Angus (my dog) - beginner photographer

[qy10]

Here are a few pictures I took of my dog, Angus. Keep in mind, I've just started using editing software... I downloaded a 30 day free trial and haven't run out of time yet, so I'd say, I've been learning to edit my photos for maybe 3 weeks now?

I just love showing off my boy, haha.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Stradawhovious]

Here's My opinion.

It's a great start!

Be aware of your focus point. There are rarely any instances in this type of photography that you wouldn't want the eyes in focus, as in the first and last shots. In addition to that, there really isn't any need to shoot WIDE open in full sunlight, which is an assumption on my part since the metadata has been stripped from these photos. You're shooting at an incredibly shallow DOF. I understand the desire for a nice blurry background, but you can stop down a bit and still achieve that while getting more of the pooch in focus.

Compositionally they are just OK. All of them seem to be cropped too tight, with the exception of #4. Without the jawline and ears you really don't get the overall picture of how majestic these creatures really are.

Also, I understand the thought on the watermark, but if I'm honest it's not necessary and only detracts from my viewing of the photos.

Great work for just starting out... Thanks for sharing!

 

[qy10]

Here's My opinion.

It's a great start!

Be aware of your focus point. There are rarely any instances in this type of photography that you wouldn't want the eyes in focus, as in the first and last shots. In addition to that, there really isn't any need to shoot WIDE open in full sunlight, which is an assumption on my part since the metadata has been stripped from these photos. You're shooting at an incredibly shallow DOF. I understand the desire for a nice blurry background, but you can stop down a bit and still achieve that while getting more of the pooch in focus.

Compositionally they are just OK. All of them seem to be cropped too tight, with the exception of #4. Without the jawline and ears you really don't get the overall picture of how majestic these creatures really are.

Also, I understand the thought on the watermark, but if I'm honest it's not necessary and only detracts from my viewing of the photos.

Great work for just starting out... Thanks for sharing!

Thanks for the feedback.

For the focus point, I personally just have a thing for dog noses, so my focus point in the first picture was intentional. I do understand what you're saying though and it's been a struggling for me when I'm trying to capture my dogs in motion. I always end up accidentally focusing on the grass beneath them or something like that.

I'm going to sound like a total idiot, but I don't know what DOF or metadata means. I will have to go look into the terms. I have literally just spent the past few years taking photos of things I find interesting or beautiful with the last 3 weeks being the first time dabbling in editing those photos.

When I took these photos, he was laying in the sun in the backyard and I was sitting with him while tossing a frisbee for my other dog. I started taking pictures because I thought he just looked so content and peaceful while maintaining his serious expression, lol. So the fact that it was in full sunlight was just coincidental, I guess? Although, most of my photography is in natural sunlight as it's usually when I'm out walking, swimming or playing with my dogs.

I understand what you're saying about his whole head not being in the frame.

Thanks again for the feedback. It's a lot to take in. I just have to figure out these terms and keep adjusting.

 

[Stradawhovious]

I'm going to sound like a total idiot, but I don't know what DOF or metadata means. I will have to go look into the terms.

Not at all. DOF is an incredibly important issue for any photographer though, so you will want to get to know it. DOF stands for "Depth of Field", and is a function of your Aperture, Focal Length and distance from your subject. (sensor size too, but I will leave that out for a moment). It simply refers to the amount of the image that is in focus. If your whole dog's head was in focus it would be a deeper depth of field, and it would mean that you shot at a smaller aperture, shorter lens, further away from your dog or any combination of those.

Metadata is your EXIF information. This is a digital signature from your camera that appears on your photos and gives information like focal length, aperture setting, shutter speed, whether or not you used flash etc. It's important information for folks to look at if they are giving you advice, since it shows us how you "built" the photograph.

Thanks again for the feedback. It's a lot to take in. I just have to figure out these terms and keep adjusting.

Photography is a lot to take in. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or doing it wrong. I've been at it for a decade and just now know barely enough to be dangerous.

 

[qy10]

I'm going to sound like a total idiot, but I don't know what DOF or metadata means. I will have to go look into the terms.

