Just a Dog

[canonrebel]

 

[usayit]

Cute puppy....

I think a tighter crop would do wonders... There's not much expression on the dog's face either.

 

[voodoocat]

There's not really any contrast in this image. Yup, it's a dog. But that's about it. Nothing really pops out at me. It's pretty much a snapshot.
I would get down lower when working with smaller subjects like pets and kids. It gives a much better perspective than looking down at them.

 

[Sharkbait]

Yeah, what voods said. The trick with kids and pets is to get a different perspective than what we see when we look at them in real life. Get down on their level (or lower!) and shoot straight on or up at them.

 

[canonrebel]

There's not really any contrast in this image. Yup, it's a dog. But that's about it. Nothing really pops out at me. It's pretty much a snapshot.

There's not much expression on the dog's face either

Here's a tighter crop of the original.
This snapshot was snapped with a meager kodak 2.4 mpxl.
It is a non-edited shot (it has no editing what-so-ever). It has only been cropped

I've got to get my monitor professionally calibrated. I'm seeing contrast that must be missing on other monitors. I'm seeing great detail in the dark areas (nose and eyes).

Has Anybody used that monitor calibrater that suction-cups to the face of a monitor? Is it worth the money? What are some software apps that can be used to tune a monitor?

 

[Rainman]

I'm pretty new here, and I learn from reading critiques. When I have been around a while maybe I will get up the nerve to submit something, but right now I am just getting the lay of the land. I do not lay claim to any significant expertise, but I've done some studying and reading and taken a few photos. And I obviously have opinions as to what appeals to me in a photograph. I first saw this photo a few days ago and wrote up several paragraphs of ideas, posted it, and immediately deleted it. Almost every day I have come back, typed something up then not posted it. OK, enough background and hedging.

Canonrebel, I have truly admired a couple of your other images. I have also been impressed with your comments on the images others have submitted. You obviously have a decent grasp of what makes an effective image and how to accomplish one. If you seemed to be a complete novice I would never ask this and risk discouraging you, but I have to ask. I am very serious and truly not trying to be a smartass. What was the thought process that led you to submit this image for comment?
Regards,
Raymond

 

[canonrebel]

Hi Raymond, Thanks for the wonderful compliments

I am very serious and truly not trying to be a smartass. What was the thought process that led you to submit this image for comment?

I thought the dog was a good capture. The eyes were occupying a "third quadrant" (U know, the "Rule of Thirds"). I thought the rule of thirds application would at least make it worthy of being more than a mere snapshot. I thougt the sharpness, clearity, focus and and detailed would at least seperate it from the catagory of "snapshot". I thought the alert expression on the dogs face was also a plus. I mean, I've seen photos of crushed paper bags that were mostly out of focus and directly in the center of the entire picture that received more credit than my dog picture. And when I compared my dog snapshot to some of the dog portraits I've seen submitted here that were completely void of any simblance of composition and had focus difficulty, I truly thought I was submitting a photo rather than another dog snap.

Both my snapshots, the original and the outcrop were pure camera and no Pshop or other edits (other than crop). I thought that in and of itself would merit a citation a/c I'm inclined to believe that Pshopped submissions are illegal or somehow frowned upon by purists and Pshop non-users. And I'm not complaining about acceptance of Pshopped-biased submissions. I truely can understand that notion and agree to an extent--afterall, this is a forum for photography rather than faked-out snapshots.

The dog snapshot was the result of my attempt at a transition to place more emphasis on my camera rather than my expertise as a graphics artist. I feel that My transitioning to pure photography is morphing me from a graphics artist to a photographer.

Being a graphics Artist doesn't make you a photographer. Anyone who has a reasonable amount of photoshop expertise can MAKE an artistic photo. Only a photographer can shoot a artistic photo.

BTW, There are several professional-quality photographers present on this forum. And they do a really fine job of patternizing and placating us amataur snap shooters. Their compliments do wonders in encouraging us beginners to keep trying and to keep us interrested in the hobby.


That's my story and I'm sticking with it.LOL

 

[Rainman]

Canonrebel,
Thank you for a candid response. Now I see where you were going. The image was just kind of unexpected in the context of some of your other submissions, and I wasn't sure what to make of it. I think your background in graphics will be a good foundation for you in photography.

I agree with you about over-manipulation. I am more interested in composition and light.

Here are a few thoughts on this photo. Someone has already mentioned the angle. Getting down with the puppy would do a lot. I would like to have a hint as to what has grabbed the puppy's attention. We don't necessarily need to see it. That would be ok, but the photo doesn't suggest anything. In this particular image I find the leash distracting.

