Foxy

ichabod crane · 31 May 2007 at 10:24

There is a lot of post processing used as esecially with wild life you normally only get one chance to capture that specific moment and its fair to say most times when that chance comes the little wont be perfect or the composition so cropping is needed. But it is a good crisp shot i personnally prefer the BW version with good heavy shodows and a tight crop.

my interpretation

Sol · 31 May 2007 at 10:38

On my crappy hardware calibrated monitor MrSix's look the most natural to me. The others either are way too dark or have muddy colour.

I agree with the keep it as natural as possible point, sharpen a bit and a little bit of boost to saturation would do the trick. The black and white ones are way too dark and black + I don't think personally it's a great subject for black and white.

MookJong · 31 May 2007 at 12:30

Nice shot!

5bjoshua and MrSix have done the best renditions as far as I'm concerned.

redzep · 31 May 2007 at 15:00

my quick effort using Photoshop, gone for deeper brown/orange earthy type feel!, v nice pic btw

SteveOBHave · 31 May 2007 at 15:21

Awesome pic - my take on it: Cropped to get the head in the sweet spot - brightened the eyes and used a noise filter on the BG to clean it up. Upped the reds a tiny little bit, because I always thought foxes were a little red.

4T5 · 31 May 2007 at 15:29

MrSix said:
Out of interest, you think it looks natural with the blue tint on the front of the fox's chest and the heavily clipped blacks?

I can't see any blue mate, i see deep grey. Also i have to show my ignorance and ask what do you mean when you say "heavily Clipped black".
Like i said in my O.P. i know nothing about photography & just expressed an opinion.

SteveOBHave · 31 May 2007 at 16:03

malc30 said:
I can't see any blue mate, i see deep grey. Also i have to show my ignorance and ask what do you mean when you say "heavily Clipped black".
Like i said in my O.P. i know nothing about photography & just expressed an opinion.

No I can't see the blue either - you had an entirely fair observation. Personally I'm not a fan of that edit as the shadows are a bit too pronounced and I think that the devil is in the detail - it's a little too contrasty for my liking. Still the photo is brilliant and it's hard to make ugly.

yak.h'cir · 31 May 2007 at 16:08

It's funny how different peoples tastes are, I love contrasty and high saturation images!

Sol · 31 May 2007 at 16:14

I think it depends on your monitors colour reproduction and if it's calibrated or not, on my monitor it is a cool blue colour, red zeps is a lighter grey and mrsix's is closer to white at the back end of the fox's neck.

If your monitors white point is different to someone elses then it will look different on everyones monitor. If it is processed on a calibrated monitor to a standard it will look the same for everyone who has the same standard.

MrSix · 31 May 2007 at 17:14

Yeah, my monitor is pretty well calibrated, so that's why I can see the blue tints in the original and other shots.

yak.h'cir · 31 May 2007 at 17:16

Maybe it was just a blue fox...

I really need to get my monitors calibrated. They're on defaults still!

Tachyon · 31 May 2007 at 17:31

Prefer Mr. Sixs processing way & above any of the others, looks much more natural. Out of the two, I like the uncropped top shot better.

Aod · 1 Jun 2007 at 00:19

Mark, you should think about Rule of Thirds when taking your shots.

benneh · 1 Jun 2007 at 01:08

Here's my quick attempt.

I've gone a little the other way and de-saturated at the end a little. No idea why really, I generally associate foxes with spring, and spring with de-saturation (no idea why).

And a B+W conversion, though it might be a little bright.

Overall though, the original is quite a good shot. And it shows the quality of the 5d over my 350d also, I have the 75-300 III USM and I wouldn't have gotten quite that quality.

MrSix · 1 Jun 2007 at 09:32

benneh said:
And it shows the quality of the 5d over my 350d also, I have the 75-300 III USM and I wouldn't have gotten quite that quality.

It's not the camera that makes a difference when talking about image quality relating to sharpness, D.O.F etc. The camera only makes a difference with regards to noise at higher ISO levels and actual features of the camera itself (better FPS, bigger buffer etc).

If you took that same shot using the same settings and same lens, but one on the 5D and one on the 350D - you'd not be able to tell them apart.

benneh · 1 Jun 2007 at 13:29

MrSix said:
It's not the camera that makes a difference when talking about image quality relating to sharpness, D.O.F etc. The camera only makes a difference with regards to noise at higher ISO levels and actual features of the camera itself (better FPS, bigger buffer etc).

If you took that same shot using the same settings and same lens, but one on the 5D and one on the 350D - you'd not be able to tell them apart.

Really?. I know that the main difference is resolution and noise between bodies. But isn't there a difference between the way in which the various cameras process pixel data?.

oxygene · 3 Jun 2007 at 22:16

a non-photography related question here. How / Where did you snap the pic? In my area you only see foxes at night, or once I was lucky to catch one around sunset on a footpath.

Helium_Junkie · 4 Jun 2007 at 09:38

See them during the day sometimes on the less used roads around here, normally only see the tail as it disappears into a hedge

Messiah Khan · 4 Jun 2007 at 10:31

Helium_Junkie said:
See them during the day sometimes on the less used roads around here, normally only see the tail as it disappears into a hedge

I normally see them along roads here, with the tail sticking out of the hedge, and the rest of the fox sticking out of the hedge on the other side of the road.

Helium_Junkie · 4 Jun 2007 at 14:46

messiah khan said:
I normally see them along roads here, with the tail sticking out of the hedge, and the rest of the fox sticking out of the hedge on the other side of the road.

Matter teleportation hedges?!?! :eek: