File talk:Grazing Montana Horses.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

OK, anyone driving by: I deliberately uploaded this uncropped, unprocessed image for educational purposes -- for me. It was taken on a blustery spring day, I am looking to the east-northeast (fenceline in the background with the white insulators on the posts runs almost precisely north-south), the time stamp is weird-- you can see by the shadows that the sun is still mostly to the south (I'm at about 46 degrees north latitude) and it's a bit past noon -- maybe 2pm-ish or so, and I uploaded it shortly after I took it. I invite comments and suggestions on what could be done to bring this photo to quality image or featured picture quality. I'm asking about everything -- use of camera settings, basic post-processing that could be done, composition, and so on. If anyone wants to download this photo and play with it, uploading the result for comparison (and telling me what you did to get the ensuing result), can you kindly add Category:Images by Montanabw modified by others so I can more easily find it again later? If you think the image could become a quality or featured image, tell me (personally, I think it's a little boring and ordinary, I'm uploading it more because it was shot in RAW, appears to me to be in focus, and has no super-obvious errors like a fencepost "growing" out of the head of a horse) -- or can several people collaborate to create a QI? Be glad to share credit (but take all the blame!) Thanks! Montanabw (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll start: The most obvious thing I'd do first is to crop out the boring foreground -- anyone who wants to propose how else they'd crop the image via the annotation tool, go ahead!
  • I have basic image enhancement tools in my existing software, clicking on the automatic enhancement tool brightens up the image considerably and makes the day seem sunnier, so I'd probably at least do that -- ? But if I started to fiddle with the knobs and sliders, what else could I do?
  • The image ratio coming out of the camera is 3:2, does it make any sense to use a different ratio? Montanabw (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the edit "Pixlr auto" as the result was pretty gruesome. I assume you used your telephoto zoom for this at 55mm. You might find your standard zoom (e.g 16-50 or similar), if you have one, gives a sharper result at around 50mm. Try it and see. Also you have a fast enough shutter at 1/800 so you could have closed the aperture a little more e.g. f/6.3, f/7.1 or f/8. But going much below 1/500s risks the animals moving too much unless they are quite still. The sharpest focus seems to be slightly in front of the horses (look at the ground, where it is sharpest), so they'd be a little sharper if slightly further back. If you have your focus mode on "multi" (or whatever it is called) then you are at the mercy of what Canon's engineers think the camera should focus on. You may be able to pick a mode where the focus is either the central spot (and recompose after half-press of shutter) or a mode where you can move the focus mode around (ideal if you have the time to do it).
    • In terms of adjustment, then perhaps raise the exposure slightly and a little more contrast (or local-contrast, which might be called "clarity"). I rarely find auto enhance modes do the right thing, often producing an image that is too bright and contrasty. You should aim to adjust exposure so the midtones are how you remembered it (or want it). The colour balance (warm/cold) can also affect how sunny a picture feels, but that is best adjusted from a RAW file than from a JPG where the tone is already baked into it. There is a limit to how much you can adjust a JPG before it looks damaged (posterisation bands appear in the sky for example) so one can do more from RAW. One can also push a b&w photo much more than a colour one. You could also try sharpening it a little more, but watch you don't make the sky/mountains noisy. If there is a way to locally apply sharping with your software, then you could try it on the horses to see if you can make them a little crisper. But only make modest changes.
    • It is a nice picture showing good scenery and pleasant subjects. The horses feeding and not looking at you means there isn't much dynamic going on. The viewpoint also appears to be eye level, which is often fine but not in itself very dynamic. It might well pass QI but lacks the wow for FP. You could try going much closer to your subject, photographing from the grass's point of view looking up at the horse eating as an example of something which might create an original and interesting result. If you do go really close, then the important thing is probably to ensure the nearest eye(s) are in focus, as this is usually critical vs any other part of the head/body. As with humans, if the eyes are in shadow then the picture can lack the needed sparkle. If you do a portrait during the day, and the face is in shadow, the camera flash can help to fill it in. You may, however, have to set the flash exposure to under-expose the flash a little, if you can do that with your camera, so that the effect of flash is very subtle -- you aren't trying to light the subject by flash alone. I've done this with people, but never tried it with horses! -- Colin (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: There are two unavoidable problems with photographing horses. 1) Perspective -- horses are very long creatures and so telephoto is almost always needed to reduce distortion the "big head, small butt" effect is very displeasing with horses -- and horsemen find it particularly objectionable (the opposite is not so much a concern, but it's rare to deliberately shoot from the rear) -- unless you are quite far away or shooting from the side. 2) they move... so yes, under 1/500 can blur. Any thoughts on working within those limits? Montanabw (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw, I've never photographed horses so can't advise much on that. If I'm honest, I'll say a lot of photos that make QI are really boring, and while they may pass some technical checks at 100%, they don't move anyone. With your modest equipment, it is possible that if you aim only to pass at QI (no noise, no CA, no blown highlights, perfect exposure, everything in focus, etc, etc) then you will be frustrated and end up only taking safe photos that don't move anyone. As I mentioned on my talk page, Tom Ang does some good general photography books that cover a lot of the things we all need to learn. If you are the sort of person who likes getting specific lessons/challenges then "The Visual Toolbox" by David Duchemin is good. If you prefer to read wise thoughts and figure out for yourself how to put them into your photography, then Michael Freeman's books are excellent. Other than that, just take lots of different photos -- they are all free. -- Colin (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, and thank you. Yes, the nice thing about the digital age is we don't have to waste rolls and rolls of film! It may be worth my time to try for some QI nods to refine my existing skills. The wow factor has a strong element of serendipity to it when one is taking images of randomly moving objects in the natural world, that's for sure! Montanabw (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Grazing_Montana_Horses.jpg&oldid=242970633"