Too Old For Puppies............

[yobenny]

[Digital]

Nice photo of the dog. One comment, if I may, is the photo in MHO would have best been served taken at the subject's level.
Bruce

[RogerCook]

Yes while Bruce is correct as soon as you move to eye level that puppy is all over you, dogs are soooo frustrating to photograph! Great looking photo and dog Benny, is that a Blue Healer?

[yobenny]

OK why is her level a better shot? I thought the way she is looking up was pretty good.

Thanks that is a Holy Hell Terror On Paws dog but I heard someone say she looks like a Blue Heeler.

Her Mama will not stop dressing her up, I keep telling her that is not a Foo Foo dog that is a REX kinda dog
but women are women and all puppies are angles and all that rubbish........

[Donald]

OK why is her level a better shot? I thought the way she is looking up was pretty good.

I'd say that it's because shooting from above like this throws the perspective off. You end up with a head that looks disproportionately large in comparison to the body and legs.

It's the same as for people. You don't see many portraits looking down on people. They tend to be taken at the same level as the person

[rpcrowe]

Nice photo of the dog. One comment, if I may, is the photo in MHO would have best been served taken at the subject's level.
Bruce

Since I am an old man, I tend to boost small dogs on some sort of elevated platform rather than bending down to their height...

However. shooting from a distance with a bit longer lens, tends to reduce the angle at which you are shooting and also reduces the perspective distortion.

I would have liked to see this portrait without the distraction of the furniture in the background...

[Loose Canon]

Hi Benny!

Nobody or nothing is too Olde for puppies!

Miss Holy Hell Terror on Paws has an absolutely adorable expression on her face in your shot! And I say that in a very REX kind of way! Plus the sweatshirt, well, adds to the “cute” factor!

But as to the Point of View, one thing I will add is that by getting on the level of the pup, animal, kid, etc. is that there is also a “dominant/submissive” thing. Looking down on a subject puts them in a submissive pose. You have probably seen shots of (insert favorite band here) from above, but it was a lot above going for the effect. If this is what you were going for then you nailed it. But imagine if you will, this same expression looking straight at you instead of up and see if you can make anything from that. Sometimes you can even shoot “up” at them if you want a “larger than life” effect. Being careful not to be so close that you shoot up the nose. And Richard mentioned a golden way to make that happen, which is to increase your distance and use longer glass. As close as you are to your pup, the closest thing to the camera will be the biggest. That is her head.

Even full portraits of adult, fully grown humans are typically shot at chest to waist level. Not from above. For perspective considerations and just that they look better if you are looking straight into their eyes instead of down into them.

Well, so much for that Theory!

May I ask if you think that Miss Holy Hell Terror on Paws might have a color cast
happening?

[yobenny]

"May I ask if you think that Miss Holy Hell Terror on Paws might have a color cast
happening?"

I don't know what this means.....

I didn't really see her head as being that much larger than the rest of her, I suppose because it really is bigger and her ears are completely disproportionate to her body as well, which both of us really like about her. She will probably grow into them but right now they are pretty cute that way!

Getting a shot of her on her level is tough, she won't sit still for that. (she is a holy hell terror after all)
The idea of the longer lens makes sense, but at the same time, I don't think it can deliver that kind of personal sort of feel that this pic has to me.

I should try my hand at doing a photo shoot with her I suppose and try some different things.

Thanks for all the tips folks!

[Plumcrak]

Benny, I would normally agree that it is best to be on their level, but, Miss Holy Hell Terror on Paws is absolutely adorable and IMHO would be so from any angle. My dogs are 13 & 10 years old now so I can start getting on their level without getting only a close-up of their tongues as they come for me.

Look forward to more pics of this pup.

Cheers

[Mike Buckley]

I side with Benny about the perspective. It attractively shows the clothing and the physical relationship between the dog and its owners. (I like photos of small children looking up in an interesting way toward the camera for the same reason.) The distortion is only slight. Better yet, that distortion fits very nicely with the tilt of the floor. That tilt, whether intentional or not, is a nice fit with the comic aspect of a dog wearing clothes (with all apologies to the deserving Mrs. Benny.)

I assume the color cast that Terry refers to has to do with the white balance. The photo seems to have two light sources that have different temperatures. The "accurate" color cast seems to be in the area of the floor that is in the background of the chair. To deal with that, you would have to either adjust the color balance in the other areas of the photo or use a white balance applied to all areas of the photo that strikes a reasonable compromise.

