I like to get my pets to pose for me.

Laika · Jan 10, 2009

I can't say that I was a fan of the first shot the first time I opened the thread, but the more I looked at it the more I liked it - as this picture seems to grow on you.

My first reaction was to wish that the depth of field allowed for the eyes to be sharper, but I think it makes for a much more interesting shot that the teeth are in focus which makes you concentrate on the smile. Pictures of dogs often lack originality, this picture is a truly unique shot.

dtornabene1 · Jan 10, 2009

ATXshots said:
Cute poses, but I agree they would be way better if the dog was sharper.

Thanks ATXshots. It's hard to see on a little LCD screen at the time and working with WiFi and my laptop while shooting a dog, just a bad idea. So I shot and the client loves them (there a quite a bit more than these two) so in the end I'm happy and learned how to do it better.

Laika said:
I can't say that I was a fan of the first shot the first time I opened the thread, but the more I looked at it the more I liked it - as this picture seems to grow on you.

My first reaction was to wish that the depth of field allowed for the eyes to be sharper, but I think it makes for a much more interesting shot that the teeth are in focus which makes you concentrate on the smile. Pictures of dogs often lack originality, this picture is a truly unique shot.

Thanks for taking the time Laika. I am gald you like them. I try to be as unique with pet portraits as possible. I just love it when they smile.

-Nick

JimmyJaceyMom · Jan 10, 2009

OOH You have the MarkII I am officially jealous! I can't wait one day!

I think round these parts soft focus is known more as slightly OOF and I see they aren't retouched as you have written above the photos. Sharpening for web could be the reason number two seems not as sharp as you may see in print. In number one it's obvious that the teeth and nose are sharp as you have previously posted but the eyes aren't which for some people in a portrait can be a turnoff, it's all in whatever you were going for and it's a hilarious picture so the owner of the anilmal will love it no doubt! I think you already agreed that a 3.5 or so would have been awesome seeing as with ISO 100 you were getting a 1/250 you would have had enough light to get up to 3.5 with fast enough SS to catch the dog. I know dogs are TOUGH!

mat wildlife · Jan 11, 2009

Agree that #1 is technically not that great, but it really cracks me up - a priceless image with that smile.

Craddie · Jan 11, 2009

"That's your opinion and I thank you for taking the time, but it doesn't help. I can tell from photographs posted you are not a fan of shooting wide open. It takes a lot of bravery to shoot wider than f/4. It is just not as forgiving, hence the comments above."

I don't think shooting wide open takes bravery, just judgment. Any moron can buy expensive gear and take poor pictures with it because they lack the skill or knowledge to use it properly.

What requires bravery is asking a client to pay for pictures that are out of focus.....or posting shots like these and offering your services to Mentor other photographers.

dtornabene1 · Jan 11, 2009

JimmyJaceyMom said:
OOH You have the MarkII I am officially jealous! I can't wait one day!

I think round these parts soft focus is known more as slightly OOF and I see they aren't retouched as you have written above the photos. Sharpening for web could be the reason number two seems not as sharp as you may see in print. In number one it's obvious that the teeth and nose are sharp as you have previously posted but the eyes aren't which for some people in a portrait can be a turnoff, it's all in whatever you were going for and it's a hilarious picture so the owner of the anilmal will love it no doubt! I think you already agreed that a 3.5 or so would have been awesome seeing as with ISO 100 you were getting a 1/250 you would have had enough light to get up to 3.5 with fast enough SS to catch the dog. I know dogs are TOUGH!

Thank you, very nice cc and understanding of pet photograhy.

mat wildlife said:
Agree that #1 is technically not that great, but it really cracks me up - a priceless image with that smile.

Thanks!

Craddie said:
"That's your opinion and I thank you for taking the time, but it doesn't help. I can tell from photographs posted you are not a fan of shooting wide open. It takes a lot of bravery to shoot wider than f/4. It is just not as forgiving, hence the comments above."

