Mexican Ground Squirrel-Repost

The focus on its face and front paws is excellent (and very cute !!) and in my view this "makes" the picture. Since you apparently modified the surroundings I would go a bit further and crop the image a bit, so as to remove the pole(?) on the right, i.e., show only the squirrel on the "island".

Alberto: thanks for the comments. I looked at cropping what is actually a tree trunk out of the frame. That left the photo in an unusual looking (near) square frame. In looking again at the trunk, I decided to darken it to make it less prominent. Here's the result. Richard

I like either one, Richard. I do like the ground level angle, the detail and the cute pose.

Hi Richard, I quite like the subject being offset and the 3/4 angle/posture of the body, likewise the position of the front paws. Might look to coming in on the RHS to give a hard edge to the framing. Overall it looks a bit too saturated and perhaps going more cooler may help, but you were there so have a better indication of colour. Backing off on the Shadows, Blacks and even some Contrast I feel may open up the detail a fraction more, but just my take. Watch the Dust Bunny about 3 inches in from the right, 1/4 inch down from the top.

TFS
Steve

I like the pose and sharpness of the squirrel, but to me the "island look" makes it appear to have been photographed in an exhibit. I am not saying it is, just that it looks that way. The OOF foreground looks like it is dirt up against glass. Would like to see it without the "island" look. Thanks for sharing.

Hi Richard,

I see what you mean. I do prefer the second version, as it (subtly) makes the cute squirrel more prominent. As to your original question I have no problem with the "island" approach, I think it looks quite natural and keeps the attention on the subject - again, those little paws are too cute.....

Best
Alberto

Richard, ignoring the processing work (which is a matter of taste, IMO), I must say I like the low angle and the lighting here.

Max

The low perspective makes the shot, IMO. If anything, I would look at reducing the amount of oof foreground.

Thanks again to all for commenting. Here's another re-do with some of the oof foreground cropped out as per Lon's suggestion. I also tried taking some from the top, but that led to too much of a panorama type look. Richard

Richard torn between the OP and the RP but must say I would be more than happy with either .

Keith.

Hi Richard,

I intentionally held off commenting on this until others had a go at it. So far no one has touched on the exact thoughts I have, so will get into them now...

To begin with, in looking both at the image and your comment about putting the squirrel on an "island" I'm assuming you're referring to the fact that you've got a thin DoF AND that you've selectively blurred parts of the image in post-processing (correct if I'm wrong about the blurring in post-processing, but I see no other way the vegetation (immediately to the right of the squirrel) or the tree could be so OOF when they appear to be almost parallel to the plane of focus and about the same distance to the camera).

So...assuming that I'm right...

1. As a photographer with a technical bent, the minute I look at a photo like this I think "heavily post-processed" (simply because no other explanation - other than possibly using a LensBaby - could explain the DoF). For ME (this is personal preference), a wildlife image with this much obvious manipulation doesn't work too well. I acknowledge fully that this is something a non-photographer may miss and then the manipulation issue is therefore irrelevant and we move to completely to aesthetics...

2. Differences in sharpness in an image have a major impact on eye flow (just behind luminosity differences and, on average, just ahead of colour differences). My eye definitely went to the squirrel first, and possibly faster than if the other parts of the image (vegetation and wood) were in focus. So in that regard the blur may work.

3. Overall Aesthetics: Personally (again personal preference) I very commonly find that objects in near proximity of a subject are MORE distracting if they're OOF than if they're in focus (or close to in focus). When in focus additional elements can add a sense of place and/or habitat and become integral elements in making the shot work. But distinct objects close to the subject (and I want to be clear that I'm referring to the vegetation and the wood/tree and NOT the smooth foreground or background) - and that are OOF - add virtually nothing to most images. What I can NOT judge is how distracting these objects would be if they weren't intentionally blurred - and I think that would be dependent on just how sharply rendered they were in the original shot (so seeing the original might help in deciding this).

Oh...and to me darkening the tree/wood made no difference to me in terms of how much it is of a distraction (either way - for me - it's still a major distraction).

I hope I explained my rationale clearly enough - as per our previous discussions I know you want completely honest feedback and not just simple "looks great" comments that may be sugar coated!

Just my 2 cents worth...

Brad

Thanks to all for the comments and in particular to Brad for a vey detailed reply. Brad, a Lens Baby was not used, nor was there any manipulation done to the Dof. I think the shallow Dof was due to the proximity of the squirrel (2-3 meters at most from the lens hood) and the employment of a 500 mm lens with TC. If memory serves, there was also a raised lip of dirt between me and the squirrel which accentuated the shallowness of the Dof. Also, if memory serves, the vegetation and tree trunk were not parallel to the squirrel.
Here's a post of the untouched original. Richard

Richard the last posting looks pretty spot on and also illustrated my thoughts on the OP/RP being too saturated and backing off on the Blacks/shadows. The last image seems to require the absolute minimal PP IMHO and I like this far more.

Hey Richard,

Thanks for correcting me on the blurring (or lack thereof) in post-processing - have to say I was quite convinced that both the vegetation and tree trunk looked to be on virtually the same plane as the squirrel.

So...I'll shorten my previous response to simply point #3 above - for me the OOF objects do distract and I personally would have preferred more DoF to bring those objects more into focus. With that much focal length you could have stopped WAY down and still had a DoF thin enough to have both background and foreground pleasantly out of focus (assuming of course you didn't end up with shutter speeds too slow to get a sharp shot).

I'm with Stephen in liking the 3rd repost the best for the reasons he outlined (I think...I have no clue what he means by OP/RP being too saturated!).

Cheers...

Brad

Brad - OP - Original Post, RP, Repost.

Thanks again to all for the comments. In comparing the latest re-post which is in Nikon Neutral Picture Control and SOOC, I think I should consider entering a 12 step program for serial over-saturaters. Richard

Splendid frame Richard ! Really like the DOF and warm tones

The DOF on this one is really impressive. I'm not sure which one I like better between the original and your repost. Sweet image!