Last edited by judiscott; 28th January 2013 at 12:21 AM.
It is. For a while we had lots of cat pics on here, but they haven't been so numerous of late (On no, what have I started!?)
You didn't comment on what you saw as the fundamental differences that made the first once nice and the other not so good. I think that being able to explain that to yourself is the key to future success.
For me there are two major points:
In the first you're not looking down on the cat. You have the camera at the same level as the cat's head.
In the second the poor wee souls is being blasted by flash. I think you maybe had some fill flash on the second because it has a lovely light on it
Thanks Donald,
The second picture was taken several years ago with my old P&S before I had any interest (or knowledge) in photography beyond snapshots, so just pointed and shot as a rule.
The first picture was taken recently, after I've had my DSLR almost a year and have learned many of the tips you are pointing out. So thanks - I must be making progress.
However, the second one does amuse me.
And we'll see if you're spurring on a new trend of more cat photos!
I love cats and cat pictures... I do agree that the first picure is far superior but, I'd like to see a closer cropping on Pearl...
The second image was shot with a built-in flash which is an instant recipe for disaster. There is virtually nothing good that I can say about the results from built-in flash. This is nothing personal about your image...
Shooting cats or dogs with a bounced flash is much better. Of course, you need a hotshoe flash to bounce the flash...
If you don't have a hotshoe flash, available light is the best alternative.
However, Joe Demb has introduced a bounce device for bult-in flash which may work. I always use his FlipIt reflectors with my bounced hotshoe flash but, have never used this device for built-in flash. I cannot give it a first gand recommendation but, it seems like it should work if you boost the ISO up a bit...
http://www.dembflashproducts.com/