I suspect from Benny's comment about how difficult it is to photograph this dog and from seeing his other photos that this one is probably more of a grab shot that he and his wife are understandably grateful to have. If I'm right about that, it might not be worth the effort required to deal with the color balance or to remake a similar photo that excludes the distracting background.

[Loose Canon]

"May I ask if you think that Miss Holy Hell Terror on Paws might have a color cast
happening?"

I don't know what this means.....

Hi Benny!

Different types of lighting will illuminate a scene differently because they have differing “colors”, measured by color “temperature”. In photography, color temperature and “white balance” are sometimes used interchangeably.

Basically, incandescent light will give an overall color cast of yellow(ish) and fluorescent-green. The eye compensates for this so we don’t notice it, but it shows up on digital photography and film.

I was guessing that you shot Miss Cutie Holy Hell Terror on Paws in a room that was lit with incandescent lights. I thought I noticed an overall yellow color cast probably caused by the lighting in the room.

So, I took your photo into my editor (I hope you don’t mind) and did a little color “correction” to see if I were hallucinating (likely) or if my thoughts on this held water. In other words I changed the white balance of your image to see if I could get rid of the yellowish color cast I thought I saw. And that’s all I did to it.

You may or may not like the results and I’ll sure be happy to take this comparison down if you prefer. Sometimes folks prefer a little color cast one way or another depending. But in serious digital photography, it is good to know a little about this color cast thing. It can sure make a big difference in your images.

I may not have hit the nail on the head with my white balance change, Benny. I did it quick. But at least I think maybe it illustrates a little of what I'm talking about. For your consideration sir. Before and after:

[Mike Buckley]

Now that I see the results of Terry's color correction, I realize that I was wrong in mentioning that the floor behind the chair in the original displayed the "correct" color temperature. His corrected image stills displays to me that there are two light sources with color temperature and confirms that it's possible to select one color balance affecting the entire photo that strikes an effective, very pleasing compromise.

[rpcrowe]

When attempting to get a pleasing color balance for any image (especially images lit by different light sources), I try for the best balance for the subject and let the BG go to heck, if necessary.

However, shooting in RAW and putting some type of white balance (I use the WhiBal Card) target in a frame lit in the same way as the subject will give me a starting point. This is usually a very correct starting point and then I will adjust from there to get a pleasing rendition...

OTOH, my eyes seem to be more forgiving of an image that is skewed toward a warmer balance than toward a cooler rendition...

I am fortunate that my Maltese have built-in white balance target - their white coats...

[yobenny]

Thanks for all the great insights to this. I'm just starting to learn about white balance too.
I finally got my beta CS6 to open raw files but it opens them "over" full screen and I cannot get to the controls to save it and I guess that's beta for you but I will at some point.
I think I like the warmer under exposed colors better than an adjusted image, it just looks too blue to me and even though it's much more true to color it just doesn't look as inviting to me. I may prefer it in between those two shots but the adjustment is definitely an eye opener and shows just how off color the original is.
One of those light sources is LED (I think) the other regular light bulbs.

I dont really understand the starting point to work from in an image with a WhiBal Card like maybe shear white something in the frame?

[Loose Canon]

Just for the record, Benny, I used the floor tile that is in shadow just to camera right of the table leg to tap in the white balance correction.

I tried several spots in the floor and a couple of white places on the pup’s coat for a starting point. Some seemed more off than others and some were close to each other.

And I probably did choose the coolest (most blue) option and as I recall warmed it a tad (I think!). I just went on what looked okay to me. Unfortunately, I have not had the pleasure of meeting Miss Cutie Sweetie Pie Holy Hell Terror on Paws to see her coloring! Just wanted to illustrate a thought!

It wouldn’t be a problem at all to get a version somewhere in between! This might be a good place to start:

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...4245-print.htm

And I’m looking forward to seeing more of her, Benny!

[yobenny]

OK you will have to speak-very-slowly to the idiot savant who is great at eating but not so good with a camera...
Is this process done on the camera or post production?
In photoshop?
Does everybody do this to all their shots outside the golden hour?
My shots on auto on the nikon 3200 ALL look too cool to me they look "blue" so I guess I cant fix that on auto setting but maybe in adobe......
Also is thing a must have or a worthless toy?
http://www.expoimaging.com/product-o...w.php?cat_id=1