Back Modifications (3)
Views 75 Unique 36 Award Shortlist   

Still there?

By Relic01  
I have been working on capturing more 'intimate' glimpses of dogs lately. My wish is to show their more "human" side if you will. I am a firm believer that while done differently, animals still feel.

EFIX data-f5 1/400 135mm ISO 100
23 July 2019 1309 hrs

Tags: Dogs Odin Pets and captive animals


mrswoolybill Plus
14 2.4k 2294 United Kingdom
25 Aug 2019 9:07AM
Oh, that look of sad, resigned patience. 'All I'm asking is that he throws that ball but no, he's got to play with the camera instead...'

So you have achieved your aim in capturing a very readable mood.

For critique purposes we do need the Exif, I guess you have used Save for web, it strips the data from the file. Can you add it as a note please?

What I am looking at is composition. The out of focus fur in the foreground is something of a barrier, because it is so close to us, but I can also see it as something for the dog to sink into for some peace and privacy. It conceals the tip of the nose, which is unfortunate. But I decided to leave it.

What doesn't work for me is the right side of the frame. My principle is - space behind a head (of any kind) is generally wasted space. And here it has the added distraction of the harness and the buckle.

So a simple crop. For me it concentrates attention on the expression and the search for a bit of privacy. See what you think.

But we do need that Exif…
dudler Plus
17 1.4k 1740 England
25 Aug 2019 9:36AM
I'm with Moira all the way, here.

In terms of capturing the moment, you've nailed it, absolutely: the technical side is a little bit behind, and it's hard to comment on that without more data.

For now, I can only suggest having the camera set in a way that is likely to require little adjustment if you suddenly see a picture coming together in front of you: have one or more 'walking about' settings that you keep the camera at - high enough ISO to allow shooting in the prevailing lighting conditions without the shutter speed dropping too far, the right lens on the body for the sort of shots you may take.

In other words, if you've just shot a landscape with a wideangle lens, go back to a longer focal length before turning the camera off. Don't be lazy about this, because that way you miss (or bodge) a lot of shots!
chase Plus
15 1.9k 482 England
25 Aug 2019 10:52AM
Moira has it with the crop, removing some of the distractions.
Personally I would go even further and crop off some... not all, of the OOF bedding/blanket ? at the bottom to really drop the focus on that lovely expression.
Relic01 9 8 Canada
25 Aug 2019 1:53PM
I will add the exif data today
pamelajean Plus
14 1.4k 2168 United Kingdom
25 Aug 2019 2:18PM
I like your idea of capturing the "human" side of the dog, Mike. If you can do that, the viewer of your picture will feel empathy with the feelings of the dog. This indicates success. It's an interesting challenge.

In this photo, I feel there is too much prominence on the harness. The dog's eye is sharp and clear, and that's perfect, but it should be the eye that immediately captures the viewer's attention, not the harness. So I think the crops in the modifications look good. However, looking at them objectively, it isn't immediately obvious that the out-of-focus foreground part belongs to the dog. I don't want to be critical of the modifications, but am expressing my feelings and the way I might see them if I hadn't already seen the way the dog has turned its head and is looking back and over its own body, as in the original full frame.

Keep up the challenge, it's an interesting one.


banehawi Plus
16 2.3k 4177 Canada
25 Aug 2019 2:18PM
Nice idea. Good tight focus on the eye.

A tighter crop would work; its hard to isolate the head without the intrusion of the out of focus body at that angle, and that aperture presumably.

Also loaded a mod. I more interested in the exposure of the dogs head than the background which is reflected in the mod.


Relic01 9 8 Canada
25 Aug 2019 5:59PM
ISO 100
dudler Plus
17 1.4k 1740 England
26 Aug 2019 9:12AM
And the lens was?

If it was a 70-200, I'd say that higher ISO and a slightly smaller aperture would have worked better.

Then zooming in on the face, excluding more of the foreground and background. However, there's always a compromise between going in tight and allowing a margin for error, and doing a little cropping in editing. It's great when you can frame perfectly, but when you are rushing, it makes sense to frame a bit wider, in case you don't aim perfectly. However, this is where the camera part of the EXIF matters - there's a world of difference between how much yo ucan crop with the first Sony camera I had (10mp Alpha 100) and my current one (42mp Alpha 7R III).

The kit shouldn't matter - and it often doesn't. But when you want to squeeze quality out of a tricky situation, the best modern gear beats anything older.
Relic01 9 8 Canada
26 Aug 2019 1:31PM
sorry it was a Nikon 55-200
dudler Plus
17 1.4k 1740 England
26 Aug 2019 4:21PM
So there was scope to zoom in further, if you had time. And the camera body?
Relic01 9 8 Canada
26 Aug 2019 8:57PM
Nikon D7100, no time, I looked up from shooting one of my other dogs and the shot was there
dudler Plus
17 1.4k 1740 England
27 Aug 2019 10:39AM
Get the shot first, and then refine it, if you have the opportunity.

And then, it depneds: for a family picture, or a news photograph, imperfections are fine: for competition use, you need the second (third, fourth, twentieth) refined shot.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.