Post by: Jeremy Roussak on February 08, 2019, 02:45:41 pm
Jeremy
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 08, 2019, 03:00:00 pm
Post by: Ivophoto on February 08, 2019, 03:05:42 pm
Who took the second shot, Ivo? ;)
Then it would be his backside.
Nice shots btw.
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on February 08, 2019, 03:11:14 pm
Good catch.
A typical London scene? ;)
Post by: faberryman on February 08, 2019, 03:20:47 pm
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 08, 2019, 03:29:50 pm
Post by: James Clark on February 08, 2019, 04:38:28 pm
Post by: John R on February 08, 2019, 09:18:58 pm
Jeremy, I actually love the second one. Sure its unconventional, but it shows the animal's face, and the engagement of his look in interesting. I might lighten the background (or take it more to grey than the bluish tinge I see, and I might actually crop him a little more to the right (so that there no part of the front of his back leg showing fro a cleaner sweep if the body off the page).The second shot reminds me of the many good model images I see where the photographer tries to highlight a portion of the face in a different way. There is something to what James says, a face peering as intensely at us as we gaze at it. Surely with the pure white unaffecting background that is what comes across.
JR
Post by: Ivophoto on February 09, 2019, 01:53:11 am
?
Jeremy
For me, the second is far better.
The first shot is a fox in the center of the frame. The second shot takes advantage of the frame, it leads outside the frame. The fox is more in his habitat without seeing it, but it is there, because you use the frame.
Post by: Chairman Bill on February 09, 2019, 03:57:22 am
Post by: stamper on February 09, 2019, 07:23:32 am
Both look pretty good to me
Yes!
Post by: Bob_B on February 09, 2019, 07:52:50 am
Post by: 32BT on February 09, 2019, 10:25:46 am
Post by: John R on February 09, 2019, 10:29:08 am
These scream copious amounts of bold negative space to me...I agree. It gives the subject and its environment a wonderful tension.
JR
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 09, 2019, 10:31:22 am
Post by: bobfriedman on February 09, 2019, 11:11:07 am
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on February 09, 2019, 02:47:47 pm
Jeremy, I actually love the second one. Sure its unconventional, but it shows the animal's face, and the engagement of his look in interesting. I might lighten the background (or take it more to grey than the bluish tinge I see, and I might actually crop him a little more to the right (so that there no part of the front of his back leg showing fro a cleaner sweep if the body off the page).
James, the bluish tinge seems to have been introduced in the JPEG rendering for posting here; it's not present in the original. Your suggested crop is a good idea.
These scream copious amounts of bold negative space to me...
Interesting, Oscar. I don't much like what it does to #1 (of mine), as I like the square crop; but your composition does enhance the effect I was seeking in #2. I'm not sure how you ended up with the pink snow, I must confess.
Jeremy
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on February 09, 2019, 02:54:09 pm
Post by: 32BT on February 09, 2019, 03:24:38 pm
I'm not sure how you ended up with the pink snow, I must confess.
Oh, probably Snapseed "smart" context aware fill taking a bit of fox along. It was just a quick & filthy edit on the tablet for illustrative purposes. Certainly didn't mean to suggest adding any color.
Post by: Telecaster on February 09, 2019, 04:54:09 pm
-Dave-
Post by: Ivophoto on February 10, 2019, 04:59:07 am
All tough it seems properly exposed, I have my thought about the exposure. It’s a typical histogram exposure, it result in a clinical animal extruded from his environment.
It is a choice and I don’t have comment on you choice, just want to shine light on another approach.
Overdoing the PP and keeping the old fashioned zone system approach in mind instead of the histogram method would result in a different and in my opinion more plastic and less clinical result.
If I may suggest, you could apply a radial luminance mask filter to the highlight to bring back more detail in the snow and increase contrast on the fox to get more expression in the fur.
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on February 10, 2019, 12:33:17 pm
Referencing to Patricia’s Fox,
All tough it seems properly exposed, I have my thought about the exposure. It’s a typical histogram exposure, it result in a clinical animal extruded from his environment.
It is a choice and I don’t have comment on you choice, just want to shine light on another approach.
Overdoing the PP and keeping the old fashioned zone system approach in mind instead of the histogram method would result in a different and in my opinion more plastic and less clinical result.
If I may suggest, you could apply a radial luminance mask filter to the highlight to bring back more detail in the snow and increase contrast on the fox to get more expression in the fur.
It's processed in exactly the way I intended it. The fox was alone, looking at us, in a large expanse of snow. You might not like the environment, but that's what it was. I don't want to try to introduce detail in the snow which wasn't there.
Jeremy
Post by: Ivophoto on February 10, 2019, 12:42:25 pm
It's processed in exactly the way I intended it. The fox was alone, looking at us, in a large expanse of snow. You might not like the environment, but that's what it was. I don't want to try to introduce detail in the snow which wasn't there.
Jeremy
Then I misinterpreted the question mark above the picture, Jeremy. I’m sorry.
Post by: Kevin Gallagher on February 10, 2019, 12:47:43 pm
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on February 10, 2019, 12:54:57 pm
Then I misinterpreted the question mark above the picture, Jeremy. I’m sorry.
Not at all. I'm interested in views, which is why I post here.
Jeremy, are these from your Japan trip?
Yes. I have quite a few to get through!
Jeremy
Post by: Ivophoto on February 10, 2019, 01:18:33 pm
Not at all. I'm interested in views, which is why I post here.
Ok,
What I mean in bringing back detail in the snow according to the zone system approach is placing the snow in VIII close to IX (9zone system) this would reveal subtle detail in the snow like a very faint shadow of the fox. It would put the animal with his feet on earth and not floating in white.It is not about changing the intent of the image, only to get rid of the clipped white.
Maybe this is the case in the original file and is the small web jpeg short in DR.
It’s subtle, check this penguin picture of Frans Lanting. They’re firmly on the ground with the minimum of detail in the snow
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190210/87a5480354983feca039ff348647c324.jpg)
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on February 10, 2019, 06:17:59 pm
Ok,1) If you want to try this, you might be better off with VIII rather than XIII.
What I mean in bringing back detail in the snow according to the zone system approach is placing the snow in XIII close to IX (9zone system) ...
2) Ignore all the suggested "improvements," Jeremy. Your original is the best of the lot.
-Eric
Post by: Ivophoto on February 11, 2019, 01:00:41 am
1) If you want to try this, you might be better off with VIII rather than XIII.
2) Ignore all the suggested "improvements," Jeremy. Your original is the best of the lot.
-Eric
Haha, yes, stupid me. Of course.
Post by: Ivophoto on February 11, 2019, 01:06:46 am
Look at the second frame left side. Even on the tiny JPEG I think I can see where content is cleared out. (Straight line left, left of the fox’ feet) only Jeremy can confirm if this what I see. This would clarify my remarks.
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on February 11, 2019, 03:30:42 am
Anyhow, leaves me to suggest, if you clean out the unwanted elements in the frame, do it carefully and with a clone brush, not just the gum.
Look at the second frame left side. Even on the tiny JPEG I think I can see where content is cleared out. (Straight line left, left of the fox’ feet) only Jeremy can confirm if this what I see. This would clarify my remarks.
That's a fair point, and one I'd not spotted. It's not from removing elements, it's from extending the canvas size in PS without adequate care.
Jeremy
Post by: Ivophoto on February 11, 2019, 03:34:09 am
That's a fair point, and one I'd not spotted. It's not from removing elements, it's from extending the canvas size in PS without adequate care.
Jeremy
Ha ok, all clear.