# Zoo pics for C&C



## robertwsimpson (Sep 8, 2009)

The sun was so bright, it was nearly impossible to get a decently even exposure, so I tried to use it to my advantage.

let me know what you think, good or bad!

1.






2.





3.





4.





5.





6.





way more on my flickr page if you like these.


----------



## ocular (Sep 8, 2009)

#1 I like, has character but to underexposed 
#2 underexposed and overexposed doesn't work for me
#3 Even though the stick a bit of a bother I like this picture
#4 Cool, but it's comming from infinity ? 
#5 what mood do you perceive in this pic ? 
#6 cool but seems is too cropped, right eye looks closed, weird.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 8, 2009)

did you read the OP? lol


I think that 4 is my fave.

also, #6 is not cropped.  that's the picture.


----------



## ocular (Sep 8, 2009)

> did you read the OP? lol



You asked for constructive criticism good or bad, then u make fun of me ? Gee thanks.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 8, 2009)

I did ask for constructive criticism.  I prefaced the post by saying that the sun was super bright and it made even exposures nearly impossible.  you told me that one of my pictures was over exposed and under exposed.  I thought it was funny, since clearly, I already knew that.  don't get so butt hurt.  It's only the internet.

thanks for your tips all the same!


----------



## bigtwinky (Sep 8, 2009)

1- I like the intent of the image, like looking in from the tiger's den.  But I find part of his head blurry and the brokeh isn't too nice, kinda wavey.  Bottom left of the image are a couple of sticks that are out of place.
I do like the light on his orange fur though.  Seeing more of that would of been nice, and even seeing only that would of been nice.

2- Interesting play, but the overexposed is blown out, which kind of cuts the image...my eye didn't follow straight to head and was just looking around the top of the image.

3- I don't like the branch in this one, but nice job on the sharpness and the bird's face

4- I like this one alot, best of the bunch.  Great use of the light to nicely frame the subject.  Vertical lines, sharpness... nice job

5- similar to 1 in that I find the fur on the head blurry and makes it distracting.  I find when doing silouhettes, that you need sharpness to nicely pull it off (usually).  As for composition, I like it.  He is a bit low on the image, I would of liked to see a bit more sky or whatnot under the branch he is sitting on, but nice overall.

6- I don't like the fence and his right eye being shut.  Seems that the focus is more on his nose than the eye though.


----------



## itznfb (Sep 8, 2009)

And it matters if you preface it with the lighting conditions were difficult? C'mon now.
90% of the time you're going to be dealing with horrendous lighting at the zoo. That's why the zoo is such a great place to practice. You're either going to have low light conditions with moving subjects or dark/bright areas combined and you're going to have to deal with a difficult exposure. It's not nearly impossible to get an even exposure. It just take practice.

You're first shot is a perfect example. I'm not really sure what you were going for in that shot but you could have easily achieved an even exposure with some fill flash or dynamic lighting control if your camera has it.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 8, 2009)

well just so that you guys know where I was going...

1. I wanted this one to be a little under-exposed so that it was a little silhouette ish... also, the waviness is due to the fact that he was behind a fence.  the fence is way out of focus, thus the waves.  I guess it didn't work as well as I had intended.

2. I accidentally over-exposed this with the camera, and I did as much as I could to pull the highlights back in.  I really liked what was going on with the water, and the subject wasn't too bad off I thought.  I guess I was wrong.

3. the bird was above me, standing on that branch... there was no way to get a good picture, because if you move, the birds fly away.  After looking at it, I started not minding the branch, so I kept it.  

4. my favorite picture of the bunch.  I don't know how this one could be better.

5. I wish the fur was sharper, but I had to crop this one to make it look right.  there were some lit up limbs underneath the branch he is on that I had to crop out.  since the photo is so cropped, I think I lost some sharpness.

6. it's a zoo.  there are unfortunately fences in front of all the animals.  I thought it was a cute picture, so I kept it.  I think you're right though, the focus might be on his nose.  I can't wait to have a camera that I can turn the ISO up on without ruining pictures.  for night now, I have to use really low aperture settings.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 8, 2009)

yeah that tiger was super far away, so my on camera flash (the only one I have) wasn't going to cut it.  

not getting defensive, just sayin...

the zoo was like the hardest place I've tried to photograph yet.  definitely good practice.  clearly, I need some more.


