Tarantula at the Zoo

[ericgarner118]

Hey guys. The wife and I went to the zoo for our anniversary a couple weeks ago and I snapped a few pictures. I haven't take too many animal pictures, let alone pictures of animals at the zoo. I've read the tutorial on here to help take zoo pictures, but that was after the outing. I was just wondering what you guys thought of this one.



EXIF Info:

1. Exposure Time = 1/8"
2. F Number = F2.8
3. ISO Speed Ratings = 1600
4. Flash = Off

[chicagojohn]

Originally Posted by ericgarner118

Hey guys. The wife and I went to the zoo for our anniversary a couple weeks ago and I snapped a few pictures. I haven't take too many animal pictures, let alone pictures of animals at the zoo. I've read the tutorial on here to help take zoo pictures, but that was after the outing. I was just wondering what you guys thought of this one.
EXIF Info:

1. Exposure Time = 1/8"
2. F Number = F2.8
3. ISO Speed Ratings = 1600
4. Flash = Off

I think it's good enough to be pretty scary to me! I like the color, the rule-of-thirds placement, and the fact that you managed to get a shot as sharp as this at 1/8 sec, I'm presuming hand-held, probably bracing against something like the glass.

You didn't say what the focal length of the lens was or what zoom you were at, or what camera you were using, but from the apparent lack of noise at 1600, evinced by lack of grainy appearance in the darkest areas , I'm assuming it was a DSLR.

Because "What do you think of this?" is a rather open-ended question, I will offer the following thoughts as requested. While I like the composition, I notice clipped highlights -- the very bright white areas -- and clipped shadow -- the very dark pure black areas. Ideally these would contain information; i.e., discrimination of difference, but as presented, it seems they are just pure white and pure black without gradation.

You were probably at the limit of exposure at ISO 1600, f/2.8, and 1/8 sec without a tripod. I'm thinking, OK, let's say you had a tripod; then you could have chosen to collect more data from light falling on the darker parts of the spider by increasing exposure, and that would have been at the expense of the detail on the light end. Or you could have done the opposite, reducing exposure value, EV, to capture more detail on the bright side and losing more in the spider. Yet another alternative, if it was permitted, which it likely was not, would be to use an off-camera flash to increase the reflective light coming from the spider.

Those may not have been viable options, or good ones even if they were viable. But here are a few additional thoughts. To jump ahead, in post-processing software, you can get the best of both worlds by overlaying images; ideally one would optimize for non-spider dynamic range, making sure that detail was present throughout the ligher portions of the image, and the other would optimize for the dark areas of the spider to show detail there. One would have a lower EV and the other a higher EV. Then in the software you could mask off areas of the images and adjust opacity to achieve the merged result you want.

While it's clear how to reduce EV to get better highlight discrimination, how to get better resolution of the spider, increased EV, is a problem in this scenerio. Since you didn't say you did not have a DSLR, let's assume you did. In that case, you may have had a RAW mode option. In 8-bit JPG mode, sensors have a resolution of 256 increments (2X2 eight times). Even low end DSLR's like my Pentax K100D Super record 12-bit in RAW mode, or 4096 increments, and some are 14 (16384 increments). These are translated into 16-bit format for subsequent post-processing, 65536 increments or "64K" by programs such as Photoshop Elements.

What this means is that if you were to go to the maximum possible EV your total situation will allow; lighting options, tripod options, max ISO, min f/number; it is possible that the 8-bit image on your camera's display for a RAW image may belie the true amount of information it managed to register. That discrimination of shadow would then be adjusted and become discernable in post-processing "development" of the RAW image using the manufacturer's software, or another commercial product such as photoshop elements.

Then those two images could be managed as layers as described above to produce an overall improvement in management of dynamic range.

If I wrote too many words, here, next time ask more specific questions... I'll have to check out that tutorial you mentioned about how to take pictures at the zoo.

[ericgarner118]

Thank you very much for the very thorough post. It was very helpful.

Sorry I didn't give more information, but I'll try to do that now. It wasn't a very good camera at all. All I had at the time, was my cell phone camera. It was taken hand held in the "Critter" area of the Zoo. I pressed the camera up against the glass at an angle and braced myself as best as possible.

I hadn't noticed the lack of detail in the highlights and the darks until you mentioned it. Going back and looking they are pretty obvious now. I wish I would have had a tripod so that I could use the method you mentioned to get more detail in those areas. I picked up a new tripod today and will definitely start using it to help fix problems like this.

I plan on doing some more low light shots and work on the methods you discussed. Prior to getting my new tripod, it made it hard to take photos of the same subject and change settings without messing up the angle I took the original. Thanks again for your information.

[chicagojohn]

Originally Posted by ericgarner118

It wasn't a very good camera at all. All I had at the time, was my cell phone camera. It was taken hand held in the "Critter" area of the Zoo. I pressed the camera up against the glass at an angle and braced myself as best as possible.

That is fascinating, Eric. Now knowing that it was a cell phone camera, I'd have to say it is quite possibly the nicest image I've seen taken that way. When you are in a situation where you see a great subject, as this clearly was, you use what you have at hand. And you did a great job with what you had. Much, much better to have captured this image with suboptimal conditions than not have captured it at all!!

Thanks for sharing it.

[ericgarner118]

Thank you very much. That trip really opened my eyes to the fact that I need to take my camera with me more often. Once I finally break down and get a DSLR, I plan on getting a nice bag for all my equipment so it is easier to take out with me. That way I can snap moments like these and have the right equipment with me. Thanks again for all your input.

[chicagojohn]

Originally Posted by ericgarner118

Thank you very much. That trip really opened my eyes to the fact that I need to take my camera with me more often. Once I finally break down and get a DSLR, I plan on getting a nice bag for all my equipment so it is easier to take out with me. That way I can snap moments like these and have the right equipment with me. Thanks again for all your input.

You're welcome, Eric. And definitely throw a toothbrush in that camera bag too. Note that I said "toothbrush", and not "teethbrush", looking toward your likely future.