Not at all. DOF is an incredibly important issue for any photographer though, so you will want to get to know it. DOF stands for "Depth of Field", and is a function of your Aperture, Focal Length and distance from your subject. (sensor size too, but I will leave that out for a moment). It simply refers to the amount of the image that is in focus. If your whole dog's head was in focus it would be a deeper depth of field, and it would mean that you shot at a smaller aperture, shorter lens, further away from your dog or any combination of those.

Metadata is your EXIF information. This is a digital signature from your camera that appears on your photos and gives information like focal length, aperture setting, shutter speed, whether or not you used flash etc. It's important information for folks to look at if they are giving you advice, since it shows us how you "built" the photograph.

Thanks again for the feedback. It's a lot to take in. I just have to figure out these terms and keep adjusting.

Photography is a lot to take in. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or doing it wrong. I've been at it for a decade and just now know barely enough to be dangerous.

Thank you! Okay, that makes sense and they seem like relatively easy things to keep in mind when photographing in the future.

I should mention, I've only ever used the auto settings on my camera. I've been too afraid to start playing around with the manual settings, haha.

I've been using a Canon Rebel T5i, which was a gift a couple years back. I was reading on here that it doesn't have a good sensor.. Like it's just outdated technology. I don't have the money to invest in awhile new set up, but I really want to upgrade my lens for some upcoming projects, so hopefully that'll kind of help.

 

[Stradawhovious]

I should mention, I've only ever used the auto settings on my camera. I've been too afraid to start playing around with the manual settings, haha.

I've been using a Canon Rebel T5i, which was a gift a couple years back. I was reading on here that it doesn't have a good sensor.. Like it's just outdated technology. I don't have the money to invest in awhile new set up, but I really want to upgrade my lens for some upcoming projects, so hopefully that'll kind of help.

If you decide to get adventurous and learn about your settings, the rabbit hole is deep and the journey is fantastic. This place (for the most part) is incredibly helpful and supportive in learning.

As far as your T5i being outdated... Those photos look fine to me. Don't let the gear junkies scare you into thinking you need the latest and greatest. My two main cameras are a nikon D7000 and a D3, both of which are FAR more "outdated" than you T5I and if I do my part they take stunning photos. Hell, I have a Nikon D1 from 1999 that still takes really usable photos under perfect conditions, again assuming I do my part.

As it turns out, what gear you have is far less important than what you do with it.

 

[DarkShadow]

Don't listen to the nay sayers snobs that T5i don't have a good sensor, that's is total BS.It may not have the best dynamic range but most of the canons are pretty close other then the newer sensors in the T6i or T6s or the new 80D which may or may not be better In the dynamic range..Canon T5i is a good camera and Canon has Awesome lenses especially when you get into the pricey L-Glass.

You where given some excellent advice and tips to keep in mind for the next time and its true its not the gear but how you master your tools that you have.There is people shooting with cameras considered as dinosaurs producing beautiful images. Nice First start and great looking dog.

 

[qy10]

Don't listen to the nay sayers snobs that T5i don't have a good sensor, that's is total BS.It may not have the best dynamic range but most of the canons are pretty close other then the newer sensors in the T6i or T6s or the new 80D which may or may not be better In the dynamic range..Canon T5i is a good camera and Canon has Awesome lenses especial when you get into the pricey L-Glass.

You where given some excellent advice and tips to keep in mind for the next time and its true its not the gear but how you master your tools that you haven.There is people shooting with cameras considered as dinosaurs producing beautiful images. Nice First start and great looking dog.

Thank you. I actually really love my Canon and it works for what I need it to do right now. My only issue is that I find the lenses to be VERY expensive compared to the Nikon lenses?

 

[qy10]

If you decide to get adventurous and learn about your settings, the rabbit hole is deep and the journey is fantastic. This place (for the most part) is incredibly helpful and supportive in learning.