----------



## itznfb (Sep 8, 2009)

A good flash can be useful. However, I don't like even taking a flash to the zoo since it irritates most animals. Luckily for the last year or so I've been shooting with the D90 and now the D300s which both have amazing ADR capabilities that can basically reproduce the effect of a fill flash.

And yea, as I said. You'll deal with almost every type of difficult shooting situation at the zoo so it's a great place to get practice.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 8, 2009)

seriously, it was like every single photo was blowing out the white stuff and killing the dark stuff completely. it would have been nice to be able to take multiple exposures, but I knew that wasn't happening with everything moving around so much.  a cloudy day would have been nicer.  oh well, it was still fun, and it definitely worked on my patience, since I had to wait for each animal to be in the exact right spot before I could snap a pic.


----------



## itznfb (Sep 8, 2009)

If you want an easy day at the zoo to just get some good shots then go when it's 65-70 degrees and overcast and go right when the zoo opens.


----------



## sabbath999 (Sep 8, 2009)

A suggestion. Cropped, sharpened, enhanced just a smidge in PP.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 8, 2009)

hm I might do that with the full sized one.  I was thinking about that, but couldn't picture it in my head.  Thanks!


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 8, 2009)

does this work better?


----------



## sabbath999 (Sep 8, 2009)

I would sharpen it some, and pop the colors a bit more... it does work better than the original.

I found the branch on the left distracting, while I like the branch in its mouth.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 8, 2009)

ok thanks for the tip


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 9, 2009)

how about this?


----------



## Josh220 (Sep 9, 2009)

There's a lot of issues with them being underexposed/overexposed. The other hard thing about shooting at the zoo, is making it look like it wasn't taken at the zoo. 

The last one may have still worked if the fence wasn't cutting across it's eye.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 9, 2009)

Josh220 said:


> There's a lot of issues with them being underexposed/overexposed. The other hard thing about shooting at the zoo, is making it look like it wasn't taken at the zoo.
> 
> The last one may have still worked if the fence wasn't cutting across it's eye.



you should probably read a thread before commenting in it... if you had, you would have noticed that the over/under exposed thing has already been mentioned.

I was trying to be mindful of making the pictures not look like they were at the zoo, but some of them were just impossible.  I liked the moment captured enough to keep them anyway.  I dunno... I'm a newbie, what can I say?


----------



## itznfb (Sep 9, 2009)

Josh220 said:


> There's a lot of issues with them being underexposed/overexposed. The other hard thing about shooting at the zoo, is making it look like it wasn't taken at the zoo.
> 
> The last one may have still worked if the fence wasn't cutting across it's eye.



Yep. That's a good point that I totally ignored for some reason :meh:
However if I'm at a zoo I may only get to visit once or every few years that is probably the last thing I'll worry about. Getting the correct exposure I think is top priority. Once you've mastered that or at least gained a comfortable level on how to manage lighting at the zoo; then you can work on composition technique trying to make the animals look like they are in the wild. That's the fun part 



robertwsimpson said:


> I liked the moment captured enough to keep them anyway.  I dunno... I'm a newbie, what can I say?



Sometimes you just have to deal with the fact that it is indeed a zoo and the animal may be doing something that will still make the shot worth it. In those situation it's best to try and make it look like a zoo. Make sure you encapsulate the exhibit, or maybe a child's reaction. Obviously these aren't rules but might help make the shot more interesting.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 9, 2009)

yeah to be honest, I was more worried about lighting and exposure.  clearly, as mentioned 11 times in this thread, I still need to work on this.


----------



## Josh220 (Sep 9, 2009)

robertwsimpson said:


> Josh220 said:
> 
> 
> > There's a lot of issues with them being underexposed/overexposed. The other hard thing about shooting at the zoo, is making it look like it wasn't taken at the zoo.
> ...



