Here's my cool dog, Aslan

[LMenkes]

Hope you like C&C welcome!

 

[chaosrealm93]

pretty cool eyes. a bit overexposed for me though.

* first thought when i heard aslan, the lion from narnia

 

[bennielou]

I love this photo. Strong eyes, strong crop, and strong processing. Love it.

 

[tirediron]

Good composition, but drastically over-exposed and with insufficient DoF; his nose is very softly focused.

 

[Big Mike]

* first thought when i heard aslan, the lion from narnia

Shouldn't that be your *only* thought?

The shot doesn't look overexposed to me. It's a white dog that appears white in the photo. The histogram shows no clipping on the right side, so I wouldn't call it overexposed. Bright maybe...but not overexposed.

 

[LMenkes]

Thank you very much for the input I really appreciate it, and yes he is a white dog with cream ears and brown/black mouth and light brown nose. He is a chow. Thanks again I'm just starting out and learning all I can!

 

[Mesoam]

its blown out but i like it a whole lot more than the run of the mil "OHHH LOOK AT MY stupid PET"

 

[bennielou]

On my monitor, it's not blown out at all. There is tons of shadow detail. Are you using a laptop, Mesoam?

 

[Mesoam]

nope

 

[tirediron]

The shot doesn't look overexposed to me. It's a white dog that appears white in the photo. The histogram shows no clipping on the right side, so I wouldn't call it overexposed. Bright maybe...but not overexposed.

Not to derail the thread, but I would submit that an image can be over-exposed without actually having clipped/blown highlights. I don't have a way to bring up a histogram on my work computer, but when I look at the OPs image, espcially in the forehead region, I see large areas with almost no perceptible detail. I think a one stop reduction in exosure would have greatly increased the visible detail as well as the definition of the animal's face.

 

[bennielou]

Hi Guys,
On the image I see, it's bright as Mike said, but not blown out. Lots of detail.

Im looking at the image on a HD, highly calibrated (weekly) lab synched machine.

I like the image a lot, and I think if it was actually printed via a calibrated system, you might see it the same. I know Mike calibrates as well. Maybe that is the difference.

 

[Big Mike]

I don't see any blown out (loss of detail) area either. Although, if I drag the window over to my 2nd monitor...it does appear that way.
I checked the histogram using a histogram viewer plug-in and it isn't clipped.

Not to derail the thread, but I would submit that an image can be over-exposed without actually having clipped/blown highlights. I don't have a way to bring up a histogram on my work computer, but when I look at the OPs image, espcially in the forehead region, I see large areas with almost no perceptible detail. I think a one stop reduction in exosure would have greatly increased the visible detail as well as the definition of the animal's face.

That is certainly true...but if the dog's hair is actually white, then it should fall very close to the right of the histogram (255)....and it probably is hard to distinguish detail in that area. That would be proper exposure....nothing wrong with that.

Now, if it's someone's opinion that it's too bright, that's a valid comment. By slightly underexposing it, the detail in the fur would be easier to see...although, it wouldn't appear to be as white.

 

[Diddy2theJJ]

I really like the photo as well. I also color calibrate my monitors and I can see detail. It's very bright, but I love that about it...it pulls your eye right into his knows and eyes. Like mentioned above, I would like to see the nose in focus as well, I think that would really help the shot out.

Nice job!

 

[LMenkes]

Thank you!

 

[g-fi]

So, what breed is he?