I took this picture one morning when I saw a fawn wandering around in the woods. It approached until it was about 10 feet from me, making for some great shots. Appears on
deer.
Support - It has obviously seen you, too ;) --
Chris 73Talk 12:10, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, yeah, I think the reason the deer came so close was because it saw me. It was somehow separated from the mother deer. It actually started following me when I started to leave. I didn't want to be right near the baby when the mother turned up --
Elfer22:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)reply
We'd seen this fawn before, but with another fawn and the mother deer with it. I guess it got separated from the mother deer for a while somehow, but it was a great opportunity to get some pictures. I have another picture, where the deer is in more of a "stereotypical cute fawn" pose, but in that photo, the fawn's rear legs are obscured by a tree that was closer to the camera. --
Elfer22:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Heh, come to think of it, this picture had something that almost ruined it, but a quick once-over with photoshop took it out quite convincingly. --
Elfer05:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Err... I'm not sure why they would seem off-colour, because these colours are pretty accurate to the location. I'm sorry, but that's the colour of the bark where those trees are. --
Elfer16:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)reply
What program did you use for that? The colour is somewhat more vibrant in that one, but it looks like the background has gotten really grainy. --
Elfer16:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Photoshop CS. It's the auto shadow/highlight levels corrector and then an auto colour balance followed by a manual tweak to add more red and yellow. I don't think it has come out grainy myself - the colour variation you can see in the edited background is the detail of the forest floor which was all quite dark in the original. I'm too undecided to vote for either version though. I do like the pic, (sufficiently strongly to have played with it and uploaded a new verson!), but I have to agree with Raven4x4 below that it isn't quite sharp / detailed enough to be outstanding. ~
Veledan •
Talk+ new19:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)reply
I hate to do this, but I have to oppose. It's a lovely picture but the sharpness isn't there on either version.
Raven4x4x 00:29, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
I took this picture one morning when I saw a fawn wandering around in the woods. It approached until it was about 10 feet from me, making for some great shots. Appears on
deer.
Support - It has obviously seen you, too ;) --
Chris 73Talk 12:10, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, yeah, I think the reason the deer came so close was because it saw me. It was somehow separated from the mother deer. It actually started following me when I started to leave. I didn't want to be right near the baby when the mother turned up --
Elfer22:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)reply
We'd seen this fawn before, but with another fawn and the mother deer with it. I guess it got separated from the mother deer for a while somehow, but it was a great opportunity to get some pictures. I have another picture, where the deer is in more of a "stereotypical cute fawn" pose, but in that photo, the fawn's rear legs are obscured by a tree that was closer to the camera. --
Elfer22:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Heh, come to think of it, this picture had something that almost ruined it, but a quick once-over with photoshop took it out quite convincingly. --
Elfer05:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Err... I'm not sure why they would seem off-colour, because these colours are pretty accurate to the location. I'm sorry, but that's the colour of the bark where those trees are. --
Elfer16:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)reply
What program did you use for that? The colour is somewhat more vibrant in that one, but it looks like the background has gotten really grainy. --
Elfer16:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Photoshop CS. It's the auto shadow/highlight levels corrector and then an auto colour balance followed by a manual tweak to add more red and yellow. I don't think it has come out grainy myself - the colour variation you can see in the edited background is the detail of the forest floor which was all quite dark in the original. I'm too undecided to vote for either version though. I do like the pic, (sufficiently strongly to have played with it and uploaded a new verson!), but I have to agree with Raven4x4 below that it isn't quite sharp / detailed enough to be outstanding. ~
Veledan •
Talk+ new19:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)reply
I hate to do this, but I have to oppose. It's a lovely picture but the sharpness isn't there on either version.
Raven4x4x 00:29, August 28, 2005 (UTC)