I saw it had already been mentioned, but I also noticed that you made excuses for it. If you don't want the errors pointed out, or you get too defensive over it, then don't post the pictures that you already know have such errors. 

No point in getting defensive in a C&C thread. That's why so many people don't bother critiquing others' pictures anymore. Everyone thinks their picture is an exception regardless of its flaws.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 9, 2009)

here are some more pictures that I took:


----------



## Overread (Sep 9, 2009)

I'm so tempted to nominate that 3rd shot in your second series! (where is Chris with Septembers nominations thread!) 
as for the last shot in that second series you might think about opening up a saturation layer in editing - then go to the section at the top where it says master and scroll down through the list to Cyans - then desaturate the cyans in the shot. It will lose you that bluey colouring on the shadowed legs


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 9, 2009)

yeah I have a TON to learn in post processing.  thanks for the tip. I will give it a try.

the only thing that bothers me about #3 is that you can see the bokeh of the fence against the rocks.  it looks weird.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 9, 2009)

also, thanks for the compliments!


----------



## Overread (Sep 9, 2009)

Chances are you can probably remove that fence effect quite easily - its not too bad and is not standing out much against the rocks (often you get a white hazy line from the fencing which is at best hard and at worst impossible to lose).
Check out this site here: Ron Bigelow Articles
and give layer editing a read.

As for removing the bars you could try a range of things - I would start with the heal tool myself and see if that works. Or you could try the smudge/blur effect. Experiment and see what works but I am sure it can be lost.
You might also do a little selective brightening to the eye area of the cat looking at the viewer just to bring it out a little more (not too much so that it stands out harshly, just to give it a little lift).


----------



## sabbath999 (Sep 9, 2009)

robertwsimpson said:


> yeah I have a TON to learn in post processing.  thanks for the tip. I will give it a try.
> 
> the only thing that bothers me about #3 is that you can see the bokeh of the fence against the rocks.  it looks weird.



I would like to encourage you to start working on this (fixing your stuff in post) as time and money permits... it is an ongoing process, I am still learning tons every time I open up my favorite editor...

Here, let me show you something...

I opened your pic up in Capture NX (you can use any program for PP, I just like Capture NX best) and simply painted in some better bokeh with gaussian blur. I also added a touch of saturation and lightened the kittys up just a bit, and sharpened them just a bit.

Total time spent, one minute twenty eight seconds.

Also, I resized it to 800 wide, simply because this forum uses automatic resizing to that size anyway. I would suggest everybody make their images no larger than 800 on the widest size for web posting anyway, if for no other reason than to discourage image theft. 

Nice shot, btw, I really like it.


----------



## sabbath999 (Sep 9, 2009)

BTW totally beside the point, but this post illustrates why I don't do C&C...

I personally would rather SHOW somebody some thoughts about what I would do with an image or a situation than to tell somebody.

I think all too often C&C means too much different to too many people... and, with all due respect to all posters, I personally have no idea what many people's own skill levels are because I haven't seen their work... 

If somebody like Overread says something about one of my pictures, I pay attention and try to look at it through new eyes... because I KNOW the excellent quality of Overread's stuff.

Personally, I want to see the work of somebody who is offering advice so I can get an idea if that person actually knows what they are talking about (again, meaning no disrespect to ANYBODY here, I haven't checked out your stuff, y'all may be the second coming of Ansel Adams for all I know... this is a GENERAL statement).

Additionally, I like it when people who DO ask for C&C make it OK for their photos to be edited, simply because it makes it easier to SHOW a point (like what I have been doing in this thread).

But that's me.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 9, 2009)

meh, maybe it's just me, but I like the original better.

thanks all the same though, you did give me some stuff to think about.  I am kind of a purist in that I don't like editing my pictures all that much.  it kind of forces me to see the shot when I am taking it and contemplate how to make it as good as I possibly can, given the circumstances.  I mainly mess with brightness, contrast, saturation, and then I take out stuff that is distracting.  for example, stray branches, crap in the water, etc.  I am really not good with the dodge and burn tools yet.  maybe that is what I will start practicing next.  I am very nit picky in that I don't want people to be able to tell that a picture is post processed.  If it looks even the least bit processed, I instantly hate it.  I am somewhat of a perfectionist though.


