Monet in the Bush with Kangaroo

[Peter Ryan]

On a recent trip into The Little Desert I came across this shot. I was trying for a more surreal mood as the bush was messy but the wildflowers gave patches of colour. I really want to like it but I feel something just doesn’t isn’t right. Shot with Nikon D300s with Nikor 70 - 300 @ 300, f5.6 +0.67 EV, ISO 200, 1/320 second shutter.

C&C please.



Just as I posted this I thought 'change the aspect ratio' to get rid of the nothing bits of the shot. This is one in 8 x 10.

[Donald]

When I opened this I just had the first picture on the screen and my immediate thought was - "Why didn't he crop it to get rid of the 'stuff' in the foreground?" .... and then I scrolled down!

I love what the second one is. It's powerful composition of the animal in its natural surroundings.

The one thing I wondered is that that poor little sweet Joey doesn't stand out enough from its surroundings. Now, you don't want it unnaturally obvious as its colour is about not being too conspicuous. But, I wonder if you were to boost up the Local Contrast Enhancement and/or an 'S' curve, just on the animal , if that would give a more powerful image? Just a thought.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Peter,

I know diddly-squat about artists, Monet or any other, but I can see a facet of an 'art' painting here, probably because of the limited palette of colours and general lack of sharpness*, a feeling which is more predominant in the first.

Random Dave thoughts;
Did Monet typically ignore the rule of thirds?
Or was the first one 'straight from camera' (no PP crop) and you used the central focus point?
I 'shot myself in the foot' yesterday doing exactly that, so this thought maybe unfounded, it's just upper most in my mind today

The second version is a better photographic image due to the crop, but has an oversharpened look in some places, but because it is only in some places, it might not be that at all, just a trick of the light on some of the 'bush' (not the bush). To my mind, because going closer has destroyed the painting illusion, it is now a photograph and as such, I'd prefer to see a bit less foreground, perhaps Joey even more on a third and some 'less obvious' sharpening.

* the general lack of sharpness is probably unintentional and is in part caused by the fact both are 710px on their longest side and the default downsize to 700 for display inline in the posts above will resample and display alittle softer. When viewed in a Lytebox, by clicking on the image, this effect goes away - try it.

Donald's suggestion to LCE Joey only is probably what I'd do too, but of course we're fighting nature in the process and there is a part of me that thinks it works better because you have to look to work out the outline - the shadow in the ears, the face and chest shape/colour are the subject's 'giveaways'.

Anyways, those are my thoughts, I hope they don't sound overly critical, nor 'accusing you of my shortcomings', I have necessarily gone to quite a bit of detail because you know the basics and I admire a lot of your work.

Hope the ramblings prove useful,

[Peter Ryan]

Thanks guys. I appreciate the time and effort you guys have gone to help me here. The wildflowers are short sharp little flowers and at the focal point are very sharp. I have increased the contrast on the roo and I understand what you are saying Dave about losing the painterly effect in #2. I will try using the aspect ratio in #2 and only sharpening the roo and leaving the painterly effect in the rest of the image and see how it goes. I can visualise this as this is the effect I am trying to achieve.

I really believe there is an interesting image here and appreciate your help in getting it out of me.

[Peter Ryan]

This is a rework of the 8 x 10 aspect ratio option but I hav not done any output sharpeneing just selective sharpening and contrast on the roo itself. I think this is starting to get there. I do like to move away from a strict rule of thirds and have an implied acceptance of the rule by making the subject sit between the centre line and the intersect of the rule. Your thoughts would be appreciated.

[Donald]

I think this is starting to get there.

Yes, Yes, Yes! I think that also gives a lot more depth to the whole image. Does that make sense?

[Peter Ryan]

I agree Donald. It was an unusual effect given the landscape and I said to everyone there that it would either be a masterpiece or a load of subbish but I really like it now.

[Shadowman]

On a recent trip into The Little Desert I came across this shot. I was trying for a more surreal mood as the bush was messy but the wildflowers gave patches of colour. I really want to like it but I feel something just doesn’t isn’t right. Shot with Nikon D300s with Nikor 70 - 300 @ 300, f5.6 +0.67 EV, ISO 200, 1/320 second shutter.

C&C please.



Just as I posted this I thought 'change the aspect ratio' to get rid of the nothing bits of the shot. This is one in 8 x 10.

it looks like you may have two things working against you. 1. Time of day, only because the photo looks like it was taken during the noon hours, or close to this time. 2. The distance you are from your subject. It looks like you shot this as a vertical composition yet the Kangaroo only fills about one third of your frame. I would have to guess that you are probably 400 to 500 feet away from the Kangaroo and the 300mm focal length cannot extend beyond 300 feet without some coaxing from the photographer. Plus the foliage in front and behind the Kangaroo looks the same.

[Peter Ryan]

You are correct on many points John.

The light was not perfect but I still shoot anyway. The light in Australia is very harsh so I have to deal with it. The roo was about 200 meters away and in The Little Dessert this background was about the only hill in the area so I could sill the frame with the bush and yes the bush was scrubby an unattractive so I decided to blur it and just present its colours.

As I said it will either be a masterpiece or a load of rubbish but it has been fun trying to make it work. There were not many shots in this flat terrain so maybe I am stretching to make this one work.

Thanks for your thoughts. Much appreciated.

[Shadowman]

You are correct on many points John.

The light was not perfect but I still shoot anyway. The light in Australia is very harsh so I have to deal with it. The roo was about 200 meters away and in The Little Dessert this background was about the only hill in the area so I could sill the frame with the bush and yes the bush was scrubby an unattractive so I decided to blur it and just present its colours.

As I said it will either be a masterpiece or a load of rubbish but it has been fun trying to make it work. There were not many shots in this flat terrain so maybe I am stretching to make this one work.

Thanks for your thoughts. Much appreciated.

Peter,

The exposure problem could have been helped if you could have metered off a mid-tone gray, but looking at this shot the only mid-tone grays are beneath the Kangaroo's chin, too far to be effective. Your other option would have been to use the Sunny 16 rule, but who has time to remember these rules when you are in the heat of the shot.

[Peter Ryan]

I just printed this on a contrasty semi-gloss paper and I am very happy with it. Thanks all for you help.