Critique Fallow deer doe feeding her young

I like this and the centralised composition is ok.

Nice background that makes the family standout

Yes, time of day has perhaps compromised it a tad but looking on my phone it does not look like the highlights are not (too?) blown........so a bit more attention in PP should help improve the DRL (dynamic range limits) and contrast to give it more 'pop'. As well maybe sharpening it a bit?

PS I don't ever recall seeing any deer with twins......and as for both of them having a feed ~ an ace image :)
 
Last edited:
The actual shot s lovely - not something you see very often and the capture has been well timed. Light maybe a tad harsh, but you've not got too much in the way of harsh shadows, so no issue there.

The image is soft, 2 probable reasons - first one being it looks like the sharp focus is on the grasses in front of the mother. For a shot like this, I'd personally be on a single AF point as you're not expecting loads of sideways movement, and on continuous AF.

Also, your shutter speed is too low for the action. There is no need to be at ISO 100 with a modern camera in a situation like this - very few people would be able to pick up on the real world difference between ISO 100 and 400 and you'd be able to get a much better shutter speed to freeze all movement and a pin sharp RAW file.

All in all, a very nice shot, just a couple tech points to improve on

Mike
 
Most of what I would have wanted to say has already been said.
But you can do a fair bit in PP these days. if you don't mind sharing your original RAW file I can see what I can do with it (might now be any better than what you have managed but I can give it a go :) )
 
I like it , is a tad soft but the atmospherics in bright warm sunny light can play a part of that when using long focal lengths over a distance . You can see the guard hairs on the Deer so your focusing can not be that far out ? As for the iso , you got 1/800 of a sec that's plenty fast enough , I have photographed Deer at much much slower speeds and got away with it .

It is quite unusual to see Fallow Deer with twins , Roe have twins generally . Not to sure about Red`s . Out of interest were these wild or park Deer ?
 
The actual shot s lovely - not something you see very often and the capture has been well timed. Light maybe a tad harsh, but you've not got too much in the way of harsh shadows, so no issue there.

The image is soft, 2 probable reasons - first one being it looks like the sharp focus is on the grasses in front of the mother. For a shot like this, I'd personally be on a single AF point as you're not expecting loads of sideways movement, and on continuous AF.

Also, your shutter speed is too low for the action. There is no need to be at ISO 100 with a modern camera in a situation like this - very few people would be able to pick up on the real world difference between ISO 100 and 400 and you'd be able to get a much better shutter speed to freeze all movement and a pin sharp RAW file.

All in all, a very nice shot, just a couple tech points to improve on

Mike

Thanks for very useful feedback Mike. I think I sometimes forget the basics in the heat of the moment.
 
Most of what I would have wanted to say has already been said.
But you can do a fair bit in PP these days. if you don't mind sharing your original RAW file I can see what I can do with it (might now be any better than what you have managed but I can give it a go :) )

Thanks for good feedback (y).
I've put the original unedited dng file Here
I'd be interested in your ideas for processing.
 
I like it , is a tad soft but the atmospherics in bright warm sunny light can play a part of that when using long focal lengths over a distance . You can see the guard hairs on the Deer so your focusing can not be that far out ? As for the iso , you got 1/800 of a sec that's plenty fast enough , I have photographed Deer at much much slower speeds and got away with it .

It is quite unusual to see Fallow Deer with twins , Roe have twins generally . Not to sure about Red`s . Out of interest were these wild or park Deer ?

Thanks. They were in the park of Holkham Hall. Somewhat used to people, but still quite skittish.
 
2 things to look at then, as you've got the focus post bang on. Either your lens is front focussing or the shutter speed is too low and the motion has caused softness.

In my view, you should always push the shutter speed higher than you thought necessary for the sharpest RAW file. Yes, someone will always produce an example of a low speed sharp shot, but for the most keepers, get that speed up, especially when you have that much ISO to play with. A quick look at the left hand youngster which is almost on the same plane as the focus point demonstrates the issue.

Anyway, couldn't resist a play, and whilst the file is soft, it can be good enough for a 1024px post here

_DSC0222RP.jpg
 
Just checked the focus point.

