Fully backlit Leopard - No flash

[walk the wilderness]

<p>Hi Everyone,<br /> <br /> I m new out here and this is my first post.<br>

I photographed this completely backlit Leopard after it had made an unsuccessful attempt to make a Langur monkey kill. The setup is D300, Nikon 300mm f2.8 with the 2.0 TC. EXIF - 600mm focal length, f5.6, 1/200s, -1.0EV at ISO 400<br>

No flash was used since it is normal behavior in India not to use flashes on wildlife and discomfort them.</p>

<p>Pl. let me know your views on the Ethics of using a flash on a wild animal that's busy focusing on hunting its next meal.<br>

You can also see more of these images in my blog <a href="http://walkthewilderness.net/" target="_blank">http://walkthewilderness.net</a> <br /> <br /> Cheers, Thomas<br>

<img src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_MkqlcytX57E/Sd8I2bKKtTI/AAAAAAAAAvM/6Yyi4ex6ESg/s720/Leopard%200569.jpg" alt="" width="720" height="480" /></p>

[mats nilson photography]

<p>Nice shot!</p>

<p>But if it were backlit, why did you dial in -1.0EV? I would have thought it more important to make the leopard stand out, than to save the bakground highlights from clipping. Still, I'd give a go at it in post-processing. Just my 2 cents..</p>

<p>And it's still a very nice shot of a notoriously elusive animal!</p>

[wpahnelas]

<p>very nice. and yet i agree with mats nilson. i would've exposed for the cat, and dealth with those background highlights later.<br>

as for using flash on wildlife, i don't know how much that would've helped at the distance you were from your subject. so in this particular instance, the point is moot.<br>

i suppose that with too many photographers firing away, the leopard might eventually starve to death. i don't know what the traffic's like where you visited. my guess is, however, that your flash wouldn't have deterred the big cat any more than the human presence <em>sans</em> flash.</p>

[tien_pham]

<p>What kind of metering method you are using? You may want to use Partial Weighting for backlit situation.</p>

[walk the wilderness]

<p>Thanks for your feedback Mats, William & Tien. To respond to your thoughts -<br>

Mats : I had to use -1.0 EV to up the shutter speed to 1/200s to try and produce a shake free image given the fact that this is shot at 600mm focal length. I could have increased the ISO, but then noise becomes an issue beyond ISO 800. I still could have taken the ISO upto 800.<br>

William : I use a flash extender that can increase the reach of the flash. This Leopard was at about 75 feet away and the flash would surely have brought out more details on the subject without blowing off the background.<br>

Tien : I was using spot metering for this shot.</p>

 

[Ray House]

<p>I think this works very well as is. To me it has a very natural look and gives the cat a blending into the environment feel. So, I'll just say "nice shot" and very nice choice on your settings.</p>

[ian_johnson3]

<p>Hi Thomas,<br /> Nice series of shots...right place at the right time!</p>

<p>Without going into the specifics of your camera setup (exposure etc), I would like to comment on the use of artificial lighting for wildlife photography based on my experience.</p>

<p>In general, I would say that "standard" artificial light (flash etc) on wildlife is something that is seldom used now days (professionally). The top end wildlife filmmakers and photographers no longer support this (and when they have to use artificial light, they revert to infra-red type lighting etc). There is debate on the actual impact of flash (& spotlights etc) on wildlife and their behaviour, however I would venture to say that there is a degree of impact on the animals involved (but, how big is the question?). As such, the challenge then, is to achieve the desired shots, as you have done in this series, without artificial light and without the possible disturbance of the wildlife.</p>

<p>Personally, I do not use artificial light in any wildlife situations. regardless of the ethics involved, I prefer the feel of the image where natural light enhances the situation. An option for this series could have been to to change the impact altogether, making the leopard silhouetted against the background for example. The feel would definitely have been very different.</p>

<p>Ultimately, regardless of the ethics involved, I would say that you should go with your gut feel......and decide for yourself what impact you are looking for and what the likelihood of interrupting the situation would be by using flash. Chances could have been that you would have only managed one image, instead of the number you actually collected!</p>

<p>Again, nice series.</p>

<p>Ian<br /> http://www.globalstills.com</p>

[walk the wilderness]

<p>Ray : Thanks for your comments.<br>

Ian : I browsed through your blog to get a context to your thoughts. After looking at your Elephant Silhouettes I understand where you are coming from.<br>

