A very interesting article supported by some really great pictures. Himalayan Thar being my favourite. I loved it. Thanks for sharing your work.
Chayan Datta
February 16, 2019 8:52 am
Hi Madhu
I am just a novice grey haired amateur wildlife enthusiast. Your article and hints have been a great help. Though my skills are improving I am yet to achieve a “perfect picture”. Is there any reason as to why your pictures have been taken at f/5.6 irrespective other factors. Please advice
In wildlife photography, we generally go after high shutter speeds. To get to speeds north of 1/1000th of a second, the widest possible aperture is generally the way to go. Since the lens i use, gets me to f/5.6 at its widest, that is the reason for choosing the same. Also, at wider apertures we get a shallow depth of field and with limitations with higher ISO performance of mid-range cameras, most of the time we tend to stick to the widest aperture the lens could get us to.
Kent
May 8, 2018 3:44 am
Thank you for a well written article. You have much to be proud of in your photography and journalism skills. You have given your readers a wonderful view of wildlife in India. Best wishes for continued success.
Dear Madhu, I sincerely feel your intentions were good; however, after reading the first section and seeing your “illustrative” photographs I honestly couldn’t continue to read your article. I totally agree with Betty’s comments; she is spot on. Bottom line, regardless of one’s gear, the most limiting factor in photography isn’t the camera, it is always the photographer and his/her abilities in knowing how to “work” it to get the best results. Yes, understand light, read the light correctly, and then nail the shot in your settings and clean composition. Additionally, in today’s digital world, simply mastering the most basic of post-processing techniques, whatever software you elect, are essential.
I hope you read these comments in the spirit they were intended. Rather than “debating” or “defending” them re-read Betty’s comments to fully comprehend them; then practice and master them. As a long-time follower of PhotographyLife.com (and, its earlier names), I have found that it has by and large a very supportive readership with a high percentage of experienced photographers who are always eager to learn and share new things. Yet, as Pwkirk wrote in his comment, for some of us an author’s writing is as credible as their photographs.
I do understand and appreciate you, Betty & pwkwik for pointing out where it went wrong and will sure keep it in mind next time. I am a long term reader of Photographylife as well and there is no second thought about they setting the standards real high for the quality of pictures posted here. I wasn’t trying to debate on what was pointed out on a defensive front but just my point on what front the photographs were selected. Sure will be more careful in the quality of pictures posted here. Thanks again for pointing it out.
Carlos
May 5, 2018 7:24 am
Beautiful article. Loved it. Thank you
Grokosaurus Rex
May 5, 2018 2:49 am
Great post! Very few give so much so freely. Thank you. I vow to make my bird photos less boring!!
Tim Geoghegan
May 5, 2018 1:59 am
Beautiful images and so well written
Thank you
Tim Geoghegan
Betty
May 4, 2018 5:15 pm
An interesting and well written article for the most part (with exceptions) full of good sense and sound advice, but forgive me, much of the advice is simply not reflected in the images.
We are told that “for any given subject, the background is what makes or breaks an image.” yet many of the shots are shot against very distracting and confusing backgrounds.
We are told “No matter how much we try, most of the time we end up getting clipped highlights.” Whatever other problems harsh overhead light brings, there is no excuse for clipped highlights. That’s what the histogram is for.
We are told “Had I dialled the WB towards the blue furthermore, the sky would have become too blue, giving a bit of an artificial feel. In the below image that was shot around the golden hour, I was able to get a blue sky with a WB of 5600 but still, the wings of the pied Kingfisher looked warm.” No, that’s what post processing skills are for – you can treat the sky and the bird separately – Make the sky a paler more interesting blue and adjust the feathers on the bird to a clean white.
We are told “I always have it as a practice not to ETTR (Expose To The Right) with back-lit shots. I always under-expose a little. By doing so, I reduce the risk of blowing out the highlights. I always prefer to protect the highlights, as I am a big fan of darker mood. No, ETTR done correctly will never blow out the highlights and if you are a fan of darker moods then shoot in dark moody conditions or reduce the image brightness in post or better still burn in or vignette selected areas of the image. Underexposing simply produces muddy colours and noise.
