View Full Version : Tigerrrr!
I took this one, back in late May, at the local zoo:
<table height="900" width="100%" bgcolor="black"><tr><td align="center"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1351/1244819940_7b4c2d1c2a_o.jpg"></td></tr></table>
Guernicaa
08-27-2007, 02:59 PM
Great picture!
Our zoo just got our Tigers back a few years ago...they had been gone for most of the 90's after one of them ate a zoo keeper.
Sitarro
08-27-2007, 04:32 PM
Beautiful shot! How did you get the zoo to set up such great lighting? While looking at the shot I imagined the Tiger sneezing right after you took it from that blade of grass tickling the inside of the nostril.:laugh2::cool:
Having' seen a Lioness literally inches away from me (albeit thru glass) - I have a huge respect for these beautiful creatures...
I think you captured the beauty of the Tiger rather well in that shot Jon...
I do think there's a bit too much sharpness on its face tho.. .:)
jimnyc
08-27-2007, 04:41 PM
Now that's a beautiful animal! Great shot!
Sitarro
08-27-2007, 05:05 PM
.
I do think there's a bit too much sharpness on its face tho.. .:)
What does this mean? How can a part of a photograph be too sharp? Are you suggesting he selected the face and cranked up the unsharp mask in Photoshop? I don't get it? I know I'm no professional, maybe that's why I don't understand, could you explain your criticism so that even a mere amateur such as myself can grasp what you are saying?
darin
08-27-2007, 05:11 PM
What does this mean? How can a part of a photograph be too sharp? Are you suggesting he selected the face and cranked up the unsharp mask in Photoshop? I don't get it? I know I'm no professional, maybe that's why I don't understand, could you explain your criticism so that even a mere amateur such as myself can grasp what you are saying?
He's saying 'In post production of the image the nose/face of the tiger got too sharp (for his taste)' - looks a bit too sharp. Pretty easy for the layman to understand, I'd say.
(shrug)
What does this mean? How can a part of a photograph be too sharp? Are you suggesting he selected the face and cranked up the unsharp mask in Photoshop? I don't get it? I know I'm no professional, maybe that's why I don't understand, could you explain your criticism so that even a mere amateur such as myself can grasp what you are saying?
If you can't understand that then perhaps you need to "put the camera down"...
He's saying 'In post production of the image the nose/face of the tiger got too sharp (for his taste)' - looks a bit too sharp. Pretty easy for the layman to understand, I'd say.
(shrug)
What he said.....
darin
08-27-2007, 05:23 PM
I took this one, back in late May, at the local zoo:
Jon, you show true genius and a great eye - AND you are very humble about it.
Sitarro
08-27-2007, 06:27 PM
What he said.....
If you can't understand that then perhaps you need to "put the camera down"...
Are you boys that thick that you can't tell that I'm screwing with you....... pathetic.
Oh and Jon, fuck them, the Tigerrr looks great.
What does this mean? How can a part of a photograph be too sharp? Are you suggesting he selected the face and cranked up the unsharp mask in Photoshop? I don't get it? I know I'm no professional, maybe that's why I don't understand, could you explain your criticism so that even a mere amateur such as myself can grasp what you are saying?
I think it depends on the monitor being used to display it. On this monitor I can see what he means. The whiskers and fine hairs on the tiger have a bit of 'jagginess' to them. I think it has to do with trying to render small detail at 800X533. The jaggies are there even without using any unsharp mask once the image is downsized.
I probably should have used the blur tool to smooth them a bit, but I didn't notice them before.
Thanks for the kind words everyone.
Sitarro
08-30-2007, 11:47 PM
I think it depends on the monitor being used to display it. On this monitor I can see what he means. The whiskers and fine hairs on the tiger have a bit of 'jagginess' to them. I think it has to do with trying to render small detail at 800X533. The jaggies are there even without using any unsharp mask once the image is downsized.
I probably should have used the blur tool to smooth them a bit, but I didn't notice them before.
Thanks for the kind words everyone.
