Look Into My Eyes

kdog · January 22, 2009

aj986s · January 22, 2009

Cooool picture! What a great expression!

Great pic but a couple of things caught my eye: 1) consider cloning out the tiny white debris under the leftside eye, 2) recover some of the highlight on the nose, and 3) crop out some of the right side to eliminate the gap in the upper right corner.

Eia · January 22, 2009

This is beautiful!!!

On my monitor the left side is really bright white... and along the left side of her nose. and yes, the speck under her left eye can be cloned?

kdog · January 22, 2009

Thanks Tony and Eia! Your comments are of course valid and good. The lighting was extremely harsh, and this particular frame was overexposed. I think I pushed the recovery as far as I can go. I rationalize the exposure in my mind by thinking that the severe lighting adds drama to the shot, in an almost high-key sort of way. Wishful thinking I suppose. Just try to go a day without a rationalization.

The speck under the eye, well of course it can be cloned out. I chose to leave it in because it's a truer representation of the beast at that moment. But now you guys are making me reconsider.

Glad you liked the shot.

-joel

rwells · January 22, 2009

Looks like you weren't really holding a camera...more like a dinner bell

Yes, the pic has a couple of minor nits, but what a great "rare, if ever" opportunity to shoot a fine example of nature. Those kind of shots are usually (for me) fast and furious, & your not really giving the camera all the normal (make sure ISO is good, AF One-Shot...naw AIServo, etc.) tender care you normally would.

All that being said, I think this is a very nice photo

kdog · January 22, 2009

rwells wrote:

Looks like you weren't really holding a camera...more like a dinner bell

Yes, the pic has a couple of minor nits, but what a great "rare, if ever" opportunity to shoot a fine example of nature. Those kind of shots are usually (for me) fast and furious, & your not really giving the camera all the normal (make sure ISO is good, AF One-Shot...naw AIServo, etc.) tender care you normally would.

All that being said, I think this is a very nice photo

Hey Randy, thanks a bunch. I feel a little better now.

If we had Nikolai along on this one, we might have been able to set up some lighting.

But barring that, I'm pretty pleased with how it turned out.

Cheers,
-joel

Azzaro · January 22, 2009

Hi KDOG.....That is a great picture of my most favorite critter.... IMO, the shot at the moment, out weighs the technical difficulties of shooting in bright sun light..

thumb azzaro

Jack'll do · January 22, 2009

Awesome! What a fortunate opportunity for you.
I wouldn't worry too much about the minor nits. The face and eyes so captured my attention I didn't even notice them (other than the eye detritus). The coyotes and coy dogs in these parts are so wary they'd be hi-tailing it into the next county by the time you got the lens cap off.

Tango · January 22, 2009

wow, now thats some shooting!

your 100mm - 400 IS?

kdog · January 23, 2009

Azzaro wrote:

Hi KDOG.....That is a great picture of my most favorite critter.... IMO, the shot at the moment, out weighs the technical difficulties of shooting in bright sun light.. thumb azzaro

Thanks Azzaro, it's one of my most favorite critters as well.

-joel

kdog · January 23, 2009

Jack'll do wrote:

Awesome! What a fortunate opportunity for you.
I wouldn't worry too much about the minor nits. The face and eyes so captured my attention I didn't even notice them (other than the eye detritus). The coyotes and coy dogs in these parts are so wary they'd be hi-tailing it into the next county by the time you got the lens cap off.

Thanks, Jack. The animals in national parks tend to pick up bad habits like this. I have plenty of them in my neighborhood, but can never get near them either.

Cheers,
-joel

kdog · January 23, 2009

AaronNelson wrote:

wow, now thats some shooting!

your 100mm - 400 IS?

Thank you, sir! Yup, this was with my favorite lens, the 100-400.

-joel

kdog · January 23, 2009

Reprocessed!!
I started over with completely different processing. Please let me know what you think.

Thanks!
-joel

Jack'll do · January 23, 2009

Oh this is a tough call joel. I put each in a separate window on my monitor and kept walking around the room glancing at them. There are areas where each is better than the other. For example:
1. The eyes in #1 are much brighter possibly due in part to the sockets being a blacker black, but the gold/yellow is brighter as well. In #2 the eyes are dull and don't grab me.

2. The area above and between the eyes is better in #2... more detail

3. The area below camera left eye above his whiskers has some multicolored speckles that are more obvious (and detracting) in #2

4. The roundish area on his snout (camera left) is disturbing in #2. It does not seem to go with the rest of his coloring (seems too dark, too tan). In #1 even though the left side of the snout is a bit overexposed, the basic color seems the same as that area on the other side of his snout.

