Near the Place De L'Opera, Paris (after much controversy over the years, I've decided the dog is a Bisenji). Note spare dog in bag.

I'm not sure what the controversy over the years has been, but I'm virtually certain that the dog is a miniature pinscher. Basenjis do not come in solid colors (at least the many I've seen have always had markings of some sort on at least their face and/or neck) and do not have cropped ears (their ears are larger and naturally upright). Miniature pinschers are typically reddish brown all over and have cropped ears. They are also smaller than basenjis. In short, they look exactly like the dog in the picture.

 

Another tip-off would be that I saw a number of women carrying toy dogs around in bags on my only visit to Paris. Minpins are "toy dogs" that fit nicely in a bag while basenjis are quite a bit too large.

 

I like miniature pinschers and I like your picture, too!

 

 

 

Lovely

It is humerous without being condescending or sarcastic. I keep two dogs (I don't say "I own two dogs" because I am afraid they actually own me!) and hate most sappy dog pictures -- but this is a fantastic portrait of a woman and her companions.

I really like this image, and I don't at all mind the horizon tilt. I really like the look on the dogs face, and the timing is quite wonderful, as well as the movement of the woman's arm and the geometry of the table and chair.

 

I am glad to see a quiet, funny moment captured by an ordinary SLR with a normal lens, in a way it's a good URL to point my friends to when they are about to dump their life savings into a leica because they think one totally has to have one in order to shoot great street photos.

I owned a Leica at the time (still have it now, but it's been unused for years and years). I had a lot of trouble using it then. Rangefinders get me all in a tizzy. Same thing with the XPan... at least it has a meter and an auto-wind... and then there's that Panoramic format. Despite all these whizz-bang Hassy extras: "SLRs forever"!

I love this shot. But do you really think that's another dog in her bag? It looks like a shawl or wrap of some sort.

 

Perhaps you saw more evidence while you were there.

 

Great catch.

I was being ironic, Jim.

 

Actually it was a fox-tail fur. But a fox is a kind of dog isn't it? Or is it nearer to a cat? Or is a fox just a fox? If I'd have written, "... Note spare fox in bag", you'd have been entitled to ask, "Maybe.... but where's the other fox?". There being no other fox in the scene, I would have had to change the caption again to say, "Note fox in bag". It just wouldn't have had that "ring" to it, would it? I mean, it being dead n' all.

 

Let's REALLY get pedantic now...There are those who say that Bisenjis are not real dogs either, because they howl instead of bark. Now THERE'S a conundrum... So, perhaps I should have said, "... I've decided the animal is a Bisenji). Note furry object in bag". Nah... wouldn't work.

 

Glad you didn't ask whether the wine was pinot or grenache. I'd have been out on a limb there (heh, heh, heh.... yes... well...hmmm....). And as to the boots and the bag... were they cheap leather, or real vinyl? And what about that hat... fake or feral fur?

 

No, I'll pass on the grapes, the leather, the fox, the Bisenji and the hat. I'll just stick with "dog" squared. But you got me thinking, Jim. Yessiree. Good comment!

 

After the Spinakking I got a few comments above (regarding the verticular integrity of the picture - and I will go to my grave believeing that the leg on that table needed a serviette chocked under it), I am of the firm belief that some questions are better left unasked and that some debates are better left unarticulated.

 

Cheers,

I figured you weren't serious...but you never know....these are French folks, afterall.

 

The dog looks terrified. She's got him in a half nelson, really stretching out his leg there with her left hand.

 

He doesn't know which hand to bite.

I like this shot a lot, although I'd rather see it as true grayscale (I like B&W).

 

The tilt does get to me a bit, and it seems to be about 4 degrees CCW (PhotoShop). When corrected/leveled it takes on a slightly new perspective. Although a correction of 4 degrees does place vertical elements in proper perspective IMO, the dog only appears to be tilted back an additional degree or so. It's amazing what our minds will tell us to see. Nevertheless, the dog does appear to be leaning back slightly in the leveled version which intensifies the effect where he is struggling to get forward to get that tasty bit of food offered by his master.

 

The tonal range seems to be quite good. Good contrast, no blown out highlights, etc., but if I had a Flextight scanner I might have assumed there was some detail captured in the front of her hat during the scan and might have brought it out a bit. The detail is there, I checked. Just a thought.

 

BTW, forgeting about the spare dog for a second, what about the spare wine? 2/3 of a bottle gone and a spare bottle in the bag. I know this is France but...

 

Nice shot. One of those that just appears from time to time, usually when your camera is not at hand.

 

 

 

John (any relation to Man?),

 

The front of that hat has tantalised me for a long time. I'm convinced there is no detail there, now that you mention it. I've printed this in a darkroom and couldn't extract any texture from it at all (and not for want of trying). The brightest parts of the plates on the table need a lot of coaxing too, but there is just enough to make them worthwhile working on. Back to the hat: I think what you saw as "detail" in the front of the hat may have been JPEG artefacts. This area always prints and loupes (is that a verb, Mike?) as totally flat, if not black then very, very dark gray, and being featureless (i.e. fun-fur), I may as well let it go to black or near-black.

 

It's a neat point of scanning technique (and printing technique): when something is flat and textureless and right at the end of the gray scale, do you let it go to black (or white, as the case may be)? My feelings are that there is no true black or white point in any properly exposed neg, close, but not the full "0" or "255" digital value. I always scan with about -1% breezeway on everything and only tighten my highlight and shadow points at the very end of editing, before the final Save.

 

I still can't get the "tilt" controversy straight (hey, a pun!). What's tilted, Mike and John? Not the table, as it obviously has a wobbly leg (foot?... whatever) - check out the wine in the glass. I always thought the "tilt" in the verticals at the back was perspective distortion, maybe I'm wrong...if so, then I deserve all the stick you guys have dished out to me.

 

I'd like to say something enigmatic like, "You are missing the higher statement in the image by spinnaking with the details", but actually I love details, especially when they are intelligently debated, in good humour, as in the comments above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This picture shows a large amount of details given by the situation. It's only possible due to the harmony and connection of the items in the context, therefore keeping it clean.

 

Hey, that's a great photo that cames with a great discussion and analysis by the previous contributors... Rare event. Nice!

I still think there's a case here for pincushion distortion in the lens (even though it was a standard 50mm) giving the APPEARANCE of tilt.

 

Treat what Morwen says with a grain of salt, fellow photo.netters: mathematicians are notoriously unsound on mere empirical matters such as the present controversy (heads in the clouds, would prefer a matrix to a martini, wouldn't know how to use a calculator if it hit them on the head &etc.).

Hilarious.

Not a Cartier-Bresson. An original Tony Dummett.

The highest praise I can give any photo is 'interesting' and this one truly is. Good work.

You can see the lead-up to this pic here. I can't imagine what I was thinking when I made the introductory pix to this (composition: awful, interest: nil). BTW: I like the mysterious figure in the top left corner.

Every square inch of this image is fitting to the composition design and balance.

that's a very good picture. I admire this work because I find it very difficult to catch the right moment when taking people. You did it!

And it's funny that you call your folder a "bad immitation of Cartier-Bresson". You shouldn't be so modest...your pictures are not an immitation, they are yours and have your style and show how you look at people. They are very good! Congratulations!

The communication between the two subjects is priceless.

I have just been laughing loud here in front of my PC thanks to you and your madam-dog-photo. The best photo i have seen for long ... for ever, perhaps. And ok. ... the comments are very entertaining too. Happy New Year 2003.

+ + +