Snout

Lighting: excellent.

Sharpness: excellent.

Digital black background: why not, after all... but this is part of the reasin why the picture ends up being very descriptive and soul-less.

Composition: too tight. What for...? Can't the animal be allowed some breathing space - especially at the bottom, but on the left as well ? The mouth is even cropped and this cropped seems impossible to justify imho.

Blue coloring of the eye: striking at first glance but imo relegates the picture into semi-kitsch after the first 3 minutes looking at it. It also adds to the extremely cold feeling I get from the shot.

The pose: so stiff ! Seems to be an anatomy drawing or such, especially with this tight framing.

Conclusion: I find the picture absolutely soul-less. If that is truely great photography, then I think there isn't much talent needed to succeed in this field. And Darren is MUCH more talented than this imo.

Sharp, clean, a little touch of color on the eye, and done ? Not for me. As Bernhard said, it's a good looking eye-candy, except for the flawed framing, but that's it imo.

There are quite a few pictures in Darren's folder which I find MUCH better and much more inspiring than this one. I'd say that Darren's style is in general very cold, but sometimes very interesting, as in http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1442325or even http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1432842

Good technique is good, but a picture with some soul to it is a lot better to me.

I don't understand why people are complaining about the eye - many huskies have eyes that colour, and I'd be inclined to think that is the natural colour of the dog's eyes.

I like the blue eye. It made me imediately wonder what the dogs thinking. Moved me from a picture of a dog to what's inside the dog.

 

"More specifically, does this image succeed?" YES

 

"Does it show character?" YES, must be a well trained dog to pose for the pic (or a quick photographer)

 

"Does it show emotion?" I get concentration from the dog.

 

"Does it tell you anything about the animal?" perhaps not enough but I still like it.

Since I love dogs, I love this picture. I truly believe that dogs have souls - truer and

kinder souls than most human beings. The dog in this photo clearly is a noble being

and that is wonderfully captured.

In general, it appears to convey a message of trust, confidence and friendship. In answer to the questions, I think it succeeds in the area of originalty, the dogs character and reliability.

 

Love this.

Several people have suggested that the eyes have been selectively colored (as in "borderline tacky selective coloring of the eyes" or "a little touch of color on the eye, and done?"

We'd have to hear from the photographer, but my experience with Huskies is that this is exactly what they look look like - black and white fur with blue eyes. So what's the problem?

 

Great image. I'm not sure there are many better animal photos on the site.

The mouth is even cropped and this cropped seems impossible to justify imho.

 

I just flipped through Jane Bown's 'FACES' (see SMP's inspiring critique) and while there are a dozen of cropped of head tops, there are only two where the chin is slightly cropped, so I guess Marc is right, although I wouldn't have seen this as a problem at first glance.

Several people have suggested that the eyes have been selectively colored (as in "borderline tacky selective coloring of the eyes" or "a little touch of color on the eye, and done?" We'd have to hear from the photographer, but my experience with Huskies is that this is exactly what they look look like - black and white fur with blue eyes. So what's the problem?

 

-- Sam Fentress

 

Well, first look at the lower eye lid, this one is partially blue too. It IS colored in photoshop. Is this a problem? No, not at all. The problem is, and I just speak for myself, that if it looks artificial, the whole pic falls apart (again: for me) or more precisely, the notion that I'm seein something real as opposed to something contrived. And again, that's just me, my preference.

 

It's just the same with specific female body parts: They may have the same size and if they are natural I fall for them, if it is [edit=word change] artificial I turn away. Others may like it, I don't, just my personal preference. Made myself clear?

 

The blue eyes here are borderline for me, which means they are almost to blue to be true, but they still look like they could be natural.

 

Great image. I'm not sure there are many better animal photos on the site.

Sounds like you need to spend a little more time in the gallery section :o)

Ok, I see some posts after mine saying that this is the real color of the eye. Maybe so. I should have been clearer about what bothers me.

I didn't really go into details on this issue, but if the eye wasn't colored, then the rest of the picture was desaturated. What I'm arguing against here is not the blue eye itself, but rather the fact that the eye seems to jump out from the rest, and that the saturated vs. desaturated trick - which often works as an eye-catcher -, is so often used for very weak reasons.

Why would one want to have the eye in color and the rest in B&W in this case ? That's my question. It adds impact, that's given, but then what...? Or if you prefer: is it right in your opinion to emphasize artificially the eyes - whether this is achieved by coloring the eye or by desaturating the rest of the picture ? To me, it's a gimmick. I can see why it may appear as a door to the mind of the dog, but in my view, if the expression is strong - and I think it is fairly strong here -, it is better to let people discover this strength without a color vs. BW emphasis. The color vs. BW effect here shows me too strongly what I would have seen anyway, and siply gives the picture an artificial flavour which is, to me, unwanted. I would even say that this effect interrupts my access to the expression as such; now all I see is a blue spot on a b&W surface. I hope this clarifies a bit what I meant in my previous comment. Regards.

I side with many that digital manipulation of the eye color is just WRONG for pet photography. After all, if you cannot trust your pet, who can you trust?!

Besides that, Bernhard seems to be right about the fact that the eye was colorized. Indeed, I hadn't look so closely before that, there is a bit of blue OUTSIDE of the eye ball...

Well done Darren!!

 

This is a very strong picture. It makes you to look.... and look... and look...