There’re some other nonsenses too. “I spot metered for the white feathers of the Egret…Had I gone with matrix metering, the camera would have decided to bump up the exposure, considering the poorly lit background, which in turn, would have lowered the shutter speed, making the splash appear soft.” Sorry, no, if you spot meter for the white feathers without compensation you end up with around two stops underexposure and grey feathers. From their muddy appearance, I guess that’s what happened. If you matrix meter this scene, you may well overexpose for the egret but only if you had no idea of what compensation to apply and/or you had not checked the histogram. The best way to tackle this shot would be to work in manual mode, set the desired F-stop and shutter speed and compensate – using ISO if you run out of f-stops or shutter speeds. Similarly, for the black kite, spot metering the dark bird would result in overexposure of at least one stop – which is reflected in its appearance.
In fact muddy colour, poor contrast and lack of sharpness are the overriding theme of this piece. The author says he is a big fan of darker mood but most of the images simply look underexposed with dull colours, weird white balance and/or colour casts, blocked up shadows and muddy whites. But worst of all is an overall lack of sharpness. We are told “head shots demand high resolution, maximum sharpness and contrast” yet there is hardly a single shot in the whole piece which is sharp.
The images are of very modest size (1250px on the long edge) and should look super sharp. Instead, with one or two exceptions they are just plain fuzzy. The Nikon 200-500mm is a good lens so it’s probably not that. The shutter speeds are generally very high so it’s probably not that. I am wondering whether these images have been underexposed, taken straight from the camera and converted to JPEG without capture sharpening, without post processing and without output sharpening? Disappointing. I seem to be a lone voice so I probably just need some new glasses.
We are told that “for any given subject, the background is what makes or breaks an image.” yet many of the shots are shot against very distracting and confusing backgrounds. As mentioned in the article itself, I wanted to pen down options that are seldom looked at. The context of such sections of the article was not against shooting on smooth bokehs, but not to shy away from different backgrounds. Some of the images were used to illustrate a particular context as I did not consider this as an article to show the best of my work, rather it was to pen down what is mostly ignored.
We are told “No matter how much we try, most of the time we end up getting clipped highlights.” Whatever other problems harsh overhead light brings, there is no excuse for clipped highlights. That’s what the histogram is for. As you would have seen almost all images were either shot on a Nikon D7000 or Canon 1000D. I ain’t trying to bluntly put the blame on the gadget, but we all know of the limitations the entry level and semi-pro crop bodies have, especially with respect to dynamic range. Besides, bracketing a wildlife image is mostly far from practically possible. The point I wanted to make was, if we had to choose between saving the highlights or saving the shadows, i’m always inclined to saving. In spite of all the effort the highlights or the shadows spike. That is exactly what I meant. It does more so if we are shooting with harshly illuminated subjects. I hope you agree that is the reason why most wildlife photographers use a D810 in spite of the fact that it lacks EFoV (Effective field of view) and limited FPS.
We are told “Had I dialled the WB towards the blue furthermore, the sky would have become too blue, giving a bit of an artificial feel. In the below image that was shot around the golden hour, I was able to get a blue sky with a WB of 5600 but still, the wings of the pied Kingfisher looked warm.” No, that’s what post processing skills are for – you can treat the sky and the bird separately – Make the sky a paler more interesting blue and adjust the feathers on the bird to a clean white. Of course it is possible. But how many of us use layer masks or for that matter even selective correction. I did not want to get into post processing as that in itself would be a major topic. I am not a big fan of selective correction for wildlife. I do so for landscapes, but with wildlife I pretty much love to show what I saw on the field. We seldom see blue skies during the golden hour nor warmer subjects during mid-days. I am not a big fan of putting up an image after going through over a dozen selectively corrected layers and hence can’t advice on it.
