D**n Good Dog

travelerb · Sep 9, 2008

Snapped a ton of pictures of the most photographed dog in the world last Saturday (well, at least the most photographed in my opinion). May need some more PP work on some of them, but C&C are welcome for these two.

And if you don't know who this is, you'll just have to click them to find out.

My own little take:

Number 1 is not quite what I want it to be, and I'm not sure why. Maybe its a little out of focus, but the fur is pretty crisp. Otherwise, it may be just a little movement blur, since it was shot at 1/160 sec at 200mm (on a DX sensor). Unfortunately, the pose is one out of a hundred (or more). I would prefer to have more of the dog in the picture, but there was a hand and other stuff just to the right of what you see here, so I did the best to crop the best part. Maybe less of the field would make a better composition.

Number 2 is similar in having a great pose, but having to work around some other issues. There is a hedge that is just to the bottom of the picture that I had to crop out, which meant the whole animal couldn't be in the picture like I would prefer, but I think it still looks just fine (and most probably wouldn't notice if I didn't point out wanting his feet in the picture too). The light is obviously to his left, but I think I like that just fine. Fully lit would have been nice too, but I think I'd be arrested if I took pictures from the football field to get the right light.

srt86hil · Sep 9, 2008

I couldn't really see any fur in #1 that's totally sharp, looks like the result of not being able to hand-hold at that focal length and shutter speed. I like that the dog's actually doing something, but apart from that it doesn't do too much for me.

I reckon the second one is alright technically but you've cut off his feet and need to work on the composition, even if you had some restrictions.

Overall, I'd like to see the dog in some context on the pitch to make your pics stand out a bit more.

dklod · Sep 10, 2008

srt86hil said:
I reckon the second one is alright technically but you've cut off his feet and need to work on the composition, even if you had some restrictions.

You need to read why this has happened.

My brother in law would go skitzo over these. I think you have done ok. You have pointed out things that could be better which not many people posting for CC do for themselves. Aren't the 2 rules in photography never work with kids and never work with animals?? :lol:

srt86hil · Sep 10, 2008

Yeah I kind of just scanned it... Although I would disagree with the OP that most wouldn't notice the lack of feet unless it was pointed out.

MAGIC PHOTO · Sep 10, 2008

wooooow

RebelTasha · Sep 10, 2008

I like two.. shame about the feet for me too..

travelerb · Sep 10, 2008

Thanks for the feedback everyone. Went back and got a few more put up, which seemed to have less of the problems as the other two. Of course, like always, you can click through the pictures to their flickr page to check the stats. (I've got nothing to hide, so they're there).

Number 3, jpeg straight from the camera:

Number 4, he really has feet:

Number 5, head too fat to focus on the whole thing:

And a slightly different subject matter, but one other photo I really liked. Just snapped a couple walking by, and it happened to turn out really well, I think. I just liked the son and father looking up in the foreground, really captures a lot about the whole experience, in my opinion.

So number 6:

Thanks again for the comments, and more are always welcome.

Jasmine S. · Sep 10, 2008

What a beefy dog..I think he could tear someone apart, but yet he is so cute!
I am certainly not qualified for any sort of C C so to the beginners eye, I like #3!

travelerb · Sep 12, 2008

Jasmine S. said:
What a beefy dog..I think he could tear someone apart, but yet he is so cute!
I am certainly not qualified for any sort of C C so to the beginners eye, I like #3!

(small bump for the new shots)

I think beefy is right. Its hard to see just how big until you are up close. I can't remember the exact size, but I think he weighs around 58 pounds, and his predecessor was even bigger!

And you (at least as much as me or anyone else) is well qualified for C&C. No one has to be a pro to know if they like a picture or don't like a picture, and even what they do and don't like. Sure, a "beginner" might not use terms like saturated, unsharp mask, hue, or contrast in critiquing a photo, but I likely wouldn't know exactly what the writer is trying to say or what to do about it next time anyway without continuing to learn more!