Dog portraits - there is everything wrong with these.

[Marie Hass]

These are not my best, but I post them for review and critique.

I am beginning to wonder if taking dog portraits is a 2 person job.

This is Chase, my newest rescue.

In this first picture, I was trying to capture chiaroscuro. Lousy job.



In this second, I was just trying - but I now have railing posts growing out of his head.



Please help me think things through better.

Marie

[Colin Southern]

Hi Marie,

I'm going to make a simple - but profound - statement, and I'd like to invite you to think about it in terms of your photos, and see if anything pops into place:

"our eyes are always drawn to the brightest part(s) of a photo"

Cryptic clue #1

[Marie Hass]

Not so cryptic, Colin.

Are you referring to that glaring white spot to the right of the...oh yes!!! The dog?

Marie

[purplehaze]

Marie,

I see that Colin is exactly right and I'm thinking you could rescue that chiaroscuro without too much work.

Other than that, I just wanted to say Chase looks like a lovely addition to the family. Congratulations!

[Marie Hass]

Hi, Jan!!!!!!!

Great to hear from you!!!!

Chase is a 9 year old English Cocker and he is wonderful. He came to me only because his other "mom" died suddenly. I am fortunate.

I still have Cheyenne. She is 16 1/2 years old now, and I think she will soon leave me. She is very tired.

I called this one, "Nappus Interruptus".



Marie

[Colin Southern]

Not so cryptic, Colin.

Are you referring to that glaring white spot to the right of the...oh yes!!! The dog?

Marie

Well yes - but there's more too it than that.

What I'm getting at is - perhaps - what's needed is a "step back" at the planning stage. In essence, you've trying to photograph a dark / mostly unreflective subject - so a good result is going to require careful processing and subtle variations in dark tones - and in that situation having naturally brighter tones are (a) going to compete for the eyes attention, but (b) they're also going to make life difficult for you in terms of what you're able to do in post production.

Here's an example of a "similar" shot (in terms of tones) that I did -- see if you can see the reasons why my job was easier than yours before I even picked up the camera:

[purplehaze]

I called this one, "Nappus Interruptus".Marie

How I know that look. Big fond hugs to Cheyenne.

Colin, excellent lesson. Before your second post, I was only seeing half of what you were getting at. Thanks.

[Marie Hass]

Dear Colin,

Okay. On your example, the background is already done. You are not having to do as much edits on it, as you are your subject. I know that I did have to spend a inordinate amout of time, in both of my images, trying to "fix" the background.

The plain background allows the eye to focus on the subject.

The lighting you have used is not as harsh. Direct sunlight is a harsh mistress.

Please tell me if i am being obtuse. I know there is more to this lesson than I have stated?

Thank you for taking the time to comment. It means a lot.

Marie

[dabhand]

Marie - Having run your image past 4 non-photographer dog loving people they all think Chase looks a splendid dog - with regard to PP #1 my only suggestions would be to tone down the highlights on the bedding and recover a little more of Chase's right eye as you look at the screen, from what I have seen, even in chiaroscuro 'the eyes have it'.

#2 is a bigger problem as a photographic excercise, but it's one to hold on so you can see the changes a little love will bring.

steve

[NorthernFocus]

First let me say that Chase is a real cutie. And yes taking true portraits of dogs often requires two people unless the dog is extremely well discipline trained. And even then it is often hard to get a natural look on their face.

Regarding comments/advice, the first regards "advertising". If you are going to call an image a portrait, then it should be done with a BG of your choosing. I think that's the point Colin was trying to make. Secondly, with the dog positioned at an angle the way it is in both shots, the framing is a bit tight. A 4x5 format with a little more room in front of the dog may work a bit better.

It looks like Chase got a lucky break landing in your home after losing his first mom

Enjoy Cheyenne while she's still with you. It is so difficult to lose them. We had two girls from the same litter for nearly 16 years. It still brings a lump in my throat when I look at photos of them.

[purplehaze]

Hi 'Rie,

Your points are all valid, but I think what you may have missed is the distribution of tones in your main subject. To my eye, the brightest part of Chase is the square of illumination on his neck and upper chest area. It is competing with the light on the right side of his face, which is where I think you would want us to look. Now imagine if Chase's chest were pure black.

