steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

God knows that many of the critiques here on the 'Hog are severely lacking in substance. But we all need to remember that it is an open forum with no membership requirements. As such, anyone who asks for advice, critique, or criticism must bear this in mind. If they disagree with or dislike any responses they get, they bear the responsibility to research the source.
There is no "proper response". Everyone is entitled to their opinion. And everyone else is entitled to treat that opinion in whichever way they see fit. The same applies to secondary opinions as well.
Whether the critique is unjustified praise or cut to the bone criticism, the respondent is entitled to their opinion. And the OP can do with that opinion whatever they wish. There's no need for critique police.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

Now i could agree to that comment as long as the critique is directed at an image and not at a person.
But it is not going to happen that way because there are too many masochists masquerading as damsels
in distress and too many self avowed knights looking for an opportunity to brandish their shiny virtual swords.

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

👍

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

This post is absolutely "spot on". Thanks Scott.

jenny Loc: in hiding:)

[quote=oldtigger]Now i could agree to that comment as long as the critique is directed at an image and not at a person.
But it is not going to happen that way because there are too many
* * * * *
Separating the critique from the person has NOT been the practice anywhere on the entire forum, the downfall of any
place where critique is done on line so I have heard. Personality and critique do not mix, as you pointed out, and it was the
downfall of the old critique section, and has crippled the FYC section. It has thoroughly been ignored from day one of course
in the gallery section, where it is and always has been accepted that anything goes, but is tolerated ....(without critique of course).

Evidently that is because the gallery became the place for idle chat and vague minimal interest in photography with the flighty
fugitives from facebook who flocked in just as soon as that new section opened. They avoided the main section like the plague,
where they might have learned something, because learning anything at all was not among their interests.

The original FYC intention was to be a more peaceful place where photography was understood and discussed on a higher
level but soon degenerated into another critique section amid complaints that honest critique was not kind enough, and
therefore those who chose to be honest were to be silenced by elimination from participation. That issue, supposedly settled,
never really was, and those who sought to destroy others remain as as unapologetic as ever.

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

I guess we should be thankful we have such enthusiastic participants, and we should not just blindly accept or dismiss their opinions, but research their credentials and proceed accordingly.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

[quote=jenny]
Another good take....

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Tigger, that's some pretty heavy sh*t dude!!! LoL
SS

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

I think the whole point of the pic being critiqued is only evident when downloaded and looked at full resolution.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

It would be most helpful if you'd display here a picture you've taken of a totally black cat and explain how you dealt with the following issues:

(1) If she is healthy, her fur will contain substantial amounts of oil; she goes through life rubbing her oil {and subtle smell} in her territory - and chasing off rodents; it also means that her fur is extremely shiny.

(2) Their fur has space between the hairs, so some of the color you see is actually a result of the fact that even a dark cat has skin close in color to a Caucasian person {I found that out as my previous "buddy" cat "Magic", the one in my avatar, died of lymphoma and lost all of the hair on her neck in her last weeks}. I'm not sure whether this or reflections from (1) or something else is the cause, but I've never been able to take a picture of one which has only the color black and doesn't make her look totally flat.

(3) They have a mind of their own; even if you completely brush her, she will find a way to move around to imbed more dust in her oil before she is ready to even think about sitting for a portrait.

Currently, my best buddy is a black cat we named Leila after she adopted me at the cat pound. A few months ago, as part of a "Challenge" I set out to take a portrait of her, a process which tried the patience of each of us {despite our being buddies}. In order to make the process "more interesting" I was using a Super Takumar MF 50mm f/1.4 lens, but that isn't really relevant to this discussion, because I did get the focus very close to where I wanted it to be. I took the picture by natural light; even by pushing the ISO setting to 3200, I had to use a shutter speed of 1/10 to get a reasonable f-stop of f/6.5. If you look at this image
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-418957-2.html#7044096
you can see many of the faults you found in chefneil's image despite my having cleaned her before the adventure began and despite my using natural light.

TheDman Loc: USA

That describes everyone here.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

, LoL, Dman, that's funny....., finally, someone more cynical than me!!!
I would have said most, but not ALL! LoL
SS

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

And that points to the difficulty in lighting a black cat which, after all, should come out black, not gray. A black cat needs to be carefully illuminated.

Try taking a picture of a black velvet cloth - same problem. It does not cooperate with ordinary light. It acts like a light sink.

The only way to get either of them to show up is to illuminate the fibers with side light, shoot raw and develop for the specular highlights that result.

winterrose Loc: Kyneton, Victoria, Australia

In the case of the chefneil cat, from the fact that he said, “it was one of those moments when I had to get the shot, because she was about to jump down” indicates that the cat was atop a high piece of furniture the top of which might not be regularly cleaned and this might explain the unusual amount of dust evident in the cat’s fur.

The space between the hairs is not an issue in this case.

Your photo:

You say that you got the focus "very close to where I wanted it to be".

Is that truly correct because for me, most of the interesting bits of cat are blurred.....

But that is an aside.

Your question on how to deal with the problem of shooting black fur.

When something appears as being “black” in a photograph it means only that insufficient light was reflected from the surface of the object for it to be registered by the camera’s sensor.

The same goes for our eyes.

What we see, how we make out the shape and texture of the fur is by the spectral highlights or reflections available by virtue of the fact that the fur is “shiny”.

You say that you used natural light for your shot but that in itself is not the solution.

If I may elaborate on what selmslie stated, the way to get definition is to provide diffused light from all around the cat to minimize contrast as more direct light will cause specific areas of reflected light to dominate.

Correct exposure is also vital as there is a very real propensity to overexpose.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I'm still waiting for a "properly done" image of a black cat, and a comprehensive explanation of how it was done. Words are cheap; I'll come back once we have more than that. Getting the feline to come within hailing distance of what we want is the key. As I said to another person in another thread who was lecturing about how to light the scene, just about the last step, the cat gets up, stretches in slow motion, and moves slowly to under the sofa.