 

I had some experience with huskies and I know they have vivid, deep blue eyes, but I too think, that this here, isn´t the natural eye. But I like it.

 

I had another problem when I was looking at the picture - I started to search the other eye. The pose makes me feel it should be there. Or just a little of it. It made me nervous - seriously. Maybe it´s me...

 

This is just my humble opinion -

Ales.

Absolutely agree with Bernhardt and the body parts analogy. Definitely don`t like the blue eyes, for me it makes the pet photo a commercial photo: imagine an indigo illuminated Omega watch in the upper left corner - blue eyes work great and the whole composition is very original. If this weeks theme would be "the use of pet subjects in ads" I would top rate it. But that`s not the case. Pets are animals and animals belong to nature - the photoshop-blue destroys the harmonie of the photo, especially being a b&w.

 

Thechnically I like the composition, especially the framing. To answer the elves' questions:

 

- the image does succeed but I would definitely pick another one in the original pet photo category (not Darren's fault - personally, I wouldn't have ruined the intimate feel of the close shot with the cold eyes but that's another question.

 

- to me it shows less character and even less emotion than it would with natural eyes - they draw my attention to the artificial part and make the photo shallower.

 

- exactly the detail that I don`t like makes this photo original - take it away and you'll see one of the many perfect and fairly original shots on the site. I would rather see that.

 

M~

Amazing portrait. I love the texture of the hair, the color knockout of the eye is perfect. Also, the black background is key in a portrait like this. The angle isn't totally original, but the collaboration of other techniques makes this a very original shot.

Very fine detail. Amazing response to us all who dont believe in digital.

First off I would like say that I agree with the negative points on kitschiness using selective colouring of the eye - I would prefer full colour, or complete B&W. Secondly I also agree the crop is too tight, particularly on the nose. BUT, I really like the detail, the oversharpening, the DOF, the tonality, light, and I have a penchant for Huskies! These preferences mean I am biased toward liking this picture a whole lot, regardless of those two drawbacks.

I think that originality certainly can be seen here. Although we see many selective coloured pictures, they almost always accompany poor technique, composition or whatever, and I too believe it is used too often to cover weaker aspects of a photo. However here I get the impression it was a wholly intended decision, to draw you toward the 'windows of the soul', bringing your attention to the characteristic of determination and focus, rather than show personal traits of an individual dog.

I understand that some find Darrens treatment cold, even sterile, and on a certain level I can't disagree because the crop is so tight that there is no context, the detail is verging on scientific study, and the angle doesn't allow for any action or behaviour. But, I like detachment, distance, and pure study at times. I like coldness, and so do huskies! In this respect the portrait might actually be trying to tell us something of the breed in general. Pet photos are notoriously twee and cutesy, and for me that would be the worse kind. Chocolate box sweetness that inevitably will make me feel sick. I see Darren's picture not as the best of his portfolio, but certainly worthy of acknowledgement as a notable 'pet portrait' in a category where it is rare to find originality.

ps No disrespect to Darren but here is my personal fave of pet portraits:Tint, the most regal of pets.

Thank you for all of your different responces, This is my Dog, her name is "Angel" she has one blue eye and one partial blue eye, the eyein the image is the blue one. I hope this clears up some of the confusion.

At first glance the image does stand out, for me partly because of the fine detail in the hair, but mostly in the blue eye. It makes me wonder why the image isn't in colour if the eyes are truly that colour, because the rest would not have been so different considering a husky's colouring. I too feel the poor dog is rather boxed in. I'd like to see some space infront of him/her, and I'm a bit bothered by the out of field right eyebrow. As for the questions posed by the elves, I don't feel it particularly shows emotion - more concentration on something we don't see and that's what kept the dog still. I think you have to look into a dog's face to get a sense of character, and I think a shot of any husky from this angle would show a similar character. It doesn't tell me alot about the animal other than it looks relatively young and healthy. I think it's too close to show much more. But these questions have all been put forth by the POW team and were not necessarily issues considered or intended by Darren. So I think it's an attractive enough shot for what it is. I'd just like to see the coloured version.

I agree with majority of voices over the excellent lighting and sharpness. But does the photo show character or emotion? No. It is a bw photo of a dog with a blue eye taken by great photographer (just look at other shoots in Darren's folder). Nothing to interpret, no message. I would agree with those who have found the composition too tight. Perhaps dogs nose and eyes are not among most expressive parts and leaving ears and mouth out, leaves the photo lifeless.

 

The blue eye has no meaning here. It might tell something about how the photo was prepared, but even if the colors were natural (and I am ready to bet that this is not the case), it lacks power to add the context, to make the photo live. There is another photo on Darren's folder, named 'Dogzillia', where the same colorization has quite an interesting effect, pulling all blue from sky to dog's eyes.

Maybe most of you would like my other Pet photograph " Dogzillia" or Hollywood Pooch" http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1446677

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1414314

 

I try my best, I hope you enjoy them.

Are you using a sharpening software? Just curious.

The sharpening i use is a process i have developed, its not just unsharp mask or sharpen. It is more complex in theory.

Darren has a fingerprint like style. When I see his work in top-rated I know it is his immediately. That's excellent.

 

However, this shot and a couple of others in his outstanding portfolio seem a little over-worked and almost end up cartoonish. That's just in my opinion and I have a lot of respect for his style and talent.

Here his eyes are brown here, I think it works thats why i did it.

Opps wrong one, this one was left alone