Gallery: WildlifePosted March 5, 201691 views7 comments
A Polar Bear taken on our last trip to Svalbard on MV Stockholm.
Not much sun
EOS 1DX
200-400 mm F4 at 400mm
ISO 1600
F 6.3
1/640
EV +0.33
Comments
7 comments
Comment posted by Brad Hill on March 5, 2016 at 12:21 PM
Ken,
Nice detail on the "Detailed View", tho' there does seem to be some artifacting (that's normally associated with over-sharpening) in and around the mouth region. On my monitors there appears to be a fairly strong blue cast, especially noticeable in the foreground snow.
Brad
Registered on May 29, 2007, 431 Posts, 6061 Comments
Comment posted by Jim Zablotny on March 6, 2016 at 8:35 AM
Hi Ken,
I the bear's pose and facial expression. Looking at your image, one would find it difficult to remember that these guys are predators. I would reduce the saturation either in blues or cyans slightly and brighten it up just a hair.. The artifacts Brad mentions appears to be small drops of moisture, presumably "bear drool". Their presence does not bother me as the eyes are fairly strong elements in the composition................................Jim
Registered on January 17, 2004, 705 Posts, 3594 Comments
Comment posted by Brad Hill on March 6, 2016 at 8:45 AM
Hi Jim,
Nope...I see the droplets you're referring to - I'm referring to the noise and small halos associated with over-sharpening (and that are most noticeable in the mouth region). On the standard version they're not visible - only on the detail view (and whether or not they can be seen may vary with the resolution of the display device being used - most HD/Retina displays would tend to hide them). Post-processing has become far more complex since the advent of higher-res displays (tough to optimize for all displays when they can vary three-fold or more in pixel density). But overall it's a very minor issue on this shot...
Cheers...
Brad
Registered on May 29, 2007, 431 Posts, 6061 Comments
Comment posted by Jim Zablotny on March 6, 2016 at 6:09 PM
Hi Brad,
I now see what you are talking about. My monitor's brightness is set pretty low so I had to look for them. Yep, they are there and very subtle, but should be fixable. Still, I like this polar bear portrait and the overall composition of the presented picture.........Jim
Registered on January 17, 2004, 705 Posts, 3594 Comments
Comment posted by Ken Watkins on March 7, 2016 at 3:07 AM
Brad and Jim,
Thanks for your comments, it is the first time one of my images has resulted in a "debate".
Firstly the artifacts are snow/ice, they do not appear as noticeable on the RAW, or on my monitor an EIZO.
I clearly needed to do more work on the blue cast, but this was causing the bear to be more yellow.
In the middle of nowhere (600 miles from North Pole) the snow often has a blue tint, especially on a dull day
Registered on December 15, 2010, 1537 Posts, 4877 Comments
Comment posted by Mark Seaver on March 7, 2016 at 5:47 PM
Ken, I like how the bear is looking over the patch of snow. That lets the different white colors show up well. Your framing works very well. It does look like there's a slight bluish cast.
Registered on January 23, 2011, 1103 Posts, 17270 Comments
Comment posted by Joe James on March 8, 2016 at 8:14 PM
Hi Ken,
Nice Polar Bear! I really do like the comp on this one, it gives a more intimate feel than most polar bear pictures I see posted. Others have already mentioned the blue cast; it can be so difficult to get rid of that on a cloudy day in a world of white that is the arctic.
Cheers,
Joe
Registered on November 20, 2009, 89 Posts, 808 Comments
Comments
7 commentsNice detail on the "Detailed View", tho' there does seem to be some artifacting (that's normally associated with over-sharpening) in and around the mouth region. On my monitors there appears to be a fairly strong blue cast, especially noticeable in the foreground snow.
Brad
I the bear's pose and facial expression. Looking at your image, one would find it difficult to remember that these guys are predators. I would reduce the saturation either in blues or cyans slightly and brighten it up just a hair.. The artifacts Brad mentions appears to be small drops of moisture, presumably "bear drool". Their presence does not bother me as the eyes are fairly strong elements in the composition................................Jim
Nope...I see the droplets you're referring to - I'm referring to the noise and small halos associated with over-sharpening (and that are most noticeable in the mouth region). On the standard version they're not visible - only on the detail view (and whether or not they can be seen may vary with the resolution of the display device being used - most HD/Retina displays would tend to hide them). Post-processing has become far more complex since the advent of higher-res displays (tough to optimize for all displays when they can vary three-fold or more in pixel density). But overall it's a very minor issue on this shot...
Cheers...
Brad
I now see what you are talking about. My monitor's brightness is set pretty low so I had to look for them. Yep, they are there and very subtle, but should be fixable. Still, I like this polar bear portrait and the overall composition of the presented picture.........Jim
Thanks for your comments, it is the first time one of my images has resulted in a "debate".
Firstly the artifacts are snow/ice, they do not appear as noticeable on the RAW, or on my monitor an EIZO.
I clearly needed to do more work on the blue cast, but this was causing the bear to be more yellow.
In the middle of nowhere (600 miles from North Pole) the snow often has a blue tint, especially on a dull day
Nice Polar Bear! I really do like the comp on this one, it gives a more intimate feel than most polar bear pictures I see posted. Others have already mentioned the blue cast; it can be so difficult to get rid of that on a cloudy day in a world of white that is the arctic.
Cheers,
Joe