I don't think shooting wide open takes bravery, just judgment. Any moron can buy expensive gear and take poor pictures with it because they lack the skill or knowledge to use it properly.

What requires bravery is asking a client to pay for pictures that are out of focus.....or posting shots like these and offering your services to Mentor other photographers.

This is the dumbest response I have read to date. If you believe the images are that bad, so bad in fact I should put my camera down and never call myself a professional, you're an idiot.

Do you know how many shots are taken for each page of Sports Illustrated? Of course you don't.

These photographs were posted for the sole reason of cc. Name one photographer, you can't and don't bother, that has never asked for cc on a photograph.

And yes, it does take guts to shoot with this lens. I'll do the math for you because you obviously have never shot with these apertures. At f/1.8 2.5 meters (thats about 7-8 feet) you have a DOF of 3.5 to 5 cm (1.5 to 2 inches).

There is an old saying, "f/8 and don't be late". I can tell from looking at your images in this forum you fall in this catagory.

Sorry, but you have no idea what it is like to shoot with this lens or at this DOF. As stated by JimmyJaceyMom, sharpening in pp would do it. However, I am a professional and I am will to post unedited photographs on this forum.

Get the equipment and shoot at these apertures and show your results. Until then, you have no idea what you are talking about.

-Nick

Dick Sanders · Jan 11, 2009

Let's get the big picture here

Man, some of you guys are getting hung up on the wrong things. Step back and look what Nick's got here. #1 is great. And both pics are successful for the pet owner.

I think changing the DOF or focus on #1 would only have made the picture something less. Something more conventional. So what if you can get everything in focus if you use this or that f-stop. So what if the DOF stretches from the nose to the ears? What are shooting, a breeder's guidebook?

One of Diane Arbus's most famous portraits was of a woman whose lips are in focus but whose eyes are not. And yet the photo has tremendous impact. You wanna tell Arbus to use f5.6 instead of f2.8? (oh, sorry, you can't...she's long gone).

Nick, you really captured life here. A dog's life. What personality comes through in this portrait!

dtornabene1 · Jan 11, 2009

Dick Sanders said:
Man, some of you guys are getting hung up on the wrong things. Step back and look what Nick's got here. #1 is great. And both pics are successful for the pet owner.

I think changing the DOF or focus on #1 would only have made the picture something less. Something more conventional. So what if you can get everything in focus if you use this or that f-stop. So what if the DOF stretches from the nose to the ears? What are shooting, a breeder's guidebook?

One of Diane Arbus's most famous portraits was of a woman whose lips are in focus but whose eyes are not. And yet the photo has tremendous impact. You wanna tell Arbus to use f5.6 instead of f2.8? (oh, sorry, you can't...she's long gone).

Nick, you really captured life here. A dog's life. What personality comes through in this portrait!

Thanks Dick. Its always nice when the true professionals realize the art of a photograph and can leave the science alone.

The owner now has a 30 x 40 masonite. So, I guess it's not so bad of a photograph after all? She paid $350 for it and thought it was under priced.

-Nick

uplander · Jan 11, 2009

You ask for c&c, okay, you got c&c but anything negative you take great offense at while anything positive you take lavish bows( thank you, thank you). I don't think you really wanted any critique and comment you just wanted kudos for your work. Any time you got a negative comment you went on the offensive to tell the commenter on how wrong he/she was. I have no time for posters of this mind!
Good day thank you :grumpy:

dtornabene1 · Jan 11, 2009

uplander said:
You ask for c&c, okay, you got c&c but anything negative you take great offense at while anything positive you take lavish bows( thank you, thank you). I don't think you really wanted any critique and comment you just wanted kudos for your work. Any time you got a negative comment you went on the offensive to tell the commenter on how wrong he/she was. I have no time for posters of this mind!
Good day thank you

I take what I said earlier back, this is the dumbest post yet.

I do not take offense at cc to my work, read above posts. I do take offense when individuals question my abilities as a photographer. Critique the photograph and provide constructive criticism. All for it.