We are told “I always have it as a practice not to ETTR (Expose To The Right) with back-lit shots. I always under-expose a little. By doing so, I reduce the risk of blowing out the highlights. I always prefer to protect the highlights, as I am a big fan of darker mood. No, ETTR done correctly will never blow out the highlights and if you are a fan of darker moods then shoot in dark moody conditions or reduce the image brightness in post or better still burn in or vignette selected areas of the image. Underexposing simply produces muddy colors and noise. True under ideal conditions. But practically, a lot of times we end up with a ‘U’ histogram, where it gets to a condition where we choose to loose either the shadows or the highlights. In such a scenario, a small patch of blown whites would be more distracting than a whole lot of blacks as our eyes are always pivoted towards the brighter side. I never meant to underexpose or advice on doing so under favorable conditions without looking at the histogram, but what to compromise when it becomes tricky.
There’re some other nonsenses too. “I spot metered for the white feathers of the Egret…Had I gone with matrix metering, the camera would have decided to bump up the exposure, considering the poorly lit background, which in turn, would have lowered the shutter speed, making the splash appear soft.” Sorry, no, if you spot meter for the white feathers without compensation you end up with around two stops underexposure and grey feathers. From their muddy appearance, I guess that’s what happened. If you matrix meter this scene, you may well overexpose for the egret but only if you had no idea of what compensation to apply and/or you had not checked the histogram. The best way to tackle this shot would be to work in manual mode, set the desired F-stop and shutter speed and compensate – using ISO if you run out of f-stops or shutter speeds. Similarly, for the black kite, spot metering the dark bird would result in overexposure of at least one stop – which is reflected in its appearance. I have never used spot metering nor advice the use of it similar to auto mode keeping the compensation at a blind zero. It was in-fact the reason why spot meter was used for that particular image. Since I knew the limitations in the dynamic range of the D7000, the matrix metering would have made it even more flat and/or over exposed. With an action sequence happening, most of the time we do not get the time. Besides, the D7000 will have significant noise and further loss of dynamic range once we breach ISO-1000, so your way of manual mode and compensating with ISO seldom works, especially with poorly lit subjects. I use matrix metering for most of the part and this explanation was just a rare case scenario.
The images are of very modest size (1250px on the long edge) and should look super sharp. Instead, with one or two exceptions they are just plain fuzzy. The Nikon 200-500mm is a good lens so it’s probably not that. The shutter speeds are generally very high so it’s probably not that. I am wondering whether these images have been underexposed, taken straight from the camera and converted to JPEG without capture sharpening, without post processing and without output sharpening? True that I did not go in for sharpening. As you guessed these pictures have undergone minimal possible editing as I wanted to get it closer to how it was shot, but they were never just JPG converts of out of camera RAWs. The scope of the article was to give a few on-the-field pointers and I do not think it would be fair to put out a totally worked out image for such a purpose. Yes, there is more scope to edit the picture and make it more appealing, but I think it would be unethical to shoot wildlife in the harsh, hazy and dusty plains of India and show it as if it was shot way beyond the tropics considering the scope of the article being more inclined towards on the field guide.
Clipped Highlights Yes, there are times when either highlights or shadows have to clip but clipping any important highlight is a no-no irrespective of what camera is being used.
WB-Pied Kingfisher “I do so for landscapes, but with wildlife I pretty much love to show what I saw on the field.” Nobody is talking about complex work in PS. The whites and the sky can be adjusted quite simply in LR in the Basics and HSL tabs. What you see in the field is a memory (coloured by a thousand factors) and what you see ‘out of the camera’ depends entirely on camera settings. There is no such thing as a ‘faithful reproduction of the scene’ other than maybe under carefully controlled laboratory conditions. Both global and selective corrections are essential whether you want a natural or an enhanced look. To show images without any editing does you and the viewer a disservice and saying you are “not a fan” of editing just sounds like an excuse for not knowing how to edit.
ETTR The light may well be tricky – which is why the photographer has to know what he is doing. but at it’s most basic, you look at the blinkies and decide if those areas can be allowed to clip or not and adjust exposure accordingly.
Spot metering “Since I knew the limitations in the dynamic range of the D7000, the matrix metering would have made it even more flat and/or overexposed.”
Matrix metering (or spot for that matter) doesn’t “make it” anything. Using either mode in any condition other than average will result in error. Exactly the same exposure can (and should) be achieved with either (or any) method. – but as ever, the photographer has to apply compensation and pay attention to the histogram.
