Someone else's dog

hamburger · Apr 7, 2007

I attended the Easter bonfire on the beach at my family's cottage tonight and one of the neighbours brought their Bernese. I just love them, they're so picture-sque, so I couldn't resist the challenge:

1.

Naila

2.

Isn't she a picture?

3.

Having a rest

4.

Dog meets dog

(all unedited except for a bit of cropping and adjusting the lighting - this was just after sunset on a cloudy evening so quite a challenge. I'm aware erasing some of the grass and reeds would be a good idea but I quite simply lack the skills.)

LaFoto · Apr 8, 2007

Oooo, Naila has a pretty face and very, very beautiful eyes!!!
You can see the entire surroundings reflected in those eyes! Very well chosen DOF and focus is perfect in these, too. I see you no longer had oodles of light and you managed what little there was ever so well! You learn how to use your "new toy" pretty fast!!! But when you can test your "new toy" one someone as pretty as Naila it can only be a joy to try out your new knowledge, can't it?

I also like the little scene in the last pic. Yes, there might be the odd mildly distracting twig there, but hey ... it is on the bank of the lake, so twigs or blades of grass belong there! You had to go "wide open" for the last with the dwindling light, right? But - Naila is in focus, and she was the one! Well done!!

ShootHoops · Apr 8, 2007

Nice shots. I love #3.

hamburger · Apr 9, 2007

Okay, next time I'll try and catch my reflection in the dog's eyes... ;-)

Motorcyclists like to take the obligatory self-portrait-in-the-mirror - how about aiming for a self-portrait-in-the-dog's-eyes ????

LaFoto · Apr 9, 2007

You might even be there somewhere ... there is something tall to be seen.

_Jerry_ · Apr 10, 2007

Very cute dog, and very nice photos also!

The_Traveler · Apr 10, 2007

Isn't anyone going to mention exposure or composition?

hamburger · Apr 21, 2007

The_Traveler said:
Isn't anyone going to mention exposure or composition?

So what was that remark aimed at?

The_Traveler · Apr 21, 2007

hamburger said:
So what was that remark aimed at?

I was surprised to find five comments and no one had yet mentioned that several of these pictures were underexposed (1,2,4), one was clearly off center (2) and one badly out of focus (4).

This is a photo site and I assume that you want to improve and you want to hear where the photos could be improved. It is the responsibility of the viewers to help you.

hamburger · Apr 28, 2007

The_Traveler said:
I was surprised to find five comments and no one had yet mentioned that several of these pictures were underexposed (1,2,4), one was clearly off center (2) and one badly out of focus (4).

This is a photo site and I assume that you want to improve and you want to hear where the photos could be improved. It is the responsibility of the viewers to help you.

Right-oh. So why didn't you say so in the first place?

As for your comments - no, I don't buy them. These photos were taken at or just after sunset and that is what the pics reflect. I quite like the fact that they don't "shine" and they definitely don't come out as undereyposed on my screen. The only thing that is clearly out of focus in the picture you made that comment on is the "other dog" in the photo - Naila herself is fine and she was my centre of attention. Not to mention the fact that dogs moving about after sunset are not ideal to focus on. As for "clearly off centre" - if you really aim to help (and I, for one, did not find your comments particularly helpful), please explain what you mean. We want our objects to be off centre, don't we - I seem to remember it doesn't do to have things slap-bang in the middle and that there is such a thing as the rule of thirds and what not?

The_Traveler · Apr 28, 2007

You are right. I should have addressed the pictures directly. My only excuse is that I was surprised that no one addressed these issues.

When taking pictures at dusk, I typically overexpose (according to the meter). Your pictures were underexposed according to the PS histogram and if they look bright, your monitor may be turned up too high. I have made some edits to three of the pictures you posted - not touching #3 which was terrific.

Each of the first two had the levels edited and both contrast and brightness increased by 20.

Original on top. In edited version, one can see some detail in the hair that was completely blocked up before.

This has the same edits but additionally I rotated slightly to correct the vertical. Original on left. I have no problem with off-center images; it is images where what should be intuitively vertical is slighly off - and is not part of the composition.

The big white space in the center of this one was distracting and the OOF dog was too prominent so I moved his/her over and then cropped most of him/her out to give more emphasis to the dog you are focussed on.

Alex_B · Apr 28, 2007

nice, i like the first one ... a shame that you framed it so tightly that you cut off some part of the head.

something is not perfect with the white balance, I can smell colour casts.

#2 has too shallow DOF for that perspective IMHO.

#3 is very nice, but slightly overexposed. and the others underexposed.

mdw · Apr 29, 2007

Hi!

They're not bad, but they lack some energy. Could be the dog though... :lol:

What I mean is that they miss something of a context.

#3 would be my fave but you could really improve this one by cranking up the contrast, colors and DOF. Add a little vignette and make the shot a little blurry around the dog, to get a more dreamy feeling to it.

Just a thought...

gr,

Roger

hamburger · Apr 30, 2007

You know, guys, thanks for all the comments and advice but let me tell you two or three things in explanation:
a) Tastes vary. What one person sees as athmospheric, the other may view as too dark and lacking detail. Thing is: I was there and to me these pics reflect what I saw. Not sure what you mean about context, mdw. And I definitely don't go for vignettes, blurry edges and stuff. Yikes!
b) I'm not an expert at editing. I have no Photoshop skills (I have no Photoshop, period), I do my humble little thing, improve what I can, crop a little, improve lighting a little - but I sometimes wonder whether actual photography isn't going out of the window in favour of digital wizardry...
c) Sometimes I don't understand the technical terms properly - my English may be good but I have yet to grasp all the photo-lingo.
d) to Traveller: I had already rotated that photo (#2 - it might have helped if you had not omitted the numbers in your critique) but had I rotated it to fully vertical, I would have had to crop so much that it would have spoiled everything. So compromise was the order of the day. BTW - why did you post the slanted versions here?
e) I am still working at understanding all my camera can do. And those photos came into being as a spin-off of attending an Easter bonfire. This was not a photo session and I was definitely not concentrating on technical merit and details. They are, in fact, snapshots at heart - and as far as snapshots go, I think they are pretty damn good (and Naila's owners thought they were the best pictures of their dog they had ever seen). I certainly didn't have my camera's manual with me to check up on things - and in the fading light that wouldn't have done me much good anyway. Oh, and I'm still totally in the dark about white balance. That still excapes me and is definitely one of the things I need to swot up on...