----------



## itznfb (Sep 9, 2009)

Are you saying sabbath999's edit looks over processed? His edit looks like a properly exposed shot to me. There is a small halo over the paw but that's just due to a rush job on the blur.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 9, 2009)

maybe it's my monitor, but it looks over saturated to me.  also, the blur job looks second rate.  I'm sure with more than 28 seconds, you could do something better.  also, the eye looks jacked up.  

I would have spent 10 more seconds and cloned out the grass on the left side.  I didn't even notice that before.

I'm sure all of this is just personal preference.


----------



## Overread (Sep 9, 2009)

sabbath999 said:


> If somebody like Overread says something about one of my pictures, I pay attention and try to look at it through new eyes... because I KNOW the excellent quality of Overread's stuff.



!!!! I er -- Thanks! 
(((but I don't think I am that good yet - now in a few years  )))



robertwsimpson said:


> If it looks even the least bit processed, I instantly hate it.  I am somewhat of a perfectionist though.



Always remember that any image in a camera is already processed by the camera itself (those contrast, sharpening, saturation etc settings in camera are editing too). Of course if/when you move to shooting in RAW mode you won't get these edits applied and you also have to set your own white balance for each shot as well (in editing). 
I understand what you mean, but never think that professionals (or just really good amateurs) get the shots they do with just incamera - in camera is a big part certainly, but good editing is also a major part of getting that look you want in a shot. 

Also it might be an idea to look into getting a screen calibrator - like a Spyde - since I have a feeling that your using an LCD (flatscreen) moniter for editing. Most LCDs run very bright and when it comes ot shots this means that you can often end up with them looking far darker to others or especailly in prints, than they do look on your screen. Its well worth considering in a screen calibrator if your taking things seriously with your photography.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 9, 2009)

I wish that everyone in the world had the exact same monitor with the exact same settings so that we would all be seeing the exact same photo.  my brightness is all the way up, and I know pictures look different on this monitor than they do on others.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 9, 2009)

I shoot in raw already 

I do need to calibrate my monitor probably, but here is my problem: this is my work computer, and if I turn down the brightness, it is hard for me to read my excel spreadsheets.  Work comes first, unfortunately.


----------



## Overread (Sep 9, 2009)

robertwsimpson said:


> maybe it's my monitor, but it looks over saturated to me.  also, the blur job looks second rate.  I'm sure with more than 28 seconds, you could do something better.  also, the eye looks jacked up.
> 
> I would have spent 10 more seconds and cloned out the grass on the left side.  I didn't even notice that before.
> 
> I'm sure all of this is just personal preference.



Don't get too paranoid about blades of grass all the time - though by all means if you can remove it well do so - just don't let it drive you mad (there is grass in them wilds).

As for saturation I do think a screen calibrator is in order - the colours look fairly tame to me.

edit - when you use the screen calibrator you get a screen profile - you can turn this on and off - so you can turn it on for editing your photos and then turn it off for working on your work stuff. I would seriously recomend it does seem that you might be seeing vastly different onscreen to what the rest of us are - and its going to affect directly, how you edit your shots


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 9, 2009)

I might have to check into that.  maybe if I ever stop using my TV for my computer at home.


----------



## sabbath999 (Sep 9, 2009)

Your colors are all quite flat on my calibrated monitor, I agree with the others that you might want to calibrate your monitor... it really made a difference with how mine look, especially when comparing prints to the screen. Having taken literally thousands of big cat pictures, I am pretty familiar with the proper tones for one of those critters. 

Once you are calibrated, you can reproduce colors exactly every time... the good news is that calibration devices are extremely cheap compared to what they used to cost ($75 gets you a good one).

Yes, that was just a simple quick rush job on a low-res print... when I actually try to do that, it looks better  Also, obviously, I make my edits on the full size prints.

Everybody has their own thing, their own style... and that is a good thing.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 9, 2009)

yeah I know if you spent more time it would have looked better... I dunno.  I guess I could print a few and see how they end up.  I do want to eventually make some large prints of good pictures that I have taken.  I would be upset if they showed up and looked flat and dark.  cest la vie I guess.