“With an action sequence happening, most of the time we do not get the time. Besides, the D7000 will have significant noise and further loss of dynamic range once we breach ISO-1000, so your way of manual mode and compensating with ISO seldom works, especially with poorly lit subjects.”
If you don’t have the time for matrix metering how on earth do you have the time to spot meter? Manual mode is by far the most reliable- especially for poorly lit subjects. You set correct exposure for the subject and then whatever the subject does, exposure remains correct. The one exception is rapidly changing light. However, with any mode, something has to give – aperture, shutter speed or ISO. The photographer has to choose.
Sharpening “As you guessed these pictures have undergone minimal possible editing as I wanted to get it closer to how it was shot…The scope of the article was to give a few on-the-field pointers and I do not think it would be fair to put out a totally worked out image for such a purpose.”
I’m flabbergasted by this answer. I am not talking about getting it “closer to how it was shot” I’m talking about images which have not had the most basic and essential editing done. There is no excuse for presenting such poor quality images on a photographic website. Inaccurate white balance, muddy colours, blocked up shadows, grey highlights, poor contrast and a lack of sharpness simply don’t cut it whatever the scope of the article.
Even if there is some truth, your comments are not really fair. Above all we don’t know whether you are able to produce high quality images, or just write criticism.
“Some of the images were used to illustrate a particular context as I did not consider this as an article to show the best of my work, rather it was to pen down what is mostly ignored.” Dear sir, in photography it is the image that counts. No degree of technical skill or writing ability is more important than the image, either on the screen or on the paper. In the future you would be well advised to produce quality images first, at capture and with post processing, and worry about the so-called “article” later. Without the first the latter is irrelevant.
What is irrelevant, is the stupid race for image quality, over composition and creativity. By sticking your face all day long to your screen, pixel pimping, you keep finding flaws and buying new gears, for the great pleasure of the brands. They’re happy, cause they know, it is a vain and infinite game.
Would you tell Cartier-Bresson, Salgado, or even Adams, some of their pics ain’t sharp enough, and they shouldn’t be published ? That they should buy the new D850, and spend more time sharpenning them on PS CC 7?
By “you” I don’t mean “Pwkirk” or “Betty”, I mean the whole consumer society.
Thanks Madhu for sharing your advices, art oriented, over gear and sharpness techniques.
I’m glad that you liked it Jaff. I did take all the comments above positively and have reflected the same in my reply to Phoenix and obviously here i’m not trying to take your support to get defensive again. I wanted to put up such an article especially with these pictures because I felt may be we all were racing towards a few sought after shots than to reflect what perspective each one of us see the wild. As I have mentioned in the article, I’m from the land of the much sought after subject, the tigers. But almost 9 out of 10 shots we get to see are head on shots of the tigers walking on the safari jeep track, of course with all the hair details and vibrant color on the animal. But a “not so sharp” wide shot of glimpse of a crouching tiger between grass gives way more meaning than the head on shot. I’m not telling, this is the way to do, I’m telling this might also be a way to do and of course, it all falls on the eye of the beholder. I’m not ignoring the fact that sharpness & contrast is a much sought after entity, but I would not accept that sharpness and contrast are the only yardsticks to measure an image. A technically sound image might not always be an interesting image and vice versa.
Madhu Thanks for a very interesting article. I have not taken many wild life photos but am interested in perusing. I am wondering where in India are you located. I have been settled in US for over 45 years and visit India would like to see if you can give ideas on time and duration for some of the national wild life sanctuaries for photographing (when I visit). Thank you again. Valmik (Mikky) Bhargava
It absolutely depends upon what time of the year you are planning a visit to India and what would be your interest. For tigers its the central Indian dry jungles like Bandhavgarh, Tadoba & Ranthambore. For elephants its the western ghats especially Kabini, Periyar and other parts of Kerala. For birding, Bharatpur and the list goes on. Feel free to drop a mail at madhu dot ulysses at gmail dot com before your trip. I would be glad to guide you.
james wilson
May 4, 2018 10:12 am
Truly beautiful images here and great insights on technique but I am not as fond of the dark presentation as he is.