View attachment 256898
Are you using AF-S for focus rather than AF-C? (Top right of screen seems to say that). Continuous focus is much better for wildlife as it allows the camera to track the subject as it moves. AF-S locks the focus plane on half press of the shutter. The animal can easily move out of the focus plane before you refocus.
 
2 things to look at then, as you've got the focus post bang on. Either your lens is front focussing or the shutter speed is too low and the motion has caused softness.

In my view, you should always push the shutter speed higher than you thought necessary for the sharpest RAW file. Yes, someone will always produce an example of a low speed sharp shot, but for the most keepers, get that speed up, especially when you have that much ISO to play with. A quick look at the left hand youngster which is almost on the same plane as the focus point demonstrates the issue.

Anyway, couldn't resist a play, and whilst the file is soft, it can be good enough for a 1024px post here

View attachment 256903

Wow Mike, that is so much better. Please would you share the exact adjustments you made.

Your point about shutter speed is well taken. I was on 1/800, but could easily have gone to 1/1600 or even 1/3200 as I was only on ISO 100.
 
Are you using AF-S for focus rather than AF-C? (Top right of screen seems to say that). Continuous focus is much better for wildlife as it allows the camera to track the subject as it moves. AF-S locks the focus plane on half press of the shutter. The animal can easily move out of the focus plane before you refocus.
Yes, as you say was using AF-S as the doe was static and the fawns were bouncing around.
 
Yes, as you say was using AF-S as the doe was static and the fawns were bouncing around.
That’s a possible cause. For wildlife I always use AF-C. Even if it’s static AF-C still works as it will keep it in focus. When it moves slightly the camera will move the focus. There are times when the lens may hunt in low light but that’s easy to overcome by manual focus. If it’s hunting in low light AF-S probably won’t be that accurate either.
 
here's my take on it :)

48843508117_bee0ec6d2a_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Wow Mike, that is so much better. Please would you share the exact adjustments you made.

Your point about shutter speed is well taken. I was on 1/800, but could easily have gone to 1/1600 or even 1/3200 as I was only on ISO 100.
Cheers Patrick,

Nothing funky done in post. With the RAW file I set the exposure, reduced the highlights and boosted the shadows a bit.

Took it into photoshop where I did a little dodging and burning, but the most important part was I cropped and resized the shot to 1024px wide, and only once it was at the right size for presentation on here did I add the sharpening layer where I sharpened the faces to taste, and the bodies to 50% of what I gave the faces.

Hope that makes a bit of sense

Mike
 
1/800th is plenty fast for that shot
 
This opens up for me a very aggravating question I asked myself when I went digital with an SLR , especially before I learned you need to sharpen and enhance stuff to get the best out of digital images , never had such opportunities with Kodachrome 64 ;) is it sharp or isn`t it ? If we look at PatrickO`s first post , the image is sharp -ish . Look at the edits posted , Pooley`s looks sharp with nandbytes possibly a touch sharper ? All look differently exposed . Going from slides to digital , certainly opened up lots of questions , a slide was sharp or it wasn`t , at least for me . And what is acceptable as sharp to me may or may not be to others these days . I even have books that contain what look to contain slightly soft looking images , it`s all very debatable really .
 
That looks good. Improved the sharpness nicely. I would say it's a bit underexposed for how I remember the deer.
That is what your camera thinks it should look like ;)
I changed the profile from Adobe's standard to your cameras standard profile.

For sharpness I have used topaz sharpen AI tool. Works wonders sometimes.

Of course colours are a bit subjective, I don't really like the Adobe's washed out colours.
 
While it’s not a competition, my vote for the re-edits goes to @pooley . Nandbytes is a bit over saturated/contrasty for my taste and Lez325’s was a bit under-saturated (I’m ignoring sharpening/details etc. as I’m viewing them on my phone!). I imagine other people would vote differently but that’s the joy of photography!
 
While it’s not a competition, my vote for the re-edits goes to @pooley . Nandbytes is a bit over saturated/contrasty for my taste and Lez325’s was a bit under-saturated (I’m ignoring sharpening/details etc. as I’m viewing them on my phone!). I imagine other people would vote differently but that’s the joy of photography!

My edit's aim was to mainly get the sharpness back.
As far as that goes I am pretty happy with what I got :)
 
Definitely not a competition and I really appreciate people taking the time to show what can be done with sharpening in PP.
 
Back
Top