Mooned by a deer

Getting mooned by a deer isn't exactly my idea of a good wildlife pic, but I liked the light.

Critiques, comments, etc. welcome....Izzy

It looks like the lighting was very nice, but it's hard to see through the strong saturation and strange sense of focus. Is this a crop from a much larger image? Much about it feels very digitized and I've seen this sort of things from extreme crops, but also from some sharpening techniques and other results of post processing filters, etc.

Thankyou. The was edited from a lo-rez scan of the neg. The film itself was gray market Kodak ISO400 and the shot would fall under the category of grabshot. The light was there, the deer was there, I grabbed the shot, and both light and deer were gone. I did rescan the neg at a higher rez and re-edited.

This is the original lo-rez scan resized for posting.

Edited August 3, 2020 by MrAndMrsIzzy

This is the higher rez rescan

And this is the re-edit.

Also, in the original post all the editing was done in PS.

Without going into the details of how and why etc.

The re-edit is part LR and part PS.

It’s now more extreme. I’d have gone in another direction.

Thanks Sam! I took another look at both images, with the saturation (as indicated in your first reply) in mind. I see your point. I'll go back to both images with that in mind and see what happens.

Aside from that. Do you know who I have to talk to to get "MrAndMrsIzzy" changed to just "Izzy"? "MrAndMrsIzzy" is the name of the album I created, not my screen name.....Izzy

Edited August 3, 2020 by MrAndMrsIzzy

You might try sending a Private Message (start a conversation) to one of the moderators, Sandy Vongries or William Michael.

Thankyou.

I much prefer the interpretation in Pane 4. I don't think that you're intending this to be abstract, so you need to observe one cardinal rule of wildlife photography, "get the eye in focus". We often use a Single Spot AF to get it on the animal's eye. My Sony a9 actually has "Animal Eye AF". That said, if the eye is in focus, from this angle, the tail would have been OOF, unless you used a small aperture, such as f/16; however, at ISO 400, that might have dictated a too slow shutter speed. With a current digital body, I would have shot this at ISO 1600 or 3200, f/16 and 1/500-sec.

 

Most Kodak films are over saturated to the 21st century eye, so don't add saturation and don't get carried away with Contrast.

 

Here's a similar pose from eleven-years ago, when the differences between film and digital were smaller. This old 7D was only really good up to ISO 800, but notice how any softness is forgiven, IF the eyes are in focus. Lighting is not so nice as yours, but notice Saturation and Contrast levels are not particularly high:

Doe by David Stephens, on Flickr

 

If you want abstract, then that needs to be very clearly your objective with doing nature photography. I know a couple of people that pull it off, but people tend to expect wildlife and nature shots to be "natural."

Nice shot just the same Dc. As you point out saturation and contrast not particularly high, I likely would've increased one, the other, or both. Not much mind you just a little or possibly lowered the brightness a bit (that might be my screen though). Either way it's a good environmental shot. Her coat looks thick and full. Do you remember what time of year this was?

Nice shot just the same Dc. As you point out saturation and contrast not particularly high, I likely would've increased one, the other, or both. Not much mind you just a little or possibly lowered the brightness a bit (that might be my screen though). Either way it's a good environmental shot. Her coat looks thick and full. Do you remember what time of year this was?

 

That was 11/11/2009, so she has her full winter coat ready. Generally we would have had one or two snows by this time. The rut is days away and she may be ready to mate. I'd guess she's around three-years old.

 

That was from my "realistic period", so it's a likely a very good representation of what I thought that I saw. I've since started selling images and add more Saturation and Contrast, but just a little. I had an epiphany in John Fielder's gallery a few years back. (John took up around 1/3 of the space and he rented the other wall space to others). I was there with my printer looking at various papers and finishes, when I saw a huge print of an aspen grove, with the Saturation slider pushed way to the Right (not a Fielder print) and some smeared Cloning near the middle of the print. I laughed and said something like, "Wow! That knocks your eyes out with Saturation and look at that crappy cloning job." The printer told me that was the best selling print in the gallery and only other photographers comment on the Saturation and ungraceful Clone.

 

Here's something more in my current style:

 

Mule Deer Buck At Sunrise by David Stephens, on Flickr

 

I usually kept color temp in the 5000-5200 kelvin range, with no plus or minus tint, shooting Sony, which is a little cool vs. my old Canons. For feathers and fur, I raise Micro and Fine Contrast a bit and add Vibrancy a good bit and Saturation just a touch. This is in DxO PhotoLab, so you'll have different settings in LR or PS.

 

So, if it looks too bright, you may want to check you screen calibration. The Default setting for EV is usually "showroom floor" bright, so it stands out when lined up side-by-side on the Best Buy selves. That's too bright for processing and can result in screen images and/or prints that are too dark. It's worth a look-see.

I like it. Can't really tell but based on the observation that he's looking right at you, I'm guessing you were pretty close. That said, I'd probably have moved to the right a little in the hope that he'd have turned his head to follow allowing for a more head-on portrait, little less back, and a bit more room on the right for cropping. I've got something similar (in the sense that it's a portrait) from a bunch of years ago. I'll find it and post.

Thankyou. The was edited from a lo-rez scan of the neg. The film itself was gray market Kodak ISO400 and the shot would fall under the category of grabshot. The light was there, the deer was there, I grabbed the shot, and both light and deer were gone. I did rescan the neg at a higher rez and re-edited.

This is the original lo-rez scan resized for posting.