A picture of a dog by itself works for me if the dog is something like a groomed show dog or other dog that strikes an elegant pose. The stance and look alone gives the viewer a lot of information. Even a closeup of a smiling dog, tongue lolling, looking adoringly at the camera because his master is behind the lens, works because we can glean something. To me most other dog shots need more information for the viewer - a toy or ball that the dog is waiting for us to throw, a child, water the dog wants to jump into and on and on.

My photography the last few years has been limited to vacation and family snaps taken with a pretty basic digital point and shoot. I am going through them to see if there is anything worthwhile. I promise to post something for comment so you can see that I probably have no idea what I am talking about.

I look forward to getting to know you all and learning from you.
Regards,
Raymond

 

[danalec99]

I mean, I've seen photos of crushed paper bags that were mostly out of focus and directly in the center of the entire picture that received more credit than my dog picture.

Did you mean this bag ?

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5581=bag
Is it unprofessional/unlawful/unartistic to have the subject centered in a frame? I would not know since I'm merely a beginner!

 

[Karalee]

I mean, I've seen photos of crushed paper bags that were mostly out of focus and directly in the center of the entire picture that received more credit than my dog picture.

Did you mean this bag ?

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5581=bag

Is it unprofessional/unlawful/unartistic to have the subject centered in a frame? I would not know since I'm merely a beginner!

Im sorry but that whole thing is too funny

 

[Rainman]

In an interview a wood sculptor of some note stated that the sculpture is already in the wood, the sculptor just has to expose it. I look at photography in a similar way - an interesting image can be made of ANY subject if the photographer has the vision to see it. Sometimes we luck out and the image possibility leaps out at us. In other cases we may see only the potential, and finding the right combination of lighting, angle, cropping, composition, etc., takes several minutes, hours, days or even years.

So, yes, a crumpled bag lying on a nightstand, photographed in available incandescent light, with shallow DOF, can be very interesting - the way the lines and surfaces interact, the areas of light and dark, sharpness and blur, can combine in an attactive way. The same crumpled paper bag photographed with a flash may be just a boring piece of litter. On the other hand, if there is a blighted house with overgrown yard in the slightly out of focus background, you are telling a story. It's all in the vision, finding a combination that works.

Don't get too hung up on "rules". Rules, properly applied to an interesting image more effective, but an image can be crisply focused, perfectly exposed and follow all the rules and still be uninteresting if the visual aspects aren't there. Most of my photographs fall into this category. They are more my attempts to document things I see that I want to remember. Where possible I try to take advantage of as many visual elements as I can. Sometimes it is frustrating because I know the image would be more interesting if I could just get it from "that angle over there" but it is either impossible or impractical. Or I know that a scene would be beautiful in early light, but when I happen to be there at midday it will be flat. So most are interesting to me because of the memories they evoke, but I know they would be just more "vacation slides" to anyone else. As soon as I have time to go through some of them I will try to pick one to post.

Your pup is adorable. I hope to see more shots from different angles, with different backgrounds, etc.

 

[danalec99]

I mean, I've seen photos of crushed paper bags that were mostly out of focus and directly in the center of the entire picture that received more credit than my dog picture.

Did you mean this bag ?

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5581=bag

Is it unprofessional/unlawful/unartistic to have the subject centered in a frame? I would not know since I'm merely a beginner!

Im sorry but that whole thing is too funny

I'm glad it revokes a reaction in some way

 

[danalec99]

Thanks for the note Rainman and look forward to seeing your pictures.

Don't get too hung up on "rules".

I do not like the rules ruling over my actions. But subconciously the term 'rules' have gotten in to my head these days and I feel it is hindering my expression!! Need to work on it!

 

[Rainman]

Well, the "rules" do have a place. They aren't rules in the sense of "you should do it this way." They are more about how the human eye and brain perceive things. Most people who see your photos won't have any clue about the "rules". BUT, they may very well, either consciously or unconsciously, feel more drawn to an image that conforms to how their eye expects something to look. It is definitely important to be aware of these rules of thumb in our conscious mind because they are definitely there in everyone's subconscious.

One example, though, that is almost inviolate is that the eye will be drawn to the lightest area. Does this mean that the prime subject must be the lightest area? Not necessarily, but it does mean that the photographer should try to make sure that the lightest area either contributes to the image or at least does not distract.

The guidelines are also useful for us in looking at our own work and the work of others. For instance, when an image has in interesting look, but there is just something about it that you can't quite put your finger on. Running down a checklist might reveal opportunities for improvement. On the other hand if an image grabs me right off the bat I don't feel compelled to run down a checklist.

 

[danalec99]

I see what you mean Rainman; thanks.

And CanonRebel, I did not mean to barge in your thread. It was only for learning purpose that I pulled the crumpled bag image in.

thanks.