A very interesting article supported by some really great pictures. Himalayan Thar being my favourite. I loved it. Thanks for sharing your work.
Hi Madhu
I am just a novice grey haired amateur wildlife enthusiast. Your article and hints have been a great help. Though my skills are improving I am yet to achieve a “perfect picture”. Is there any reason as to why your pictures have been taken at f/5.6 irrespective other factors.
Please advice
Chayan (UK)
In wildlife photography, we generally go after high shutter speeds. To get to speeds north of 1/1000th of a second, the widest possible aperture is generally the way to go. Since the lens i use, gets me to f/5.6 at its widest, that is the reason for choosing the same. Also, at wider apertures we get a shallow depth of field and with limitations with higher ISO performance of mid-range cameras, most of the time we tend to stick to the widest aperture the lens could get us to.
Thank you for a well written article. You have much to be proud of in your photography and journalism skills. You have given your readers a wonderful view of wildlife in India. Best wishes for continued success.
Thank you for your appreciation Kent.
Dear Madhu, I sincerely feel your intentions were good; however, after reading the first section and seeing your “illustrative” photographs I honestly couldn’t continue to read your article. I totally agree with Betty’s comments; she is spot on. Bottom line, regardless of one’s gear, the most limiting factor in photography isn’t the camera, it is always the photographer and his/her abilities in knowing how to “work” it to get the best results. Yes, understand light, read the light correctly, and then nail the shot in your settings and clean composition. Additionally, in today’s digital world, simply mastering the most basic of post-processing techniques, whatever software you elect, are essential.
I hope you read these comments in the spirit they were intended. Rather than “debating” or “defending” them re-read Betty’s comments to fully comprehend them; then practice and master them. As a long-time follower of PhotographyLife.com (and, its earlier names), I have found that it has by and large a very supportive readership with a high percentage of experienced photographers who are always eager to learn and share new things. Yet, as Pwkirk wrote in his comment, for some of us an author’s writing is as credible as their photographs.
I do understand and appreciate you, Betty & pwkwik for pointing out where it went wrong and will sure keep it in mind next time. I am a long term reader of Photographylife as well and there is no second thought about they setting the standards real high for the quality of pictures posted here. I wasn’t trying to debate on what was pointed out on a defensive front but just my point on what front the photographs were selected. Sure will be more careful in the quality of pictures posted here. Thanks again for pointing it out.
Beautiful article. Loved it. Thank you
Great post! Very few give so much so freely. Thank you.
I vow to make my bird photos less boring!!
Beautiful images and so well written
Thank you
Tim Geoghegan
An interesting and well written article for the most part (with exceptions) full of good sense and sound advice, but forgive me, much of the advice is simply not reflected in the images.
We are told that “for any given subject, the background is what makes or breaks an image.” yet many of the shots are shot against very distracting and confusing backgrounds.
We are told “No matter how much we try, most of the time we end up getting clipped highlights.”
Whatever other problems harsh overhead light brings, there is no excuse for clipped highlights. That’s what the histogram is for.
We are told “Had I dialled the WB towards the blue furthermore, the sky would have become too blue, giving a bit of an artificial feel.
In the below image that was shot around the golden hour, I was able to get a blue sky with a WB of 5600 but still, the wings of the pied Kingfisher looked warm.” No, that’s what post processing skills are for – you can treat the sky and the bird separately – Make the sky a paler more interesting blue and adjust the feathers on the bird to a clean white.
We are told “I always have it as a practice not to ETTR (Expose To The Right) with back-lit shots. I always under-expose a little. By doing so, I reduce the risk of blowing out the highlights. I always prefer to protect the highlights, as I am a big fan of darker mood.
No, ETTR done correctly will never blow out the highlights and if you are a fan of darker moods then shoot in dark moody conditions or reduce the image brightness in post or better still burn in or vignette selected areas of the image. Underexposing simply produces muddy colours and noise.
There’re some other nonsenses too. “I spot metered for the white feathers of the Egret…Had I gone with matrix metering, the camera would have decided to bump up the exposure, considering the poorly lit background, which in turn, would have lowered the shutter speed, making the splash appear soft.”
