nederob1 Loc: Brandon, Ms

D7000, Nikon 70-300mm VR f4.5-5.6, focal length 90mm, 1/400, f5.0, ISO 100, manual exposure, no flash.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

I like the way you filled the frame and colors are lovely. However, I really, really want to see the dog's eyes :)

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

I'm a sucker for pictures like this, but I would like to see the whole head. That can be another shot; don't change this one. And I'd rather not see the eyes; it maintains a certain mystery. Besides, if I saw the eyes, they'd bore right through my heart.

As a general comment, all you people posting pictures of dogs are starting to get to me. I miss not having a four-legged friend around! :cry:

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

Now since I posted all of that I will have to get down to a critique.
First I do have to ask what were you trying to portray in this photo? My eye goes right to his nose. Since I can't see his eyes the subject seems to be the nose.
The lighting is nothing special and he isn't doing anything overly interesting. What does this dog like to do. Is he like my little dog that is a couch potato. Take a photo of him basking in the sun in a spot of light streaming through the window. Does he like to play catch. Take a photo of him jumping for the ball.
Do you want a formal portrait of him. Set up some umbrella lights and take a portrait with dramatic lighting.
You can do this. Pet photography is every bit as legit as any other kind.

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

I keep coming back and thinking about this, mulling it. I think, RonnWinn, that that was a tish harsh. I think Country's Mama has it right in that Nederob1 has every right to post. I tend to assume that every post here is intended to be serious and ask for critique, since that's pretty clear from the section title. I don't think any kind of picture or subject matter ought to be excluded. There is a presumption that, if the picture is here in this section, the poster wants a good deal more than a back-thumping "good job, great shot, :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: " thing. In this case it happens to be a beloved dog, and Nederob1 presumably wants a serious critique about how she can make this a better portrait, and/or better portraits in general of her beloved pal. Elsewhere in the section we have already seen so-called "snapshots" (a term I don't actually care for) with serious inquiry as to what could be done better, and serious replies. There's always gonna be good, bad, and ugly, but I'm disinclined to banish any picture or subject matter because, in this section, it is about "How can I make this better," and I think there needs to be a presumption of innocence.

I like Country's suggestions about how to make better dog portraits, and I don't think I could do better. When I was in this racket I cringed when someone brought in any animal, but I did my best. I made liberal use of squeaky toys, treats, and a dangly thingy on a fishing pole. I even used a dog whistle. My experience was that you got it in the first 60 seconds or not at all. Short attention spans. Once I had a matched pair of boxers, brothers, very young. Oh, boy! :shock: We had to get them both in one picture. They whirled and barked and joyfully leapt and whirled some more. Then one suddenly threw himself full-length on the carpet and the other sat up, tongues out, both looking up expectantly at their beloved owner. FLASH! Done! Cut! Print! The only usable picture I got, but I displayed it in the window. :)

nederob1 Loc: Brandon, Ms

Thanks Chuck and Country, I'm very perplexed about this. I just don't get people on forums like this one and others alike who rants about people who are really trying to get advice from people who have done this for a while and have a lot more experience than the one who posts the picture. I realize there are people that just wants to post pictures just to post them but I and others really put the pictures on the site to get REAL critiques on the photo, about lighting or seeing the eyes or whatever, something that they can run with and improve on. I am a real newbie to photography and I like it (I always have) and I am "really" trying to get some sincere advice from experienced photographers. You really can learn "believe it or not" from people with years of experience, I know I've been doing my job for 37 yrs and I know what I can do and I know I can give down to earth advice to Newbies instead of a belittling. How are people going learn and get better at photography or something else other than going to school where you just learn basics and not real world problems, unless you get it from people who are in the know. Well; I think could get something good or bad out of a response that I read if it had something in it other than just negativity. If people for some reason who might think they'er on a higher level than others come down to earth everyone would be in a better place. We are all the same in God's eyes. That's Enough Nederob1

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

Now with all that all out of the way. Lets see what you can come up with that is an improvement. It doesn't need to be perfect, just better.

Musket Loc: ArtBallin'

It doesnt stand out to me. Theres no real emotional response here for me. Massive dof ruins it for me. I think I would have shot this on a table, straight on, with a different lens. 50mm at f2. The thinner depth of field could have added a bit more drama.

