Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Wildlife Photos

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 6, 2005, 3:35 PM   #1
djb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,289
Default

I saw this guy coming out of the water to have a snack. He watched me as much as I watched him and got this shot before he decided to go back into the water. I don't remember what ISO it was. I think it was 800 or 1600. Taken with 20D 100-400mm @400 f/5.6 1/40 EC +1 1/3 (set there because of backlighting through the shrubs).

dennis


Attached Images
 
djb is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 7, 2005, 4:25 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
woodmeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 838
Default

Cute catch on this guy dennis.
woodmeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 7, 2005, 4:04 PM   #3
DBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
Default

Do you mind me saying that this superb photo is WAAAAAyyyyy to light? Just needs s ome processing....

dave
DBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 7, 2005, 4:28 PM   #4
djb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,289
Default

Dave, after posting the picture, i notived it too. i knew it was a bit light but, now really looking at it, you are correct. oh, i do remember why i lightened it a bit. it was to try to pull some of the belly detail out. otherwise the belly was too dark.

dennis

p.s. is it considered okay to edit and repost the original post?? or do we edit it and repost as a reply?
djb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 7, 2005, 6:29 PM   #5
DBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
Default

Etiquite. Hmm?

Since on THIS board we are only indirectly in compition. In fact the mafia hit men I tried to hire to "get rid" of Norm, Bobby Z, Zoom and quite a few others (and you I might add), turned the contract down...:sad:

So you can do either without inducing serious medical problems, I believe called "camera rage." :lol:

Now after making my post I saw the problems with the belly being dark. Even so, after I worked on it a bit, while it did remain with that imperfection, still looked better.

Let me say this. If you shot in RAW format, this probably could have been corrected in the RAW dialogue before you loaded it into your image processor. It is a perfect example of why people should shoot RAW. If you DID shoot RAW, than I never made the proceding sentence....

dave
DBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 7, 2005, 7:29 PM   #6
djb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,289
Default

Hey, why me??? i'm not even close to being able to carry the others' camera bags!!! or yours.:-) i don't shoot in raw yet. i've been thinking of it but, not sure what to do with them afterwards. i'm lucky that i can use USM, a little levels and a few other basics. one of these days i'll repost it here.

dennis

p.s. anyone remember Kevin G.??? anyone know what happened to him?? now, he would be Norm competition!!!!
djb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2005, 8:54 AM   #7
DBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
Default

In Photoshop, or any of the decent RAW converters, you are presented with a "digital negative." It's the best analogy anyone has come up with...

So, in my case for example, most of my processing takes place in the RAW editor, which at least in PS is fairly straight forward and simple.

So let us assume, that you were one half stop over-exposed, but the belly was in shadow...

I could lower the exposure, to the proper limit and then lower the contrast so that the whole image was bland.

Then raising the shadows a tweak, and then playing with the contrast and brightness, I wind up with an image where no highlights are blown, and the belly is visible.

Obviously there's a chance I wind up with nothing better, but RAW give you room to play, that is just not there by shooting JPEG or TIFF.

And of course, I can while in the RAW editor alter the camera sharpening or noise settings BEFORE I load the image in to PS for final touching up...
DBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2005, 1:41 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
ImKayd1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,785
Default

I also like this shot. Played with a little in Photoshop CS. Here is what I did. Under Image - Adjustments - Highlights & Shadows - Left shadows down at +2 and increased tonal range under highlights, increased depth to 50% and increased tonal range as well. Selected muscrat and unsharp mask slightly to increase defination. Light use of curves to increase depth.

Erased orig and my edited version from my computer. If playing with it offends I appologize.

Suzan
Attached Images
 
ImKayd1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2005, 1:56 PM   #9
DBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
Default

Interesting Susan.

I tried exactly the same method and was unhappy with the results of the shadows.

So I wound up using variations to make the highlights darker, but then just used levels to make the entire image darker.

This left an image where the belly was too dark, but the rest of the image looked better...

dave
DBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2005, 2:11 PM   #10
djb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,289
Default

Suzan, you are now my official post processor!!!! looks really good. that is what i was looking for but, as i say, my PSCS skills are lacking. thanx!!

dennis
djb is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:33 PM.