I have an Apple 20'' flat screen set at 1024 x 768 and it looks great, no jagginess.
manu1959
08-31-2007, 12:07 AM
nice pick.....
i always liked chris rock line about the tiger that tried to eat that sigfried roy dude...
"tiger din't go crazy....tiger went Tiger"
nevadamedic
08-31-2007, 02:15 AM
nice pick.....
i always liked chris rock line about the tiger that tried to eat that sigfried roy dude...
"tiger din't go crazy....tiger went Tiger"
:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
I have an Apple 20'' flat screen set at 1024 x 768 and it looks great, no jagginess.
Yeah? Now that I think about it, I'm not surprised. The duals I use at work are set at 1280X1024 each, and my home setup is set at 1920X1080 so I see the jaggies.
I hadn't thought about how the resolution that a monitor is set to would change the apparent sharpness of an image.
Is your "Apple 20" flat screen" an LCD? If so, you'll get better quality from it if you set the screen to it's native resolution. That's probably 1280X1024 in your case. Up or down-rezzing tends to soften the picture. :thumb:
Beautiful shot! How did you get the zoo to set up such great lighting?
Ancient Chinese secret! :laugh2:
BTW, thanks for all the compliments on the photograph guys. :)
Sitarro
08-31-2007, 07:07 AM
Ancient Chinese secret! :laugh2:
As with a great painting, the use of light and shadow seperates the pro from the amateur.
shattered
08-31-2007, 08:34 AM
Beautiful shot! How did you get the zoo to set up such great lighting? While looking at the shot I imagined the Tiger sneezing right after you took it from that blade of grass tickling the inside of the nostril.:laugh2::cool:
Thread Hijack: ON
God damn, are you an asshole.
Maybe, perhaps, for once in your life, if you don't have anything nice to say, you could just keep your mouth shut.
Jealousy of others talents does NOT become you.
Thread Hijack: OFF
Thread Hijack: ON
God damn, are you an asshole.
Maybe, perhaps, for once in your life, if you don't have anything nice to say, you could just keep your mouth shut.
Jealousy of others talents does NOT become you.
Thread Hijack: OFF
Ummm... I thought he was serious and I took it as a compliment. :dunno::confused:
Sitarro
08-31-2007, 08:40 PM
Ummm... I thought he was serious and I took it as a compliment. :dunno::confused:
That's what I like about you Jon, you don't assume the worst of me....... I was serious and that was my way of complimenting the incredible use of light and shadow in that shot....... the compliment is evident in my last post.
The comment about the sneeze was just something that came to mind the more I looked at it, the blade of grass is obviously not in his nostril, an optical illusion just makes it look like it is. I like the fact that even though you could have taken it out in Photoshop, you didn't. To me it ads a little levity to a shot that perfectly portrays the absolute royalty of the Tiger over it's subjects. As far as sharpness, what about this Tiger I found on the web somewhere?
darin
08-31-2007, 08:55 PM
As far as sharpness, what about this Tiger I found on the web somewhere?
ugh - WAY over-sharpened on this monitor.
Abbey Marie
08-31-2007, 09:01 PM
nice pick.....
i always liked chris rock line about the tiger that tried to eat that sigfried roy dude...
"tiger din't go crazy....tiger went Tiger"
:laugh2:
That's what I like about you Jon, you don't assume the worst of me....... I was serious and that was my way of complimenting the incredible use of light and shadow in that shot....... the compliment is evident in my last post.
The comment about the sneeze was just something that came to mind the more I looked at it, the blade of grass is obviously not in his nostril, an optical illusion just makes it look like it is. I like the fact that even though you could have taken it out in Photoshop, you didn't. To me it ads a little levity to a shot that perfectly portrays the absolute royalty of the Tiger over it's subjects. As far as sharpness, what about this Tiger I found on the web somewhere?
Not as "jaggy" as the whiskers in my shot, but they're still there.
I think it might just be an artifact of viewing small details on a monitor. IOW, they probably wouldn't be there if printed. Also, I think the smaller and finer the detail, the "jaggier" it looks. Look at the eyes of that tiger. That is where you'd typically focus the shot. The eyes aren't "jaggy" at all.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.