To me its just a pet snapshot.

nederob1 Loc: Brandon, Ms

Thanks Musket for your comments. But what do you mean emotional response ? Me giving an emotional response on my photo or sending an emotional response in the photo ? The pic Emily, I guess what I was wondering was if the exposure part of the photo was right and didn't think about asking for comments about that particular thing or anything else from the photo. I get it now. And can you explain a little more about the dof like to much and making it thinner. Thanks Nederob1

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

I do not think this is a "bad" picture at all. In fact it is quite a good picture. The picture is technically fine. It is perfectly exposed, the frame is filled, and it is wire sharp (I'm a sharp freak). A couple of people are bothered by not being able to see his (her?) eyes—not even a catchlight behind that marvelous welter of bangs. Thus the emphasis does seem to be on that black-ice nose, but to some extent that is because of the breed, no? I do think that catchlights (those bright points of light reflected in eyes) would bring the focal point back to the eyes, but if you popped an on-camera flash on this pup I don't think it would improve the picture and might even ruin it. OFF camera flash or other lighting is another matter, and that's what I would probably use. (You can, by the way, add catchlights in post, and I see nothing at all wrong with doing so.)

I think what Musket (and others) is saying is that the picture, as a picture, is as Country's said, "…nothing special." It seems not to have story. It evokes no emotional response. The picture is special to you because she's your special pal, but as a photograph it's really no more than a technically well-executed snapshot (for lack of a better term). I don't agree about the depth-of-field but that's minor. Country's I think envisions a looking-out-the-window-thinking-deep-doggy-thoughts window light portrait where you can see one or more bright eyes. Or something. Just not this.

I think you nailed it technically, and you love her (him?) so you see things that others do not, and there's the self-assignment: try to make others see what you see. It is not easy! I am not saying that I could do it! What I take is no better than high-quality snapshots. I make no pretension to art. But—I know it when I see it. You seem to be doing fine technically. The trick is to be able to make the camera see what you see so others can see it, too.

Whatever you do, don't give up! Critique is entirely a matter of subjective opinion! But you want to improve your photography so you are in the right place. Keep on keepin' on. :thumbup:

MIKE GALLAGHER Loc: New Zealand

nederob1 -good to see you ask a question. Makes all the difference.
Depth of field is probably better described as deeper or shallower. The deeper, or further back that it reaches, means more of the background that's in acceptable focus. Shallower means less is in focus from foreground to background.
When the shot's taken the DoF, as you'll often see it shortened to, can be controlled by the aperture size you set. If you'll accept a little exaggeration an aperture of f2, with the camera lens close to Pooch's nose, might give you a photo with his nose tip out of focus, the hair half way back to his eyes in sharp focus and his eyes a bit blurry.
You can see that the floor at bottom right is out of focus (detail not very clear) and at top right it's even further out of focus, that part being further away from the camera. A smaller Aperture would have had the out-of-focus blurrines (we call that Bokeh - bit like a bunch of flowers seen from a distance) go a lot sharper whereas a bigger aperture would place the in-focus part somewhere between the foreground and background but for only part of that dimensional depth.
I'd say you probably used a slightly bigger than half-size aperture opening and had the camera reasonably close. But using a zoom lens would could make nonsense of that idea.
The result can be purely a matter of taste so try various settings mostly ensuring you keep the exposure anout right and you'll start seeing what I mean.
From his comment I take it that Musket would have liked to have seen the Bokeh starting at about an inch back from the eyebrows thus starting to lose focus there and putting the background as just a shade of colour. That's a matter of taste. It'd at least be an interesting exercise to see if you could achieve that and see if you like it. But the shot you got certainly tells us what he looks like and I can't find anything in it to criticise.
Mike.

Nightski

I agree with Linda. The eyes are so important in a portrait style photo. I know you can't feed these little dogs much, so photograph her/him before breakfast and use part of his/her breakfast as treats to get the look you want. :-)

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

great shot real sharp but I'm afraid you will have to take another pic . every one wants to see the other end .

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Whatever, in the name of sociopathy, would ever possess you to make a statement like that?

As to the photograph, nothing is the rules governing this site requires that a submission to be a master work of art. There is nothing wrong with saying that a photograph is simply a "charming" or "darling" picture.

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

it's a real nice picture I agree but I would rather see the end with . you know where the eyes and mouth are .