Home Forums Gear Photography Cookie's Frosty Coyote

Canon EOS 70D, Canon 500 mm, F7.1, 1/800 sec, ISO=100

One can hit the "Reply" button to bring up the Photobucket 1024x??? image.

Sweet! Love the three-dimensional effect from the selective focus.

I miss coyotes <-- could be a double entendre there

John

Nice photo! What lens did she use?

A $10K one.

Donfischer: Data is under the picture.

good stuff...!!

lil dark in the whites.... did she use exposure compensation in regard to the snow?

Just looked at the RAW, it has the same appearance to me, and the data shows no bias. I have no idea where it was aimed when she did the exposure/focus routine. Most ot the time I know she uses the central point to capture a setting, and then may or may not move before depressing the shutter. There is a second image showing the same dog with only one eye visible (facing a little more left). It looks slightly lighter.

Except for downsizing to ship around to friends etc, she's not much for post processing. Pretty much what one sees is what she got. I have some color blindness issues thanks to my mom, and I don't dink with colors at all. I can't see half of the numbers on the color charts. Never made it into the cockpits in the service for that very reason.

I've been around that lens a bit and I know how well it separates the subject from the back ground... If she could lighten it up a bit and add a touch of clarity and vibrance the details on the song dog would jump out and you'd appreciate how awesome that lens is!

Cocadori:
I'll take a shot at playing with the RAW this evening. Looking at it on Cookies laptop, there's an amazing amount of detail that appears sharp at even a 200% view. We've got the Canon software and Photoshop Elements 11, and both seem to have a ton of unexplored features available. If I end up with a purple coyote though, it's your fault.

Thanks for the comments/suggestions, and have a good one,

Cocadori:
OK. I played with lots of settings. Brightness, highlights, shadows, white balance, unsharp mask, and some I have no idea what they really do.

So again, here is the before:


and here is an after:


Cookie thought there was an improvement, but she's not overly critical. The fun for her is getting out and hammering the shutter. The one area where I was hoping to see some change is under the jaw in the shaded throat patch area. Just looks like a blob to me. Simply could not get any detail to come out there.

The tweaking was accomplished with the Canon software on the RAW file, and Photoshop was used to resize and convert a *.tif to a *.jpg for uploading to the bucket. Glad I don't do this for a living. Thoughts/comments/suggestions?

Later,

Personally for me much better! (not that it was bad before) now the snow is white and and not blue grey. Now you can see the details around the eyes/face easier. The colors look more natural with the sunlight that is on the subject.

When you shoot in snow your camera really wants to find a neutral grey color and often it under exposes stuff.

also when you process try playing around with the white balance setting. (which look pretty good now)

well done...

(and yep the processing in itself is an art )

One of my nephew's rented that lens a year ago last July to take to Africa. He said most of what he shot was with that lens. He got some great photo's with it. Last July he went back but this time relied heavily on a 200-400 Canon, equally great photo's.

Cocadori and DonFischer:

Thanks for the comments and feedback. I think the white balance deal centered on the snow had the greatest effect. Might have to go back and start reworking some past efforts.

That 500 does seem to be a fine lens, but one really needs two cameras with mobile wildlife. Cookie usurped my 70D for the 500 and keeps her 50D handy with a 100-400. Still there are times when something won't fit within the 100-mm frame either. Hence, chopped legs, missing antler tips, or just a face.

I had a 50-250mm this fall on a fishing trip and was attempting solo shots on near yard long steelhead. Couldn't fit them in and did not want to pack other equipment on a whitewater venture. It's tough enough to hang onto a live fish and work a camera at the same time. One needs two more hands for switching lenses.

I am impressed, however, with the digital's ability to handle the exposure extremes seen on fish. Never had much luck with film. Here's one with a chopped tail that I put in the Flyfishing realm earlier this fall.



It's likely now that I'll end up with the kid's point n shoot again.

Not much going on for us locally at the moment. Short, damp, and really gray days, so it's time to migrate to fly tying, reloading, and some reading.

Have a good one,

When I hit the hills I have the D610 screwed on the 500mm. The D800 has the 70-200 on it... I always bring along the 24-70 as well... I personally never saw the need for the 200-400 lens as I can always get closer with the 200 or let it be with the 500. It seems like I can be the zoom from 200-500.

my triple threat ram photo was cropped that way purposefully.

Those boys do put on a good show. Any images of them busting heads?

Be safe,

Coyote pic 2 is definitely an improvement. Nicely done! Snow can make for a difficult shoot!

Eric

Your change in white balance and brightness made a world of difference.

Was in Wyo today and got some bustin heads... will process soon.. ;-)

Alright! Looking forward.
Have a good one,