As far as your T5i being outdated... Those photos look fine to me. Don't let the gear junkies scare you into thinking you need the latest and greatest. My two main cameras are a nikon D7000 and a D3, both of which are FAR more "outdated" than you T5I and if I do my part they take stunning photos. Hell, I have a Nikon D1 from 1999 that still takes really usable photos under perfect conditions, again assuming I do my part.

As it turns out, what gear you have is far less important than what you do with it.

I will definitely be taking the trip down the rabbit hole eventually. I think it's a great skill and important knowledge to have. My fear is that I might miss a great shot, or screw up a great shot just because I'm fiddling around with settings, y'know?

 

[waday]

I'd like to add that your camera, while not being the newest technology, isn't bad at all. I have a Canon Rebel XSi / 450D, which is very, very old compared to yours. However, I've taken many pictures that have surprised me. While knowing the appropriate settings to use for what I want the picture to look like is important, I've learned that using light (whether natural or through flash) is the most important aspect of photography. It took me a while to figure this out, despite what I read. Ok, so I was a bit bullheaded.

Also, you don't necessarily have to have an incredibly crisp photo for it to be good. An example of one of my photos below isn't the clearest, and I didn't use any flash or light modifiers. In fact, it was handheld with manual focus (broken nifty fifty) under bad lighting. Yeah, it's not the best, but it was featured by Canon on their Instagram page. With thousands of likes, that's probably the most famous my photography will get. I'm in this as a hobby and to learn. If I get good enough to charge, I might not even want to, because I'm having fun with the journey.


It's been a ruff day by Wade, on Flickr

 

[qy10]

I'd like to add that your camera, while not being the newest technology, isn't bad at all. I have a Canon Rebel XSi / 450D, which is very, very old compared to yours. However, I've taken many pictures that have surprised me. While knowing the appropriate settings to use for what I want the picture to look like is important, I've learned that using light (whether natural or through flash) is the most important aspect of photography. It took me a while to figure this out, despite what I read. Ok, so I was a bit bullheaded.

Also, you don't necessarily have to have an incredibly crisp photo for it to be good. An example of one of my photos below isn't the clearest, and I didn't use any flash or light modifiers. In fact, it was handheld with manual focus (broken nifty fifty) under bad lighting. Yeah, it's not the best, but it was featured by Canon on their Instagram page. With thousands of likes, that's probably the most famous my photography will get. I'm in this as a hobby and to learn. If I get good enough to charge, I might not even want to, because I'm having fun with the journey.


It's been a ruff day by Wade, on Flickr

Yeah, I'm learning a lot about light right now! I love using natural light and I'm learning a lot about the position of my subject in relation to where the sun is... I did a whole photo shoot with my dog (same dog as the one in this thread), but where he was in relation to how the sun was shining, most of the pictures were unusable to me because of the heavy shadowing, which wasn't at all what I was going for. I was able to save a few of them, but I made them black and white as I found I was able to lessen the heavy shadows that way. Otherwise, literally half of his face was just a black shadow and I couldn't manage to lighten it up the way that I wanted to keeping it as a coloured photo.

In other photos, I find that the way the sun hits his fur is just really unappealing. It almost makes his brindle coat look pale and editing it to boost up the colours makes it look too unnatural, if that makes sense?

I would like to test out some photo shoots using light modifiers... I've never really done that before.

That photo is great, btw. That dog's face is very expressive.

 

[Designer]

My only issue is that I find the lenses to be VERY expensive compared to the Nikon lenses?

Not necessarily. In each maker's lineup, there are inexpensive entry level lenses, middle range lenses, and top tier lenses, and each level costs accordingly.

 

[qy10]

My only issue is that I find the lenses to be VERY expensive compared to the Nikon lenses?

Not necessarily. In each maker's lineup, there are inexpensive entry level lenses, middle range lenses, and top tier lenses, and each level costs accordingly.

Fair enough. Maybe I am just comparing the wrong lenses then. I just need a lens with good zoom that will be ideal for action photography while keeping in mind that I am not rich and not a professional. ^_^

 

[DarkShadow]

You have the options of third party as well like Sigma,Tamron and some are every bit as good or better then Nikon or Canon.