Back Modifications (3)
Views 53 Unique 31 Award Shortlist   

This is My Turf!

By ctxuk  
Recent submissions have led to general comments of images dark, not focussed and other issues. Out today working on white balance and exposure settings, this lil feller turned up out of nowhere, only half prepared but at least I got a shot off.

Just whatever you think, rights and wrongs, if any improvements etc. on the previous recent postings.

No filters used.

I did add a multiply layer of the full layer just to enhance it, only 25% visibility. If thats not a good thing to do, please make me aware of the rights and wrongs of doing so.

Thanks.

Tags: Wildlife and nature

Comments


banehawi Plus
15 2.2k 4042 Canada
27 May 2015 4:40AM
This is very good.

Focus is spot on; white balance looks great; exposure is there for the most part.

Where exposure can be better is on the face of the Fox, and the chest area.

The reason its a bit dark in the original exposure, is that the fox is lit mainly from behind, and this naturally throws shadows on the face. In a situation like this, you would normally increase exposure by +1 or so.

Since this was not done, you can still get the fox brighter in post processing; I notice you did some tweaks in RAW with shadows and blacks that had some, but not a lot of impact. This is because your really do need that exposure increase, and yes, it will blow out a lot of the bright areas, - but you have a great fox shot. Other than this, you can use the shadow tool to brighten the face only.

You used a multiply layer, and what this does is darken the image overall; you can try a Screen layer instead, that brightens the image.

In the mod, Ive tried to restore the original RAW defaults; then remove the multiply layer by using a screen layer at 25%, and then lifting the shadow on the face and chest.
There are tiny catch-lights in the eyes you can see once the shadow is lifted, and I enhanced these in the mod.
You can see quite a difference in the mod.

IF this looks too bright to you, its likely your monitor should be calibrated. At the bottom left of this screen, theres a calibration bar, with 16 separate boxes running from white to black. For a calibrated monitor (not a laptop or tablet), you should see sixteen separate boxes, with none of them running into each other.


Regards


Willie

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

ctxuk 10 7 1 England
27 May 2015 5:19AM
Thank you Willie

It is calibrated, done recently with Xrite Pantone Huey Pro System, It's done every two weeks. I do see 16 boxes, just, the Black and 95%? almost the same though but just distinguishable, the differential between white and 5%? is clearer.

I have a fair few shots, this isn't the best but a nice pose, coupled with the back lit nature. Obviously I didn't get to pick where he was to shoot but he came and went several times, I even have one shot of him flaked out sleeping behind some bracken and brambles. Despite knowing he was somewhere in the vicinity I have no idea where the earth is, and I looked too and each time he appeared it was a surprise and had to rapidly switch from shooting deer at longer range. I was happy with this and some others though.

I did tweak as you saw, to ensure all in with no flags which isn't always easy to achieve, I find I am reducing the yellow (and orange sometimes) saturation and luminosity to remove high light flags without lowering overall. With today's shots though I found the grass very vibrant, a little too yellow and green so on some I reduced them.

Thanks for the good feedback though, it appears my white balance cap and my understanding how to set the white balance on this camera is now good to go though. A question on that though, it's a mennon semi opaque cap, in setting it I have chosen the lowest f stop, on this lens f4, pointed towards target area, zero'd the indicator and with it unfocussed shot a wb frame. As the light altered over the 5 hours there I repeated at intervals. Is that the correct way to do it? Would a mid range f stop, such as f11 been a better choice? I have found if there is a lot of sky in shot I have to open up a couple of points on the meter, or under at times, is that good or bad? Thoughts please
ctxuk 10 7 1 England
27 May 2015 5:25AM
Added a mod for you Willie ... not really a mod though I guess
Mike43 8 83 21 England
27 May 2015 8:41AM
What is there not to like about the photo, ok apart from a little exposure problem which Willie as highlighted but otherwise great shot.
Mike.
dudler Plus
16 970 1531 England
27 May 2015 4:10PM
I think Willie's comments and mod have said it all.

Excellent work!
paulbroad Plus
12 131 1285 United Kingdom
27 May 2015 6:47PM
Very nice. Looks like a youngster. You could brighten the face a touch but you have done very well in pleasant but not ideal lighting. However, that does not detract from the wow factor. Unusual to get them about in such bright lighting.

I know Willies feelings on white bakance and I do see his point. I leave all my cameras set to auto for general use as I find the results are usually pretty close. I do reset when time allows and I am certain of the light colour, but that is often in doubt. I always reset to auto at the end of the session.

In my earlier work days we had a colour temoerature meter but, with film, had to use filters. I was talking, just yesterday, to a chap who lecturers Photoshop to students at a local college. We got on to WB and he used auto when not shooting RAW. Family stuff, often, but he agreed that many people forget to reset white balance from the last shot or shoot and can easilt ruin future images.

Paul
ctxuk 10 7 1 England
27 May 2015 11:21PM
Hi Paul

I would guess around 12 weeks at most, probably less,

On my S5 I generally used the same cap rather than use auto wb, if lighting isn't good or gives a caste it will remove it, change the lighting temperature, shoot another wb, it looks the same, I personally prefer it, but, what do I know.

It has though in using it again with the D700 not resulted in comments on poor white balance and exposure, the D700 not as straightforward to shoot one using it as the S5 is.

I always shoot Raw and fine jpeg - largest size.

A good point on reset, but I tend to shoot it whilst walking towards the first subject area, and reshoot it if lighting slightly different after test shot histogram check.

Dudler - Thank you!

Mike 43 - Thanks too.
ctxuk 10 7 1 England
28 May 2015 11:36AM
Well, following your appraisal, I have uploaded a differing frame for people to enjoy and vote on, hopefully they will like it. Some of the points raised I indeed applied to it.
TanyaH Plus
16 1.3k 395 United Kingdom
28 May 2015 1:19PM
Well, as the only 'cap' I know of isn't to do with photography in the slightest and more to do with ... err ... 'lady things' ... then I haven't got the foggiest what you're actually talking about with that one, so I'm not even going there Smile

My only gripe with this image would have been what Willie mentioned, the underexposure on the cub's face. Other than that, I think it's wonderful Smile Gorgeous light, beautiful placement in the image frame and such a lovely look of curiosity on his/her face. I know a lot of people see foxes simply as opportunistic scavengers (which they are, of course) but when they're young, they're also damned cute! Grin

Tanya

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.