Mule Deer

Another fruitless hike

Please critique ..........

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

Hello Marty. Those are some nice mulie bucks. My suggestion would be not to cut off their feet in the first two photos, unless you are striving for a portrait. Having the whole animal in frame makes for much better viewing.

KT29 wrote in post #18736594
Hello Marty. Those are some nice mulie bucks. My suggestion would be not to cut off their feet in the first two photos, unless you are striving for a portrait. Having the whole animal in frame makes for much better viewing.

Meaning whole body OR in real tight (head shot)? More like in my bighorn thread?

What do you mean by portrait?

I would consider a portrait more from the shoulders up. The two above mulies are mostly whole body, except for the lower part of their legs. Not a portrait and not quite a whole deer. You must be in a nice area to find these guys.

KT29 wrote in post #18736619
I would consider a portrait more from the shoulders up. The two above mulies are mostly whole body, except for the lower part of their legs. Not a portrait and not quite a whole deer. You must be in a nice area to find these guys.

Gotcha.

FAIR CHASE wrote in post #18736632

Good one. I have a similar butt shot of a nice mulie.

FAIR CHASE wrote in post #18735563
Another fruitless hike

Please critique ..........

Some beautiful animals. By way of critique, technical aspects are really well done. From a creative standpoint, leaving room for the feet in the first two has already been mentioned. Not sure that there is an accepted definition of "portrait" when shooting critters but IMO it means primarily a head shot. Which on antlered species is hard to do without keeping a good portion of the body in the frame while still keeping the image balanced. To me clipping the feet off on mammal shots is sort of like clipping wing tips on birds. Sometimes the solution is to frame/crop even tighter to make it obviously intentional(whether it was or not). For example in that first shot you could crop to a 4x5 format either horizontal or vertical and maybe tighten up a bit.

In the second shot in addition to the clipped feet the animal is also too far to left of frame IMO. The "rule" is to keep more space "in front" of the animal than behind it even if it's not walking/moving. There are situations when breaking that rule works but this isn't one of them. That one is a good candidate for a vertical crop. You might also consider cloning the OOF bright stalk of grass above its head.

Really a nice set of bucks.

FAIR CHASE wrote in post #18738030

Love them all. Nicely done.