Charging Brown Bear #2

Gallery: WildlifePosted November 29, 2009176 views6 comments

Thanks for all the great advice on my first post last week. This is another shot of the same bear only at more of an angle instead of head on. I tried cropping it a bit more to the right of the frame and would like to know what folks think. The crop is about 70% of original so I'd be interested if anyone thinks that's too much.

The shot is just upstream from the floating bridge over the Brooks River in Katmai NP. I like the lower sections of river better because the bears there are forced to actively pursue the salmon unlike at the more famous falls where they can pretty much wait for dinner to swim or jump by. They are also less crowded.

Thanks again for looking and sharing your comments!

Camera Settings:
Canon EOS40
Canon 100-400L at 260mm
1/1000 at F6.3
ISO = 500

Comments

6 comments

Comment posted by Neil Rossmiller on November 29, 2009 at 2:44 PM

Hey Joseph,
Another nice action shot. This one appears to be toned down a little from your last post and looks much better on my monitor. IMO the image could tolerate the loss of a bit of the foreground water.
Good work!
Neil

Registered on October 30, 2009, 156 Posts, 749 Comments

Comment posted by Steve Neff on November 29, 2009 at 7:32 PM

Well done Joseph; I think the detail in the bear's fur is stellar.

Registered on December 11, 2003, 10 Posts, 35 Comments

Comment posted by Vincent Grafhorst on November 29, 2009 at 11:36 PM

Another excellent image Joseph. The exposure looks better on this one than the previous. If I understand you correctly you have cropped from the right? This would have brought the bear more towards the center, but helped it from running out of the frame, which was probably the right crop decision.

Registered on February 24, 2006, 504 Posts, 7203 Comments

Comment posted by Carl Donohue on November 30, 2009 at 6:07 AM

Hey Joseph

Nice shot of this sow. Those nearly white claws are so dramatic.

Everything looks great to me.

Cheers

Carl

Registered on November 1, 2003, 46 Posts, 589 Comments

Comment posted by Brad Hill on November 30, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Hi Joseph,

Very well done - another great shot. I have to admit that while both are great, my personal preference lies with the previous shot. I'm with Neil in thinking that removing a bit of the foreground water would strengthen this image.

RE: your query about wondering about the amount of cropping (at 70% of original). In my opinion (and please note that's this is just MY opinion) I have no problem with cropping this amount. Image cropping has gone on forever - the vast majority of images presented in magazines in books have been cropped. And, that was the case in the film era just as it is in the digital era.

In terms of the amount of cropping: while I always try to produce AS CLOSE to the final image in-camera, there are many times when an alternate crop is better (as one views the image after the fact). Because there's really no way (yet - possibly ever) to really significantly upsize an image without losing quality, cropping is always self-limiting - you can only crop so far before the total number of pixels left makes the image unusable for print (first) and then for online display. 70% too much? Not in my opinion. Others may think differently...

Cheers...thanks for sharing this...

Brad

Registered on May 29, 2007, 431 Posts, 6061 Comments

Comment posted by Lon Sharp on November 30, 2009 at 5:20 PM

Quite good! I like the claws and the spray and the angle of the run. I agree with taking a little of the foreground water.

Registered on December 9, 2007, 258 Posts, 9892 Comments