[ATTACH=full]1351588[/ATTACH]

 

This is the higher rez rescan

[ATTACH=full]1351589[/ATTACH]

 

Izzy, forgive me for being blunt, but I hope you get the opportunity to shoot more deer photos.

I like it. Can't really tell but based on the observation that he's looking right at you, I'm guessing you were pretty close. That said, I'd probably have moved to the right a little in the hope that he'd have turned his head to follow allowing for a more head-on portrait, little less back, and a bit more room on the right for cropping. I've got something similar (in the sense that it's a portrait) from a bunch of years ago. I'll find it and post.

 

Actually, this was shot with 840mm from a good ways away. I did hiss to get his attention. He was in a thicket, with antlers blocked in other shots. I like the side-light and "head-on" was not possible.

 

This is just a shot from Sunday and I meant it more as a sample of Contrast and Saturation that I now use for most of my animal shots these days, not so much as the ideal buck shot.

 

I do wonder what you mean by, "... a bit more room on the right for cropping." Do you suggest more room on the right, but then you'll crop, or what? I thought this image fit a 1:1 aspect ratio. I might have used 5:4 aspect ratio, but those bushes are over there, on both sides of him, so I ended up centering the buck in the square aspect ratio.

 

I WILL upload this one to Getty for sale. I've learned not to be too judgemental, particularly if the light is good and the eyes show well. You never know if some editor wants a head shot of a big buck in velvet.

Here it is dc. 1996 Heckscher State Park, NY, about an hour or so East of where I am. Knew about it but had never been there. Seemed to me more like a big picnic ground rather than an SP, but there is (or was) a little patch of woods and that's where this critter was. Probably early March. Vaguely remember thin snow on the ground and a couple of flurries.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MichaelLinder wrote

Izzy, forgive me for being blunt, but I hope you get the opportunity to shoot more deer photos.

 

No problem Mike I feel the same way.

Edited August 5, 2020 by MrAndMrsIzzy

Here it is dc. 1996 Heckscher State Park, NY, about an hour or so East of where I am. Knew about it but had never been there. Seemed to me more like a big picnic ground rather than an SP, but there is (or was) a little patch of woods and that's where this critter was. Probably early March. Vaguely remember thin snow on the ground and a couple of flurries.

[ATTACH=full]1351800[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MichaelLinder wrote

Izzy, forgive me for being blunt, but I hope you get the opportunity to shoot more deer photos.

 

No problem Mike I feel the same way.

 

This image is much better than the other, especially how the deer is partially hidden by vegetation.

 

PS . . . Where in NY is this park located? I'm from Buffalo and have been to Letchworth many times.

Edited August 5, 2020 by michaellinder

Here it is dc. 1996 Heckscher State Park, NY, about an hour or so East of where I am. Knew about it but had never been there. Seemed to me more like a big picnic ground rather than an SP, but there is (or was) a little patch of woods and that's where this critter was. Probably early March. Vaguely remember thin snow on the ground and a couple of flurries.

[ATTACH=full]1351800[/ATTACH]

 

 

MichaelLinder wrote

Izzy, forgive me for being blunt, but I hope you get the opportunity to shoot more deer photos.

 

No problem Mike I feel the same way.

 

Nice eye light and focus in a difficult situation.

 

Is this another film shot, from years ago? I'm guessing it is and that's what's causing the green tint in the fur. Frankly, I think that digital is much better for wildlife, making it much easier to get reasonably accurate colors. I see film today and I think, Kodak, Agfa, Fuji, etc., each with its own set of unnatural colors. Maybe I over emphasize color, but I think that the viewer shouldn't be thinking, "Saturation too high, reds too red, etc." Over course, that can be just as screwed up with digital, but color films and transparencies force you to start with a flawed color palette.

Nice eye light and focus in a difficult situation.

 

Is this another film shot, from years ago?

 

Yup!

 

Mike in answer to your ?, Heckscher's on The South Shore of LI (Suffolk County) at the Eastern end of The Southern State Pkwy. It's pretty small as far as SP's go. Basically a big picnic ground. That was in 1996 and I doubt that its changed much.

Yup!

 

Mike in answer to your ?, Heckscher's on The South Shore of LI (Suffolk County) at the Eastern end of The Southern State Pkwy. It's pretty small as far as SP's go. Basically a big picnic ground. That was in 1996 and I doubt that its changed much.

 

Why are you persisting with these old film shots? Don't your more recent digital images display better colors? Decades later, aren't your skills better than in 1996? I know that the hipsters are now into film, but they did live through and with the limitations, as we did, when there was no choice. You seem to be seeking something, but I'm not getting it.

Why are you persisting with these old film shots? Don't your more recent digital images display better colors? Decades later, aren't your skills better than in 1996?

 

Yes, but! The old film shots are (with very few exceptions) what (at this point in time) I've got sorted, catalogued, and keyworded. It's an ongoing process, and eventually I will get to the digitals. Until then it's the film.

Yes, but! The old film shots are (with very few exceptions) what (at this point in time) I've got sorted, catalogued, and keyworded. It's an ongoing process, and eventually I will get to the digitals. Until then it's the film.

 

I have another friend that's years and years behind in his processing. He now has a camera that shoots 20-fps, so he can dig his hole deeper faster. He's only 3-years or so behind. You're a decade or two behind. Do you keep shooting new stuff, like my other friend? BTW, I'm two-days behind, but I'll fix that tonight.

Ehhhhh (shrug). A decade and three quarters maybe (give or take a couple of months). Don't think two. Do keep shooting, but have slowed down considerably.