Richard's Rants

[rpcrowe]

Most of my CiC friends have read my rants about the quality of some of the imagery I get from volunteers in my rescue organization. Here is a fairly typical example of what I am often working with...



Most of us know what has happened when this picture was shot and how it could have been corrected when shooting. However, most of our volunteers are not photographically oriented. They are also priceless individuals who donate their time and resources to assist our rescue dogs. I do try to gently give some pointers on how the images could be improved but, the care that they are giving the foster dogs in their care is far more important than the photos that they shoot of them.

I will continue to try to improve the images. Sometimes, I can and sometimes the results are not great like this one. This is what I ended up working with the original image...



I tried masking the dog - but, even with Perfect mask, it didn't look good. This one looks like I tried to convert it to a painting... And there is, due to a finite amount of time; a limit to the corrections I can or am willing to make.

Oh yes, I asked for another image and may get one in a week or two; or I may not! AND... it may be better or it may not!

[Stagecoach]

Richard,

How about a very basic instruction sheet at the beginning such as below with two example pics, good and bad;

a) Please send me a photo once a ?????

b) When taking a picture of the dog please try and ensure that the background is ????

e.t.c.....................................e.t.c


Grahame

[rpcrowe]

Thanks, Grahame...

That is a very valid suggestion...

Been there, done that! I have provided several guides in the simplest terms. The problem is that I think our volunteers have been giving those guides to our dogs to read!

However, I had one lady say regarding a picture of about this same quality, "I really don't see anything wrong with this picture"

But, then some of them say, "Your pictures are really nice, you must be using a good camera"

[Colin Southern]

Most of my CiC friends have read my rants about the quality of some of the imagery I get from volunteers in my rescue organization. Here is a fairly typical example of what I am often working with...

It all but confirms my thoughts that cameras almost need to be licenced in some hands!

[NorthernFocus]

Maybe the best hope would be to get them to stick with cell phone photos. They're pretty hard to goof up. One saving grace is that most of the people looking at the photos probably don't know any better nor care. They just want to see a cute dog...

[Ken MT]

Could be this

[Colin Southern]

Maybe the best hope would be to get them to stick with cell phone photos. They're pretty hard to goof up. One saving grace is that most of the people looking at the photos probably don't know any better nor care. They just want to see a cute dog...

Actually, these days with cell phone shooting HD video, it might even be a good idea to get them to shoot a video and then do a frame grab - it would be like having several hundred photos to choose from.

[chauncey]

With the risk of sounding like I'm trying to teach my blessed grandmother how to suck eggs, I offer this...
realizing that we all have our areas of interests and expertise, accept their photographic inadequacies and try to guide their learning, frustrating as it may be. Colin's frame grab idea has merit.
Don't bother mentioning that your "good camera" has years of learning behind it.

[rpcrowe]

One saving grace is that most of the people looking at the photos probably don't know any better nor care. They just want to see a cute dog...

Very true. As an example; my late wife would swoon over any image in which her grand-children were pictured. She could emotionally extrapolate to a wonderful photo, no matter how out of focus, shaky, under-over exposed or poorly framed any image was.

OTOH... Unless an image pictured someone to which she had an emotional attachment; she could have cared less about the image. It didn't matter how technically and artistically good the image was; she had absolutely no interest in it...

However, good images really do a lot to increase the chances of a dogs adoption. But, adoption speed is not really critical since, once the dog is with our organization; it is safe, well cared for and provided attention and love. We don't have any finite fostering times for our dogs. They have a home with us for as long as it takes to find their "furever" home.

What I try to do is to attend all the rescue events at which our dogs are featured. I bring my camera/flash and a fleece throw. The fleece throw goes over one of our folding chairs and the dog is plopped into the chair. This results in very adequate images.

Lately, since we have three litters of puppies at home to care for and who need to be fed three times daily, I have been doing the puppy sitting task while my wife goes to the rescue event with our dogs.

By the way, I have shot dog pictures with my wife's iPhone and with her little Canon P&S camera just to show people that you don't need fancy equipment to capture a decent image. I have included these images in the "how to" tutorial that I send to our volunteers...

[benm]

>>But, then some of them say, "Your pictures are really nice, you must be using a good camera"

If they invite you over for dinner you can tell them, "That was a very nice meal, you must have a good stove".

[DanK]

Yup, most people don't much care about the quality of photos, sad to say. I find that I unless I am with other photographers, I usually end up telling people what is wrong with mine, rather than the other way around. I wonder if you could get folks to pay more attention if you pointed out to them that it is for the dogs' sake that you want to get nicely done photographs.

[Colin Southern]

>>But, then some of them say, "Your pictures are really nice, you must be using a good camera"

If they invite you over for dinner you can tell them, "That was a very nice meal, you must have a good stove".

I must remember that one. A previous one I used to use (stolen from "What the Duck") was (when people say "nice photos - you must have a good camera") is "Thank you - your lips make nice compliments"!

[FootLoose]

Or: 'you must have a very expensive computer, you write well'

[Colin Southern]

Or: 'you must have a very expensive computer, you write well'

Damnit - how come everyone has better examples than me!!

[Mike Buckley]

Damnit - how come everyone has better examples than me!!

They have better search engines than you to look that stuff up on the Internet.

[Richard Lundberg]

Bing! no.wait…….

[pnodrog]

Just substitute a hi res, in focus and well exposed look a like - nobody but it's mother will know the difference...

[Colin Southern]

Bing! no.wait…….

LOL - that really did make me laugh!

Bing is so bad that I've had several occasions where I've needed to find a file to download on Microsoft's site - so I search within the site (using Bing of course) ... can't find it. I then use Google to search the entire web and it nails the exact file on Microsoft's own site in a split second.

Bing ... pack up your toys and go home. You lost!

[Colin Southern]

Just substitute a hi res, in focus and well exposed look a like - nobody but it's mother will know the difference...

Reminds me of a cat that was being transported by an airline. Employee thought they'd be nice and check on the cat & give it a drink etc. Open up the cage and cat is dead! Oh SH*T! Employee panics and replaces the cat with one from the shelter.

Owner comes along - takes one look - "That's not my cat".

Ma'am, what do you mean "that's not your cat" - the label says "black cat" this is a black cat - label has your name on it - it's your cat.

Owner: "That's NOT my cat"

Ma'am - it is your cat - it's just looking a bit tired from the journey - we get this all the time.

Owner: "THAT'S NOT MY CAT"

Ma'am - could you please tell me what makes you think that this isn't your cat?

Owner: "My cat was dead -- I was returning it home to be buried! ..."

Oops!

[Colin Southern]

I wondered if de-convolution sharpening might help with the OOF blur.

Nope!