Sorry, no, if you spot meter for the white feathers without compensation you end up with around two stops underexposure and grey feathers. From their muddy appearance, I guess that’s what happened. If you matrix meter this scene, you may well overexpose for the egret but only if you had no idea of what compensation to apply and/or you had not checked the histogram. The best way to tackle this shot would be to work in manual mode, set the desired F-stop and shutter speed and compensate – using ISO if you run out of f-stops or shutter speeds. Similarly, for the black kite, spot metering the dark bird would result in overexposure of at least one stop – which is reflected in its appearance.
In fact muddy colour, poor contrast and lack of sharpness are the overriding theme of this piece. The author says he is a big fan of darker mood but most of the images simply look underexposed with dull colours, weird white balance and/or colour casts, blocked up shadows and muddy whites. But worst of all is an overall lack of sharpness. We are told “head shots demand high resolution, maximum sharpness and contrast” yet there is hardly a single shot in the whole piece which is sharp.
The images are of very modest size (1250px on the long edge) and should look super sharp. Instead, with one or two exceptions they are just plain fuzzy. The Nikon 200-500mm is a good lens so it’s probably not that. The shutter speeds are generally very high so it’s probably not that. I am wondering whether these images have been underexposed, taken straight from the camera and converted to JPEG without capture sharpening, without post processing and without output sharpening? Disappointing. I seem to be a lone voice so I probably just need some new glasses.
Thanks for the elaborate comment Betty.
We are told that “for any given subject, the background is what makes or breaks an image.” yet many of the shots are shot against very distracting and confusing backgrounds.
As mentioned in the article itself, I wanted to pen down options that are seldom looked at. The context of such sections of the article was not against shooting on smooth bokehs, but not to shy away from different backgrounds. Some of the images were used to illustrate a particular context as I did not consider this as an article to show the best of my work, rather it was to pen down what is mostly ignored.
We are told “No matter how much we try, most of the time we end up getting clipped highlights.”
Whatever other problems harsh overhead light brings, there is no excuse for clipped highlights. That’s what the histogram is for.
As you would have seen almost all images were either shot on a Nikon D7000 or Canon 1000D. I ain’t trying to bluntly put the blame on the gadget, but we all know of the limitations the entry level and semi-pro crop bodies have, especially with respect to dynamic range. Besides, bracketing a wildlife image is mostly far from practically possible. The point I wanted to make was, if we had to choose between saving the highlights or saving the shadows, i’m always inclined to saving. In spite of all the effort the highlights or the shadows spike. That is exactly what I meant. It does more so if we are shooting with harshly illuminated subjects. I hope you agree that is the reason why most wildlife photographers use a D810 in spite of the fact that it lacks EFoV (Effective field of view) and limited FPS.
We are told “Had I dialled the WB towards the blue furthermore, the sky would have become too blue, giving a bit of an artificial feel.
In the below image that was shot around the golden hour, I was able to get a blue sky with a WB of 5600 but still, the wings of the pied Kingfisher looked warm.” No, that’s what post processing skills are for – you can treat the sky and the bird separately – Make the sky a paler more interesting blue and adjust the feathers on the bird to a clean white.
Of course it is possible. But how many of us use layer masks or for that matter even selective correction. I did not want to get into post processing as that in itself would be a major topic. I am not a big fan of selective correction for wildlife. I do so for landscapes, but with wildlife I pretty much love to show what I saw on the field. We seldom see blue skies during the golden hour nor warmer subjects during mid-days. I am not a big fan of putting up an image after going through over a dozen selectively corrected layers and hence can’t advice on it.
We are told “I always have it as a practice not to ETTR (Expose To The Right) with back-lit shots. I always under-expose a little. By doing so, I reduce the risk of blowing out the highlights. I always prefer to protect the highlights, as I am a big fan of darker mood.
No, ETTR done correctly will never blow out the highlights and if you are a fan of darker moods then shoot in dark moody conditions or reduce the image brightness in post or better still burn in or vignette selected areas of the image. Underexposing simply produces muddy colors and noise.
