.... you sure are looking good.

Hey Don,

Very nice shot. It is rare to see wolves in such perfect position even in the zoo. They are such awesome creatures. I can watch them for hours and hours in Yellowstone when given the opportunity, even if they are typically too far away to photogaph.

James

An excellently taken shot of a very beautiful animal.

Excellent shot--and exciting. It must be a real charge to get that close.

Hey dbyrd, thanks for sharing, the photo of the captive wolf is nice. You did not not ask for any comments, and I'm no expert on wolves, though I do see them in the wild quite often, but I have a question, do you think the image is a bit too warm?

It looks like it was shot on cloudy white balance or in early morning warm light, or both. I did a little color correction on the wolf, is this any closer to the "correct" color, or is the warm light really the effect you were after?

Thanks for taking the time to do the color correction. The way I presented it is basicly what I saw when I took the image. I was shooting with a 2.74mp camera,thus the lack of vividness. It was shot on an overcast day with the WB set to that designation(I think).

So, dbyrd, is the image you posted the accurate color of the wolf? I'm just curious and it brings up a good discussion point. How do we know if what we see and what we get are accurate, or true to nature a week later when we are home looking at the images on the computer?

The answer for 90% of outdoor shooting is to use daylight setting, or the "sun" setting or about 5200 degrees k. You can always warm the image later in post production but you can not ever get back a true representation of what you saw unless you capture the image at the sun's true temperature, this applies to all out door shooting light. Keep in mind you may like the look of warmer, and many do, that's why in the film days people used warming filters, and why haze filters took some of the coolness out of the image, but if you shoot true temps, you will get true colors - you may not like what you see, and it may not be as vivid as you remember it (it most likely wont) but you will be starting with more realistic and true colors (as true as you can get with all the other factors like sensor, and lens quality and camera processor), and as I mentioned, warm it later if you like warm. . .

As for pixel count, it has almost nothing to do with vividness, its all about the lens, and the processing of the image starting with your brain, then the camera then the computer, then the output, ie, fine art, magazine, or internet. . .

Tony

Thanks for the comments. I do disagree with you on pixel counts and vividness. I do agree about the lens.That image was shot with the Sigma HSM 50-500( my lens of choice for outdoors. The camera was a Nikon D1( my first $5,000 mistake in purchases!). I am certain that an icrease in pixels would have provided a more vibrant image. The same difference between Ektachrome and Kodachrome.
D'Byrd Photography

okay, but that fact does not account for your lack of vividness, i now see where your limitation comes in, it's the lens, that lens, along with most of sigmas consumer grade stuff, (and some of their pro line too) has a green cast, AND has much less contrast and that would help account for the "vividness," or lack of. I've done very extensive testing of sigma lenses and have owned most of their pro lever lenses. The only one I now have in my collection is the 120-300 2.8 because of the zoom and the app, it's my main lens for shooting rodeos, as for all the other's - and the list is long, they went down the road.

So, in MY opinion, your free to disagree with me, he 50-500 lacks contrast and therefore "vividness." Your lack of what youre calling vivid, has more to do with the lens and the camera setting than the mega pixel count, particularly when it comes to the d1.

The d1 is a very capable camera if you use the better quality nikon lenses and the correct post processing . . . .

I hope we are not derailing your thread, if so just say so and I'll quit and we can pick this up another time. But, keep in mind that when there's more posts to a thread, it tends to generate more interest and therefore more people will see your photos . . .

Take care, and have a great day!

BTW, you have some great images on your website! Love the colors!

Tony

Hey Guys,

Nice back and forth that was going on. I found it very interesting.

Tony,
I did not realize you had the sigma 120-300 F2.8. How do you like it?

Donald,

As to the image of the captive wolf, I still really like the shot a lot. I think that some of the vividness can be fixed in photoshop...though you can obviously never completely replace what goes through the lens. Curiously, which camera are you using? A D1? I had debated the purchase of a 50-500 but have always balked at it.

Cheers
James