit. I also did some color adjustment because... like severely underexposed images often do... when brightened it looked yellowish and a bit muddy. I just applied a slight cooling filter to tone down the yellow. This also helped bring out the green background. Finally I did a little dodging to lighten the cat's face to better see it's eye and then a bit of selective sharpening.

All this only took a few minutes and, as I noted, there's a limit to what can be done with a file of this type and size (adjustments are always better done directly from an original, full size, 16 bit RAW file).

I'm uploading the results alongside your original, for comparison. Again, I hope you don't mind!

(Download)

philo Loc: philo, ca

Your adjustment makes this beautiful cat look like a Dalmatian. Good try but I would vote for the orginal.

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

amfoto1 wrote:

Yes, they can run at something like 60 mph for a short time. Their claws don't retract, like most cats do, to give them better traction during sprints.

You got a very nice shot of a beautiful critter!

I hope you're okay with a little constructive criticism...

I'm guessing you're using a fairly standard, uncalibrated computer monitor to view your images. Most computer monitors are waaaayyy too bright to properly view and adjust photographs. As a result, many people end up adjusting their images way too dark and don't realize it. You won't notice on your own monitor, but if you make a print it will be quite dark and anyone else viewing the image on a calibrated monitor will also see it quite dark. This can be an ongoing problem because it encourages you to under-expose all your images in-camera. I see this happening with quite a few images shared here on UHH and elsewhere. There are calibration devices to help adjust one's computer monitor for a more accurate rendition, but even without one of those you can dial it in to some extent by making a test print to see how dark the image really is, adjusting the monitor brightness setting, then making another print to see if any further monitor brightness tweaking is needed. This is somewhat wasteful of paper and ink, of course. Particularly since monitors change brightness and color rendition gradually over time and re-calibration is occasionally needed. It's also difficult to calibrate the monitor's color rendition without one of the devices. In the end, a calibration device might pay for itself in savings of paper and ink, if you print much.

Your image appears to be about two stops underexposed. What you shared here is pretty low resolution (and is an 8 bit JPEG), so only a limited amount of adjustment can be done to it. But I wanted to give it a try because this is a great shot of a beautiful subject that deserves some attention.

I used Photoshop to brighten the image quite a bit. I also did some color adjustment because... like severely underexposed images often do... when brightened it looked yellowish and a bit muddy. I just applied a slight cooling filter to tone down the yellow. This also helped bring out the green background. Finally I did a little dodging to lighten the cat's face to better see it's eye and then a bit of selective sharpening.

All this only took a few minutes and, as I noted, there's a limit to what can be done with a file of this type and size (adjustments are always better done directly from an original, full size, 16 bit RAW file).

I'm uploading the results alongside your original, for comparison. Again, I hope you don't mind!

Yes, they can run at something like 60 mph for a s... (show quote)

Exceptional results 💛🖤💛🖤💛

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

philo wrote:

we saw zero cheetah on our trip. did see one leopard.

Magnificent 💛🖤💛🖤💛

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Elaine Pugh wrote:

I accompanied my husband on a safari to Kruger and was able to capture this photo of a cheetah. My picture is better than the one my husband took.

Nyah-nyah

(A superb shot)

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

I think something about halfway between would be great, but between the two I would choose the original!

Ervinbee Loc: Perth Australia

Great shots Elaine, I'm from South Africa and the Kruger park was always a favorite place of mine when I still lived in Africa. The color and lighting of your shots are really quite natural. One can clearly see there were no shadows in them, indicative of an over cast day which creates an impression of under exposure for some.
Keep them coming.

J-SPEIGHT Loc: Akron, Ohio

Elaine Pugh wrote:

I accompanied my husband on a safari to Kruger and was able to capture this photo of a cheetah. My picture is better than the one my husband took.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

A beautiful shot.

Millismote Loc: Massachusetts

Very nice, thanks for posting.