True under ideal conditions. But practically, a lot of times we end up with a ‘U’ histogram, where it gets to a condition where we choose to loose either the shadows or the highlights. In such a scenario, a small patch of blown whites would be more distracting than a whole lot of blacks as our eyes are always pivoted towards the brighter side. I never meant to underexpose or advice on doing so under favorable conditions without looking at the histogram, but what to compromise when it becomes tricky.
There’re some other nonsenses too. “I spot metered for the white feathers of the Egret…Had I gone with matrix metering, the camera would have decided to bump up the exposure, considering the poorly lit background, which in turn, would have lowered the shutter speed, making the splash appear soft.”
Sorry, no, if you spot meter for the white feathers without compensation you end up with around two stops underexposure and grey feathers. From their muddy appearance, I guess that’s what happened. If you matrix meter this scene, you may well overexpose for the egret but only if you had no idea of what compensation to apply and/or you had not checked the histogram. The best way to tackle this shot would be to work in manual mode, set the desired F-stop and shutter speed and compensate – using ISO if you run out of f-stops or shutter speeds. Similarly, for the black kite, spot metering the dark bird would result in overexposure of at least one stop – which is reflected in its appearance.
I have never used spot metering nor advice the use of it similar to auto mode keeping the compensation at a blind zero. It was in-fact the reason why spot meter was used for that particular image. Since I knew the limitations in the dynamic range of the D7000, the matrix metering would have made it even more flat and/or over exposed. With an action sequence happening, most of the time we do not get the time. Besides, the D7000 will have significant noise and further loss of dynamic range once we breach ISO-1000, so your way of manual mode and compensating with ISO seldom works, especially with poorly lit subjects. I use matrix metering for most of the part and this explanation was just a rare case scenario.
The images are of very modest size (1250px on the long edge) and should look super sharp. Instead, with one or two exceptions they are just plain fuzzy. The Nikon 200-500mm is a good lens so it’s probably not that. The shutter speeds are generally very high so it’s probably not that. I am wondering whether these images have been underexposed, taken straight from the camera and converted to JPEG without capture sharpening, without post processing and without output sharpening?
True that I did not go in for sharpening. As you guessed these pictures have undergone minimal possible editing as I wanted to get it closer to how it was shot, but they were never just JPG converts of out of camera RAWs. The scope of the article was to give a few on-the-field pointers and I do not think it would be fair to put out a totally worked out image for such a purpose. Yes, there is more scope to edit the picture and make it more appealing, but I think it would be unethical to shoot wildlife in the harsh, hazy and dusty plains of India and show it as if it was shot way beyond the tropics considering the scope of the article being more inclined towards on the field guide.
Clipped Highlights
Yes, there are times when either highlights or shadows have to clip but clipping any important highlight is a no-no irrespective of what camera is being used.
WB-Pied Kingfisher
“I do so for landscapes, but with wildlife I pretty much love to show what I saw on the field.”
Nobody is talking about complex work in PS. The whites and the sky can be adjusted quite simply in LR in the Basics and HSL tabs. What you see in the field is a memory (coloured by a thousand factors) and what you see ‘out of the camera’ depends entirely on camera settings. There is no such thing as a ‘faithful reproduction of the scene’ other than maybe under carefully controlled laboratory conditions. Both global and selective corrections are essential whether you want a natural or an enhanced look. To show images without any editing does you and the viewer a disservice and saying you are “not a fan” of editing just sounds like an excuse for not knowing how to edit.
ETTR
The light may well be tricky – which is why the photographer has to know what he is doing. but at it’s most basic, you look at the blinkies and decide if those areas can be allowed to clip or not and adjust exposure accordingly.
Spot metering
“Since I knew the limitations in the dynamic range of the D7000, the matrix metering would have made it even more flat and/or overexposed.”
Matrix metering (or spot for that matter) doesn’t “make it” anything. Using either mode in any condition other than average will result in error. Exactly the same exposure can (and should) be achieved with either (or any) method. – but as ever, the photographer has to apply compensation and pay attention to the histogram.