Thank you for your comprehensive views on artificial lighting, I fully appreciate you taking the time to explain your perspective.</p>

[mats nilson photography]

<p>Just a technical note: A digital sensor has one fixed light sensitivity. When we raise the ISO-setting, what we in effect do is underexpose. That's why higher ISOs are noisier, since we have to boost a weak signal to achieve 'correct' tonal values in the image file. Therefore, underexposing by -1.0EV or going from ISO 400 to 800 makes very little difference with regards to noice, if any at all. Only difference is whether the boosting takes place in-camera or in Lightroom/Photoshop/Aperture/whatever.. Clipping highlights (or shadows) is a different matter, for once you've saturated the photo-sites (or if they receive no light whatsoever), there are no tricks in the world to save them. That's why I thought you had chosen to underexpose (to save highlights from clipping).</p>

<p>I've looked at your image again and it's getting better every time.. :-) You have a very nice picture as it is - saying quite a bit about the elusivesness of the cat. And you still have the raw-material to make another version with the cat standing out a wee bit more - if you'd like.</p>

<p>I've been quite a bit to India, but I've never seen a leopard. I once had a very distinct feeling of being stalked by one on the outskirts of Bombay, and I'm glad I never saw that one since that could have been the last thing I ever saw.. ;-)</p>

[kuryan_thomas]

<p>Your photos at your web page are excellent. I particularly like the "stop motion" series of the cat spinning around on the trunk.</p>

[walk the wilderness]

<p>Mats : Thanks for the point on EV Vs ISO. I didn't know that. I have been fortunate with Leopard sightings in the last couple of years. You can see another closeup series of Leopard shots in another post on my blog. The link is http://walkthewilderness.blogspot.com/2008/12/dream-sighting.html<br>

Kuryan : I happy you liked that series.</p>

[charles_mason]

<p>Or a little very quick left-handed (I am right-handed but was giving my wife a backrub while doing this) Photoshop work takes care of it. Nothing fancy, but basic result is to invert the image tonally. I teach this to my photo students at University of Alaska Fairbanks. Amazing how often it makes a huge difference. If you want to know what I did just ask...</p><div></div>

[charles_mason]

<p>trying again, because first time somehow it got bigger, and the version on this site was also lots darker than my worked up image...here goes...</p>

[charles_mason]

<p>trying again, because first time somehow it got bigger, and the version on this site was also lots darker than my worked up image...here goes...again</p><div></div>

[charles_mason]

<p>there, that's better...</p>

[jimitoucan]

<p>Mason's image is better, to me, subjective you know. Tell us about your technique, Mason.<br>

As far as strobing the cat, it is pointless in this image as the trunk would be too bright compared to the cat, casting shadows and confusing the image. Unless you used a very powerful system with a soft box. (That's humor in case you missed it.) <br>

Thomas, I think we kinda think animals are closer than they really are, especially when we are excited about photographing them. 300mm with a doubler on a D300 is equivalent to a 900 mm, at 75 feet you would have a much closer view. Nice image, none the less.</p>

[charles_mason]

<p>Mostly I used the History Brush to burn and dodge the image. Select the bruch, if it is "x'd" out click the history window and check the box by the bottom history state. Now your brush is active. Chose a soft one, and toggle size quickly with the bracket keys to the right of "P." Right bracket makes brush bigger, left smaller. Now in the menu bar just above the window use screen for dodging, multiply for burning (blendind modes). Set opacity around 15%. Works like a charm, and you can't overdo it. It maxes out. Just click again to do more dodging or burning.</p>

<p>So I took the brush and worked on the cat with Screen. Then also dodgeed the tree, and worke daourn the pic as needed. Actually used multiply to burn back in some of the surrounds.</p>

[walk the wilderness]

<p>Charles : I m sorry, I missed out checking the e-mail comments tab, hence I have seen these comments just now. The processing you have done is cool and I kindda like it. The only issue that I see is that the colors on the Leopard aren't what I actually saw. They were more richer. But I guess I will need to compromise given the fact that this fellow was completely backlit. Thank you for the processing you have done. Appreciate it.</p>

<p>Jim : The image you are seeing is a 30% crop of the original, so maybe I got the distance factor wrong. maybe the Leopard was actually 100 ft or more away from me. I have photographed Leopards much closer and there are a couple of post on my blog where you can see rare closeup of the beautiful predator. Thanks for giving the distance perspective on this. Appreciate it.</p>