----------



## sabbath999 (Sep 9, 2009)

robertwsimpson said:


> yeah I know if you spent more time it would have looked better... I dunno.  I guess I could print a few and see how they end up.  I do want to eventually make some large prints of good pictures that I have taken.  I would be upset if they showed up and looked flat and dark.  cest la vie I guess.



Ya, prints are where you see more of issues of uncelebrated monitors... additionally, different printers or different printing sources (snapfish, mpix, etc) will react differently to images... 

Color profile management is kind of an advanced topic, but it is something worth spending a bit of time to find out about early on in your hobby.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 9, 2009)

I'd better celebrate my monitor as soon as possible!


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 9, 2009)

welp, I just did a beginners monitor calibration... I printed my pictures out, and then compared the print out to what I see on the screen... it was definitely darker, but I think the color was even more saturated on the print out than it is on my screen.  Anyway, my monitor does not have very much adjustment (pretty much only brightness/contrast), so I just wrote down the settings since it doesn't have the ability to save different profiles and it was like not usable for me at the settings that were needed.  maybe all these years of staring at computer screens are finally catching up with me.  I can see that all my pictures are a little darker than I was intending though.  always food for thought...


----------



## Overread (Sep 9, 2009)

A beginners modification?
You mean one of the online ones where you compare things to the colours on the screen? The problem with them is that your eyes are highly subjective and adaptive - so they give a bias result. That is why the professional setups (like a spyder) are better since they have hardware based light sensors which are not subjective - thus they give consistant and more accurate results


----------



## itznfb (Sep 9, 2009)

Also... if you're comparing to a print out how do you know your printer is calibrated correctly?


----------



## Josh220 (Sep 9, 2009)

The new set is MUCH better. Good work!


----------



## sabbath999 (Sep 9, 2009)

itznfb said:


> Also... if you're comparing to a print out how do you know your printer is calibrated correctly?



There's lots of information about this on the forum and this is kind of straying away from the topic at hand... I would recommend doing a search for this if you are interested.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 9, 2009)

Overread said:


> A beginners modification?
> You mean one of the online ones where you compare things to the colours on the screen? The problem with them is that your eyes are highly subjective and adaptive - so they give a bias result. That is why the professional setups (like a spyder) are better since they have hardware based light sensors which are not subjective - thus they give consistant and more accurate results



yeah, but this was free!


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 9, 2009)

itznfb said:


> Also... if you're comparing to a print out how do you know your printer is calibrated correctly?



I dont! but if it isn't I'm no worse off than I was before... and also, I can at least print out my pictures 8.5x11 and frame them and have them look right now.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 9, 2009)

Josh220 said:


> The new set is MUCH better. Good work!



thanks! it's not new, just different pictures, but thanks all the same!


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 9, 2009)

sabbath999 said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> > Also... if you're comparing to a print out how do you know your printer is calibrated correctly?
> ...



yeah I mean, if everyone is saying that my pictures are underexposed, clearly, if I turn my brightness down, it can't hurt...


----------



## itznfb (Sep 9, 2009)

sabbath999 said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> > Also... if you're comparing to a print out how do you know your printer is calibrated correctly?
> ...



I wasn't actually asking the question... I was just making sure robert realized he could be comparing to an image that was printed out by something that is also not calibrated or accurate.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 9, 2009)

itznfb said:


> sabbath999 said:
> 
> 
> > itznfb said:
> ...



I was pretty sure he was talking to me, but thanks for getting defensive on the internet.


----------



## itznfb (Sep 9, 2009)

robertwsimpson said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> > sabbath999 said:
> ...



Jesus I love the immediate aggressiveness on this forum. No one can express an opinion or clarify anything without being attacked.

I wasn't being defensive... I was clarifying because my original post wasn't that clear.


----------



## sabbath999 (Sep 9, 2009)

GROUP HUG!


----------



## itznfb (Sep 9, 2009)

:hug::


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 10, 2009)

awwwww this thread is overflowing with qtness!


----------