“With an action sequence happening, most of the time we do not get the time. Besides, the D7000 will have significant noise and further loss of dynamic range once we breach ISO-1000, so your way of manual mode and compensating with ISO seldom works, especially with poorly lit subjects.”
If you don’t have the time for matrix metering how on earth do you have the time to spot meter?
Manual mode is by far the most reliable- especially for poorly lit subjects. You set correct exposure for the subject and then whatever the subject does, exposure remains correct. The one exception is rapidly changing light. However, with any mode, something has to give – aperture, shutter speed or ISO. The photographer has to choose.
Sharpening
“As you guessed these pictures have undergone minimal possible editing as I wanted to get it closer to how it was shot…The scope of the article was to give a few on-the-field pointers and I do not think it would be fair to put out a totally worked out image for such a purpose.”
I’m flabbergasted by this answer. I am not talking about getting it “closer to how it was shot” I’m talking about images which have not had the most basic and essential editing done. There is no excuse for presenting such poor quality images on a photographic website. Inaccurate white balance, muddy colours, blocked up shadows, grey highlights, poor contrast and a lack of sharpness simply don’t cut it whatever the scope of the article.
Even if there is some truth, your comments are not really fair.
Above all we don’t know whether you are able to produce high quality images, or just write criticism.
“Some of the images were used to illustrate a particular context as I did not consider this as an article to show the best of my work, rather it was to pen down what is mostly ignored.”
Dear sir, in photography it is the image that counts. No degree of technical skill or writing ability is more important than the image, either on the screen or on the paper. In the future you would be well advised to produce quality images first, at capture and with post processing, and worry about the so-called “article” later. Without the first the latter is irrelevant.
What is irrelevant, is the stupid race for image quality, over composition and creativity.
By sticking your face all day long to your screen, pixel pimping, you keep finding flaws and buying new gears, for the great pleasure of the brands.
They’re happy, cause they know, it is a vain and infinite game.
Would you tell Cartier-Bresson, Salgado, or even Adams, some of their pics ain’t sharp enough, and they shouldn’t be published ?
That they should buy the new D850, and spend more time sharpenning them on PS CC 7?
By “you” I don’t mean “Pwkirk” or “Betty”, I mean the whole consumer society.
Thanks Madhu for sharing your advices, art oriented, over gear and sharpness techniques.
I’m glad that you liked it Jaff. I did take all the comments above positively and have reflected the same in my reply to Phoenix and obviously here i’m not trying to take your support to get defensive again. I wanted to put up such an article especially with these pictures because I felt may be we all were racing towards a few sought after shots than to reflect what perspective each one of us see the wild. As I have mentioned in the article, I’m from the land of the much sought after subject, the tigers. But almost 9 out of 10 shots we get to see are head on shots of the tigers walking on the safari jeep track, of course with all the hair details and vibrant color on the animal. But a “not so sharp” wide shot of glimpse of a crouching tiger between grass gives way more meaning than the head on shot. I’m not telling, this is the way to do, I’m telling this might also be a way to do and of course, it all falls on the eye of the beholder. I’m not ignoring the fact that sharpness & contrast is a much sought after entity, but I would not accept that sharpness and contrast are the only yardsticks to measure an image. A technically sound image might not always be an interesting image and vice versa.
Your points are correct. Your tone is not.
Madhu
Thanks for a very interesting article. I have not taken many wild life photos but am interested in perusing. I am wondering where in India are you located. I have been settled in US for over 45 years and visit India would like to see if you can give ideas on time and duration for some of the national wild life sanctuaries for photographing (when I visit). Thank you again. Valmik (Mikky) Bhargava
It absolutely depends upon what time of the year you are planning a visit to India and what would be your interest. For tigers its the central Indian dry jungles like Bandhavgarh, Tadoba & Ranthambore. For elephants its the western ghats especially Kabini, Periyar and other parts of Kerala. For birding, Bharatpur and the list goes on. Feel free to drop a mail at madhu dot ulysses at gmail dot com before your trip. I would be glad to guide you.
Truly beautiful images here and great insights on technique but I am not as fond of the dark presentation as he is.