5. The nose is better in #2 in that you've recovered some detail in the shadow and bright spot.

6. The whole area below (from neck to chest) is better in # 2 ... more detail

The bottom line is this. When I look at #1 I am immediately drawn to his eyes and then his mouth. When I look at #2 I am immediatelt drawn to the big brown spot on his snout.

Just my $.02 others may not see it this way.

Azzaro · January 23, 2009

Hi KDOG......... I think that the first one is the best of the two. I would remove the white speck under the right eye. Jacks comment about the brown hair on the side of the nose is the same thing I thought when I first looked at the picture...... I really like the first one.....Whats wrong with high key?????

azzaro

kdog · January 23, 2009

Hey Jack and Azzaro -- THANK-YOU!!! I really appreciate the feedback.

When you stare at these things long enough, you start to lose all objectivity. That bright spot on the snout is troubling in #2 for sure. I was hoping it was just me, but I guess not. Not only the are the eyes better in #1, but the teeth are whiter too. Even the tongue seemed to have better saturation.

In case you're wondering, #2 is actually a series of three different exposure tiffs which I exported from ACR at 1 stop increments, and then merged and tonemapped in Photomatix. (Yes, I know that defies the laws of physics, but laws are made to be broken.) Those multi-colored pixels in the blown-out area on the snout gave me fits. I actually had to mask around that area so it wouldn't be sharpened, because that made it much worse.

Well, it was a valiant effort. :giggle Number 1 it is.

Like Azzaro says, "what's wrong with High Key?".

Thanks again, guys!
-joel

Tango · January 23, 2009

i prefer that last posted image.

and i dont mind the bright spot at all.

just my .1 cent

kdog · January 23, 2009

AaronNelson wrote:

i prefer that last posted image.

and i dont mind the bright spot at all.

just my .1 cent

Well, my wife strongly preferred the second one as well, so you're in good company.

Sorry Jack and Azzaro. #2 it is!!

Of course, the great thing about digital, is that you can keep 'em both.

Thanks, Aaron.

-joel

Tango · January 23, 2009

:hide

RogersDA · January 23, 2009

kdog wrote:

I started over with completely different processing. Please let me know what you think.
Thanks!
-joel

thumb

kdog · January 24, 2009

RogersDA wrote:

thumb

Cool! #2 advances solidly into the lead!

Thanks, David!!!

(Psst, Aaron Nelson can come out of hiding now. :giggle)

-joel

Eia · January 24, 2009

I love the second one!!!

Panther · January 24, 2009

Howdy Joel,

What a stunning image, I love the closeness of the details, the look in the eyes, really a very nice capture.

I also like the other image presented, each has a different feel to them, but both very pleasing to the eye.

Very nicely done.

Kindest Regards,

Craig

kdog · January 24, 2009

Eia wrote:

I love the second one!!!

Thank you, Eia!!!

-jeol

kdog · January 24, 2009

Panther wrote:

Howdy Joel,

What a stunning image, I love the closeness of the details, the look in the eyes, really a very nice capture.

I also like the other image presented, each has a different feel to them, but both very pleasing to the eye.

Very nicely done.

Kindest Regards,

Craig

Thanks so much, Craig! I can live with that.

Cheers,
-joel

redleash · January 24, 2009

I like 'em both also. Why don't you do a collage in PS, with the second one behind and faded and transformed in some way (larger, diff angle, etc).

Better yet, hang 'em both--a color shot and a sepia shot of each and make a nice quad display.

OK, I'm just thinking out loud and probably not helping. I just think they are both superb shots!

Lauren

PS: where and how did you shoot these?

Shootin1st · January 24, 2009

Both are nice, but prefer #2.

kdog · January 25, 2009

redleash wrote:

I like 'em both also. Why don't you do a collage in PS, with the second one behind and faded and transformed in some way (larger, diff angle, etc).

Better yet, hang 'em both--a color shot and a sepia shot of each and make a nice quad display.

OK, I'm just thinking out loud and probably not helping. I just think they are both superb shots!

Lauren

PS: where and how did you shoot these?

Thanks so much, Lauren! Actually, a collage isn't a bad idea. I've got a few more of this beast I could use on it.

Story and more pictures here: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=117986

Thanks again and regards,
-joel

kdog · January 25, 2009

Shootin1st wrote:

Both are nice, but prefer #2.

Excellent. Thank you, Shooin1st!!

-joel

Look Into My Eyes

Comments