[jamn4ex]

I think its more a matter of controlling the light , putting it where you want it, and only as much as you want.

[purplehaze]

Quite right, James, but I think Colin's job was easier because Colin could afford more or less equal illumination falling on the sleeves and the face as there are no tones in the shirt that risked competing with the brightest tones on the face.

[Colin Southern]

OK ...

Some folks are getting a little warmer than others, but time to put you out of your misery

Here's a cooking example; if you were about to prepare a fruit salad with subtle & delicate flavours (perhaps pears, water melon, green grapes), would you cut them up on an unwashed chopping board that had just been used to cut up onions and garlic? Of course not. Why? Because the onion and garlic remains would totally overpower & contaminate the subtle flavours you were working with.

Similar thing here. You've got a dog with subtle dark tones - so when you have subtle dark tones that we need to carefully massage so that the eye can differentiate between them, we really don't want a "garlic and onion" background that's going to (a) successfully compete against those dark tones for our attention, and (b) make if difficult to process those subtle dark tones when there are far stronger signals present (hard to adjust the subtle flavours in the fruit salad when all you can taste is the garlic & onion.

In a photographic sense, what I'd be doing is starting with a plain & dark background - either one that's naturally plain and dark, or one where it APPEARS dark compared to the the subject due to the fact that it's not receiving as much light (this can be as simple as choosing something not too bright - under-exposing it - and picking up the difference with a flash or two (and if it's diffused then so much the better).

Hope this helps.

[purplehaze]

Man, I was taking the background thing as a given, and focused more on the problem I saw with the subject. Please tell me if I am completely out to lunch.

[Colin Southern]

Quite right, James, but I think Colin's job was easier because Colin could afford more or less equal illumination falling on the sleeves and the face as there are no tones in the shirt that risked competing with the brightest tones on the face.

Colin made his job easier by not having a competing background OK - in a studio that's the easiest thing in the world, but outside the studio one can still achieve the same result, but it does take planning and forethought (and experimenting). It's an important concept though, because it may well involve people moving their photography up to the next level; let me explain ...

I think people go through several different levels:

Level one is where they learn to accurately capture what they see - to achieve this level they need only to master exposure and white balance (in simple terms)

Level two is where they start actually looking through the viewfinder and visualising the shot - eg "seeing the overflowing rubbish bin behind the subject or the patterns over the subject's face from sunlight streaking through the branches of the tree before they take the shot.

Level three is where they start thinking in more technical terms about how they need to approach the capture of a scene before them (the level we're talking here) so that the CAMERA (not the human) sees what we want it to see (eg in the studio I shoot with the room lights on, using strobes. If I put a strobe at eye height to subject left and take a shot at my usual F11 @ 1/125th one side of their face with be perfectly exposed whilst the other will be completely black - and yet both sides of their face will be perfectly visible to me at all times. The camera and humans see things differently and the only thing that's important is how the CAMERA see things - so we have to always thing in CAMERA terms).

Level four is visualising and constructing a result without seeing it (eg thinking "It could be a really cool result if I drove to such and such a place - setup lighting like this - set the camera like that etc", and then executing the plan).

If you apply this to photographing the dog in question, at level 1 one takes a well exposed and white-balanced shot of the dog - at level 2 one thinks about things like brushing his coat, giving him a wash, considers the surroundings in visual terms - at level 3 one starts to think about things like the reflectivity of the subject - how to capture that with respect to both the subject and the background etc. Level 4 would be thinking up a concept from go to woah and then executing it.

I talk too much.

[Colin Southern]

Man, I was taking the background thing as a given, and focused more on the problem I saw with the subject. Please tell me if I am completely out to lunch.

I like to think of a photo as consisting of 2 parts - foreground and background. If you only consider the foreground then you're only considering 1/2 the shot.

In this shot (from the inimitable Joe McNally), what would the result have been if the background hadn't been considered?



