Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Digital Composite?  (Read 3873 times)
alexis
Guest
« on: January 15, 2004, 03:41:54 PM »
ReplyReply

After a closer look, I'm guessing that this was a composite of no less than 7 separate images???
Logged
BruceK
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 87


« Reply #1 on: January 15, 2004, 06:04:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm thinking that Michael use selective sharpening to make sure that the eyes/faces of the cubs and lioness were sharp. I find it hard to believe that the photo would be a composite of so many images, but I could certainly be wrong.

     Bruce
Logged
Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1678


« Reply #2 on: January 16, 2004, 04:43:47 PM »
ReplyReply

And because Michael's far too polite to say so...

Shame on you for suggesting such a thing!    

Peter
Logged
GordonMcGregor
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 40


« Reply #3 on: January 16, 2004, 09:05:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you for explaining the cause of the unusual cut-out appearance.  I don't have experience with lenses of that focal length so the whole image just looked wrong in a way I'm not used to.  Good to have it cleared up and always happy to learn something new!
Logged
Alexis
Guest
« Reply #4 on: January 15, 2004, 01:41:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Michael, is today's image of the lion with her cubs a composite? The heads of some of the cubs look pasted on to me. Even the lioness's head doesn't quite look right. Please accept my apology if I am wrong.

a.
Logged
GordonMcGregor
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 40


« Reply #5 on: January 15, 2004, 05:16:10 PM »
ReplyReply

It seems 'wrong' to my eyes too - the open mouthed animal was the first that looked pasted, but after a closer look, they all look stuck in - or maybe I'm just imagining it..
Logged
Guest
« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2004, 09:40:27 AM »
ReplyReply

A composite? No. Not at all. Why would one do that? The real thing (which this is) is so much better

Also, there was no selective sharpening. Just the normal USM.

What you're seeing may well be that at 500mm the depth of field is very shallow and so the animals faces are sharper than everything else.

15 other people were there and saw and photographed the same thing, so rest assured this is all very real.

Michael
Logged
Bobtrips
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #7 on: January 16, 2004, 05:11:31 PM »
ReplyReply

It was a good question, maybe not a carefully put as possible.

I've seen that 'disconnect' between subject and background before and wondered why.  Now I know to check the focal length used.

(Actually, I had wondered if it was some sort of a digital/film difference.)
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad