Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Digital Composite?  (Read 4492 times)

alexis

  • Guest
Digital Composite?
« on: January 15, 2004, 04:41:54 PM »

After a closer look, I'm guessing that this was a composite of no less than 7 separate images???
Logged

BruceK

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 87
Digital Composite?
« Reply #1 on: January 15, 2004, 07:04:30 PM »

I'm thinking that Michael use selective sharpening to make sure that the eyes/faces of the cubs and lioness were sharp. I find it hard to believe that the photo would be a composite of so many images, but I could certainly be wrong.

     Bruce
Logged

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1895
Digital Composite?
« Reply #2 on: January 16, 2004, 05:43:47 PM »

And because Michael's far too polite to say so...

Shame on you for suggesting such a thing!    

Peter
Logged

GordonMcGregor

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 40
Digital Composite?
« Reply #3 on: January 16, 2004, 10:05:24 PM »

Thank you for explaining the cause of the unusual cut-out appearance.  I don't have experience with lenses of that focal length so the whole image just looked wrong in a way I'm not used to.  Good to have it cleared up and always happy to learn something new!
Logged

Alexis

  • Guest
Digital Composite?
« Reply #4 on: January 15, 2004, 02:41:58 PM »

Michael, is today's image of the lion with her cubs a composite? The heads of some of the cubs look pasted on to me. Even the lioness's head doesn't quite look right. Please accept my apology if I am wrong.

a.
Logged

GordonMcGregor

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 40
Digital Composite?
« Reply #5 on: January 15, 2004, 06:16:10 PM »

It seems 'wrong' to my eyes too - the open mouthed animal was the first that looked pasted, but after a closer look, they all look stuck in - or maybe I'm just imagining it..
Logged

  • Guest
Digital Composite?
« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2004, 10:40:27 AM »

A composite? No. Not at all. Why would one do that? The real thing (which this is) is so much better  

Also, there was no selective sharpening. Just the normal USM.

What you're seeing may well be that at 500mm the depth of field is very shallow and so the animals faces are sharper than everything else.

15 other people were there and saw and photographed the same thing, so rest assured this is all very real.

Michael
Logged

Bobtrips

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 679
Digital Composite?
« Reply #7 on: January 16, 2004, 06:11:31 PM »

It was a good question, maybe not a carefully put as possible.

I've seen that 'disconnect' between subject and background before and wondered why.  Now I know to check the focal length used.

(Actually, I had wondered if it was some sort of a digital/film difference.)
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up