I acknowledge everyone in this thread who had a suggestion other than praise. I do not except mindless bs about my ability. More importantly, this is the professional gallery. I do not expect cc from non-professionals as it is so clearly identifiable here.

I should have put the disclaimer, only professionals need respond.

Notice, my comments to those who are established professionals. Obviously you have not bothered to even read the thread. This is unfortunate but common. If you would have read the thread, you would see I am receptive to constructive criticism.

-Nick

P.S. Only professionals need post.

JimmyJaceyMom · Jan 11, 2009

Good Lord people, now I remember why I was gome from tpf so long, always 'issues' why is everyone around here so cranky?

Dick Sanders:
The whole point is this, if you post a picture for cc on a photography site you will get all sorts of opinions. Some you will like, some you won't but the whole idea of it is to hear from those people so you can get a different perspective on your photo that may stick with you and help you grow as an artist.
When I talk about getting the eyes in focus too it's because that's the way I would prefer it, doesnt mean that the poster should have done it but in some people's opinion it would be less distracting to veiwers, thereby drawing more attention to that awesome expression if the eyes weren't blurry. That's all. I wouldn't tell Diane Arbus or anyone else that they were 'wrong' when they created their art - but if they ASKED for opinions on the matter, wether is was Diane Arbus or my 5 year old I might give my own idea about what could be done to improve possibly along with what's right about it in my opinion.

This photography forum could be so great if everyone would stop worrying about what everyone else is saying to everyone else, give their own opinion on the photo(s) being asked for and move on to the next. Sheesh.

dtornabene1 · Jan 11, 2009

JimmyJaceyMom said:
Good Lord people, now I remember...to the next. Sheesh.

Fair enough Kathi. This is one of my chief complaints. I don't mind you cc, appreciate it. What I personally don't like is the comments on my professional ability.

Don't take this out on Dick. He is just trying to make a point, and a good one. There is a lot of cc on focus, color balance, noise, etc., however there is little on the feeling of a photograph.

This is the professional gallery. Therefore, I (and I'm sure Dick) don't mind cc on these topics, but it does get a little old to keep repeating the same things over and over. Look and the first three or four post in this thread. I had to keep telling people those subjects had been covered. As to say, move on and give me something other than DOF.

I do sincerely appreciate your time and effort to write. It is your honest sincerity that gets lost amongst others' ignorance.

Thanks,

Nick

Dick Sanders · Jan 12, 2009

JimmyJaceyMom said:
I think round these parts soft focus is known more as slightly OOF and I see they aren't retouched as you have written above the photos. Sharpening for web could be the reason number two seems not as sharp as you may see in print. In number one it's obvious that the teeth and nose are sharp as you have previously posted but the eyes aren't which for some people in a portrait can be a turnoff, it's all in whatever you were going for and it's a hilarious picture so the owner of the anilmal will love it no doubt! I think you already agreed that a 3.5 or so would have been awesome seeing as with ISO 100 you were getting a 1/250 you would have had enough light to get up to 3.5 with fast enough SS to catch the dog. I know dogs are TOUGH!

Kathi: I think what we all want here are thoughtful, courteous opinions and critiques. You've certainly done that. And your post is valued. But a few of the responses were shallow and rude. I think we can all benefit from spending a little more time with the "Preview" post before we submit.

By the way, in my own portrait work, I always try to get the eyes sharply in focus. That's my preference, as well. Still, Nick's dog portrait works as is.

Finally, I twice saw a big retrospective show on Diane Arbus at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. And it was, indeed, a revelation to see that a portrait could be highly successful with the eyes out of focus. But more important... they showed her cameras, her darkroom equipment, her proof sheets, etc. She had a lot of bad pictures on those proof sheets. That was encouraging. She also wasn't a very good printer. The prints of her photos made by others in the show were much better than hers. So, you are right -- had she posted a pic here and asked for opinions, we could have offered our opinions on how to improve it (at least in the printing of it).

Advice for Nick: Resist responding to the rude ones.