Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2014 · Cat photo

  
 
NightPhoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Cat photo


I think I'm having a tendency to overbake stuff with the help of so many fun tools to tweak with, like Lightroom. Here may be another, oh well. I debated if clipping the ears looked ok when taking the photo, but I felt that it helped capture the face better. I did not have quite enough depth of field so the nose is a bit out of focus. This was from my first day with my 70-300mm f/4-5.6 lens. I used a Demb flash defuser on a SB910 flash for light, as this lens is pretty poor at low light. Any thoughts?







Oct 25, 2014 at 03:11 AM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Cat photo


Joseph Bovaird wrote:
I think I'm having a tendency to overbake stuff

Admitting you have a problem is always the first step ...


Overall, no real complaints that you haven't already mention ... and those seem rather benign, since you nailed the eyes fairly well.

The eyes are of course set back in a further distant focal plane than the nose/whiskers. Likely better to have the eyes / miss the nose than the other way around. The forehead fur being in a plane closer to the eyes are plenty sharp ... potentially too sharp. If you tone down the fur a touch, it'll draw to the eyes more, and reduce the diff @ the nose somewhat to a less stark diff.

Don't know if your camera/software can show your point of focus, but I suspect it might be just forward of the eyes @ bridge/forehead with just enough DOF to get the eyes. Sharpness is a relative thing. While we can't always successfully increase sharpness, we can reduce some areas (judiciously) to optimize/shift that which we have to work with for a slight change in DOF / focal plane perception.

One thing I might add ... I'm a LOW ISO junkie from the land of dinosaurs ... but today's photography suffers little penalty from using higher than ISO 100. A bump to 200 would give you another stop for your DOF. Also, last I used Nikon gear, ISO 200 was their base ISO and 100 is just an artificial exposure compensation, so there is little reason to shoot lower than base, unless you need if for producing specific shutter/aperture combinations. (Canon does a similar @ base 100 with 50, as does my Kodak & Panny from base 160/lower and 125/lower respectively.)

Even if you go upwards to 400 & 800, if you have good light, the ISO boost trade-offs can be nominal or negligible in many instances. Old school @ film and early digital, that wasn't the case @ you paid for each stop dearly ... but now you can pick up 1, 2 or even 3 stops (sufficient light) of shutter/aperture. Meaning that if you've got enough light to shoot it @ ISO 100, you're likely gonna be just fine @ 200 or more. Once I realized that there was "no significant gain" in IQ by shooting below base ISO (a few test shots to verify), even this low ISO junkie went back to shooting base without worry.

That all being said ... some of Bob's stuff (diff camera I realize) @ 3200 is testament to how far things have come as long as you have good light to work with.



Oct 25, 2014 at 06:26 AM
sbeme
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Cat photo


Kent has it covered. Very well.

Scott



Oct 25, 2014 at 08:51 AM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Cat photo


Agree on ISO, check out my iso1600 shot I just posted. I stick to 100-400 for landscapes, but am comfortable up to 1600 for other stuff. The thing to be careful about is how much crop you might need. A bird at iso1600 then cropped 50% or more will suffer.

I am no expert at animal shots but agree the eyes need to be sharp and include a catch light. Either isolate them with a sharp fast lens, or stop down and get most of the face sharp. If you don't have a sharp fast lens, stopping down is the way to go.



Oct 25, 2014 at 09:40 AM
NightPhoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Cat photo


I made a rough of blurring the head hair, not sure I could call it a final (I may want to redo it a few times until I feel the effect is convincing). Is it better?







Oct 25, 2014 at 01:50 PM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Cat photo


Now try tossing a little (judicious) USM/sharpening at the pupil/iris/catchlight. If you do your blur and sharp on separate layers, you can mask/opacity adjust to balance them to look natural ... so you don't have to get it "perfect" (just better) in order to achieve the pull/push on your focal plane.


Oct 25, 2014 at 01:55 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Cat photo


I will let the PP folks reply. If it were mine and I can reshoot, thats the approach I would take, Get it as good as possible in camera before retouching.

Anyway, you are shooting at 220 mm f4.8. 10 feet may give you suitable shallow DOF, but may be to close for framing. Check this.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html


If you want deep dof, stop down and go higher on ISO, all the way up to say 800

Anyway, thats how I would do it. If you have a 50 f1.4 you could try that as well for shallow dof. Often a lens needs to be stopped down a stop or two for sharpness. Only the super expensive lenses seem to be sharp wide open.



Oct 25, 2014 at 02:00 PM
NightPhoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Cat photo


I played around with the blurring a bit. I also did a USM on the eyes, which I may have overdone.

EDIT: I made a minor change to the blur effect (new image).






Edited on Oct 25, 2014 at 02:32 PM · View previous versions



Oct 25, 2014 at 02:11 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Cat photo


Sharpening looks fine to me on the eyes. I think I want the whiskers sharp which I don't think is not possible in PP with this image.


Oct 25, 2014 at 02:15 PM
NightPhoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Cat photo


Retaking the photo may be the key, though now I'm more able to determine what I'm going for. Thanks so much everyone for your input.


Oct 25, 2014 at 02:17 PM
NightPhoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Cat photo


Hmm, I sharpened the nose using masks, think it looks better?







Oct 25, 2014 at 02:44 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Cat photo


I mean the long whiskers, especially the ones at the left side against the background.

Also be careful on a reshoot to keep the good OOF background you have here. Stop down too much and it will start showing murky details.



Oct 25, 2014 at 03:08 PM
NightPhoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Cat photo


Oh yeah, those are a bit of trouble to restore (if it's possible). I'd have to make a selection around each and sharpen the area separate from the blurring on the hair behind.


Oct 25, 2014 at 03:10 PM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Cat photo


+1 @ in camera, i.e. bump ISO to stop down some.
+1 @ lensmakers are a little liberal in their acceptable mtf/sharpness @ wide open for consumer glass, particularly variable aperture zoom.
+1 @ the effort in PP makes a good study to loop back information back into the shooting process what/why you are making your decisions aperture/fl/dof/focal plane/etc. (i.e. not an excuse for not doing a reshoot, nor a better method ... rather a mental prep re-enforcement for the pieces of the puzzle.

Capture + Post-Capture = Finished
Finished - Capture = Post-Capture (i.e. sliding scale dependent on capture)



Oct 25, 2014 at 04:23 PM
NightPhoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Cat photo


I'm wondering if I overbaked this photo with lightroom, so here it is less adjusted (maybe).







Oct 25, 2014 at 04:49 PM
NightPhoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Cat photo


I tried and tried to get a photo of him, no luck as yet. I did get a photo of an expression though. Noise reduction made this photo look pretty clean noise-wise actually, this was on my D2X at ISO 800. Barely got it to focus for this shot, oh well.







Oct 26, 2014 at 09:13 PM
Joe Demb
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Cat photo


It looks to me as if you have the reflector positioned forward, giving a pretty flat lighting. Try using the reflector vertical or even back about ten degrees, so your main lighting is off the ceiling and the frontal lighting provides only fill lighting. This should give a more rounded lighting effect to the cat head. There is an example on this page: http://www.dembflashproducts.com/galleries/pop-up-gallery/ Joe Demb

As for the focus issue, some of the finest photographic portraits of all time show the eyes in focus and the nose and ears out of focus. Think about that. If it is good for people, why not for a kitty?



Nov 06, 2014 at 05:17 PM





FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.