So we always need to consider the background - both in aesthetic terms, but also in technical terms. In Marie's case aesthetically it's only so-so because the bright spots draw attention away from the dog - technically it makes things difficult because those bright spots "the onions & garlic" make it difficult to manage the subtle flavours (the detail in the darker tones) - and to top it all off, there appears to be poor lighting of the darker tones (which again limits options for processing) (the first image more than the 2nd, but regardless, in both cases I'd have strobed the entire dog to get some good levels to work with)

Just to press the point a little, take a look at these 2 dog portraits http://www.photography-services.co.u...graphy-kaiser/ - and think of them in terms of how the background has made life easier for the 'tog (identical to my approach by the way).

[rpcrowe]

After the photographer masters lighting, f/stop and shutter speed; IMO, the next attribute that helps raise the level of the photo from a snapshot to a good image is attention to background and also attention to the edges of the frame to ensure that no nasty animal, mineral or vegetable protrusion is invading your image from those edges.

Conversely, cutting off a portion of your subject may also be bad...

I find it a LOT easier to 1. be cognizant of the background and #2. survey the edges of a frame and #3 ensure that I am not cutting of an important portion of the subject when using an eye-level viewfinder (my 7D viewfinder shows 100% of he image) than when shooting with the LCD as the only viewfinder. The 7D LCD is 3-inches. I find it very difficult to view the edges of the frame to intercept foreign bodies protruding into it when holding the camera a sufficient distance from my eye to enable me to focus on the LCD. The image is just too darn small for me to see clearly. Of course, that may be the function of an old man's eyesight. Additionally there is often interference from ambient light and from reflections on the LCD screen.

If I were "forced" to compose using the 7D's LCD, I would definitely add an auxiliary viewfinder such as one of these: http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&key...l_8ip11m2b6g_b

However, a Catch-22 may arise from using the auxiliary finder. I don't see how easily a photographer could make use of an articulating LCD AND an auxiliary viewfinder...

Many candid or non posed dog images suffer from busy and conflicting backgrounds. I always have to deliberately ensure that my backgrounds do not conflict with the dog's image. Sometimes it is quite difficult and a PITA to achieve...

One way is to use a background of ice-plant or some such vegetation. This shot also makes use of some judicious selective focus...


Another way is to use a long focal length and relatively wide aperture to totally blur out the background. That is when having a lens that produces pleasing bokeh helps greatly...


Of course, there are times when a background contributes to the theme of the image...


When I shoot dogs, I try to shoot from their eye level. However, sometimes, in action shots, shooting from a bit above the dog's eye level will keep the background free of distractions...


When shooting posed (studio) images, you have the advantage of being able to select a B.G. which will contribute, not distract from the dog's portrait...

Look at the big paws of this puppy. He is now full grown and larger than his dad!

Even when doing posed shots, a bit of cropping/cloning will often help. I shot this image to show the setup for shooting the boxer daddy with his two puppies. I wanted to show the canvas background and two people controlling the dogs. BTW: one lead is being held in the holder's teeth...


When viewing the image showing that setup, I was taken by the expression of one pup looking at the dad. I decided to make an image out of that look by doing some judicious cropping and cloning. That will explain missing part of the puppy's foot. I was not looking at the foot when I shot the image.


I will often shoot candid or un-posed images alone, especially if the dog I am shooting is fairly well trained. It is difficult for me to shoot a puppy alone because it will usually run up to me and I will be shooting down at my shoes. However for studio shots, I always want to have someone controlling the dog and then clone out the lead being used (the thin show type leads are easier to clone out that wide leather or nylon leads). In fact, I won't shoot a studio shot without a controller...

[Shadowman]

I can't believe how well behaved those pups are.

[Marie Hass]

Again, I have neglected my own thread. Work and meetings to prepare for have conspired to make me insanely busy.

Steve, Dan and James, thank you for your comments and suggestions.

You are right, Colin, and as always, thank you for your studied answers and examples. Your discourse has given me much to think about and try to put into practice.

Jan, thanks for grounding me. You asked me consider other aspects of the image that I had missed.

Richard, I appreciate your discussion. That, plus the images you provided, really illustrate the points you were making.

I have copied everyone's commentary for further study. It has given me thought for my next project.

Marie