Snout

Magnificent image and animal.....

I've seen this kind of dog with this kind of eye/coat coloration. I don't think it's uncommon for the species. Sometimes it really weirds me out, but that's the way they are.

 

But, I agree with anyone that the crop is constrictive and figure if you're going to make a statment centered on the eyes that maybe making a tighter crop might be worth a try, or looser.

 

But what distresses me the most about this shot is that it's not one of Darren's other shots, one of his people shots, because I think what goes on with the skin quality of these other shots is really fantastic, and it's lost here in all the fur. So, from that prespective, this shot is among the most ordinary in Darren's folder. An excellent shot, for sure, but not nearly what I would hope to have highlighted from my work if I had produced what I see in Darren's folders.

 

Speaking of dogs, my neighbor's have been me to the local police over the past week or so to complain about our dogs because they bark, but their cat seems to regard our front walk as part of his loitering area, so I would like to borrow this dog, and Dogzilla, and let them howl in chorus beneath my neighbor's window with my own two Hounds. Hahahaha. Take that "neighbor"

One of the finest photographs I have ever seen. One this site or anywhere. Well done!

So, perhaps you could write an article on your sharpening process, I know there are a lot of folks out there as curious as I am. Tremendous work, I've been admiring your portfolio for a while. Very original stuff!

A real beautiful animal Darrel. As we feel the skin details of most of your human portraits, we can feel here the softness and silkness of the fur... but that the only thing here that is soft: the crop is very tight, the background is black and the look is as cool as ice.

Elves have decided to go for Pet picture this week. My english is certainly not great but, in my undertstanding a pet is a domestic animal, close to man. Of course, Husky can be and are considered as a pet (used as horses in snow countries)..., but this specific image reflects more wildlife than domestic quietness, more animal side than human, I dont see the interaction with people here, ... more wolf than dog....

Concerning the eye, if you magnify the picture 'make-up' is obvious but it doesnt bother me that much since it is a characteristic of husky to have a B/W fur and colored eyes. It just adds coolness and scary... which doesnt fit the 'Pet image' if have in mind.

At first glance it's an interesting image with good snap. Perhaps a bit flat overall as to portrayal of subject matter (the snap wears off fast). Unfortunately I feel the whole thing is almost ruined for me based on the "bleeding" of the blue onto the lower eyelid. Sloppy.

Many pertinents comments here. The blue 'bleeding' here can be counted as a 'ruiner', although the image is still beautiful. The over-work makes it look cartoonish or made with some other sort of pictorial art, but that isn't a bad thing, I really like cartoons.

 

In conclusion, I think the post work is very good, very noticiable but the image itself is terrific, the composition, the exposure. The post work is great, the sharpening the contrast care, very nice. Just 'fix' the bleeding problem

 

Congratulations Darren.

The so called bleeding of the color on the lower lid looks like a perfectly natural reflection of the eye to me.

 

Killer image - congratulations.

The so called bleeding of the color on the lower lid looks like a perfectly natural reflection of the eye to me.

 

Then you probably love the blue 'reflections' on eye lashes as well :o)

 

Jeeezzz

Beautiful portrayal of a companion! I love the blue eyes and the excellent detail on his/her coat.

Smart dog, great photography.

I think you are talented!

Best wishes

Powerful picture. My dog recently passed away and I don't think I will ever stop missing her every day. Anyone who doesn't think dogs have souls must be blind, deaf, and dumb. Once again good job at capturing the Nobility.

This mix of colour and B&W is like the mad Cokin filter craze of the 70's and 80's.

I haven't read any of the other comments. I will after I make mine. I think this

is an amazing photo. I get a tremendous amount of feeling generated from

the image. This goes over the edge for originality in pet photos. I've seen

Darrens work before and they are all exceptional, but this one for me is truely

the one that captured my attention. Thank you for making this POW!

Haven't read through the many posts above (I don't have the time) but I am not that impressed by this photo I'm sorry to say.

 

It seems over-sharpened (I don't actually care if it is or not - it just appears that way when I opened it up on screen) and I'm also not too crazy about the blue coloring (over the eye lashes even).

 

I'd also like a bit more space infront of the nose.

This dog is a magnificent subject. It would be hard to take a bad picture of him. I have to agree with much of what Marc has already expressed. My hats off to you Marc for really cool criticism that usually gets right to the heart of the matter. I think the oversharpening works better for fur than for human faces and in this case it really adds to the image. His fur is almost electric and I feel I can reach out and touch it. Congratulations! I am a little amazed that the color of the eye drew so much attention in the comments. But I think the artist compeles the viewers to the blue eye and its not surprising that so much of the discussion got stuck there. I think the character in this dog is so striking that it does not need, and may in fact suffer from, a specific focus point: the eye. I would rather discover the dogs face on my own. There is nowhere else to go in the frame so the artist can afford to be a little lenient with the viewer. Its overkill and a little over the top to compel me to his eye by making it the only spot of color in a b&w print. I think this technique is nearly, if not completely, exhausted and so actually lulls me to sleep because that path is so familiar now and even becoming common. I think Darren is an accomplished photographer and without a question has a distinctive style. I really admire his skills in PS and wish I were 1/10th as proficient as he is. In my opinion, the danger in too much reliance upon the digital is exactly what Marc pointed out: digital techniques overused run the danger of masking the soul of the subject. Soul is an elusive quality but you generally know it when you see it and it always adds significant impact. I think this is a technically masterful photograph but without the same caliber of emotional impact.

Since the entire folder is about eyes, I would have to say that the experiment with blue eyes (and the rest B&W) was worth trying, but I would like to see it done another way--and I would like to see the original colors.

 

I do like the crispness of the image, and the crop is unusual. Seeing some other possibilities (crops, desats, etc.) from the original file would be worthwhile.

 

The folder is great, and some of the other pictures are much better, but I rather like this one, even though the blue is a bit garish.

Just like the previous week: the list of nominations is available in a separate thread:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006RLK

Enjoy!

I think it would be a good idea if the photographer gave some technical details to help us understand better his work. Judging from his excellent folder, Photoshop (or maybe another editing tool) was most probably used to enhance the sharpness (like in the picture above), colorize the eye or create blurry diffusion (like in the rest of his folder).

I agree with Marc Gougenheim. Also, as technically pleasing this may be, this shows that you can bet that most rating contributors weigh heavily for either female nudes or incredibly digitalized "photos". There should be two categories: Photograph and Digigraph. The main subject here is so far off from its representation from nature, that this falls under Digigraph. The line between digital darkroom and digital recreation has long disappeared. The ethical use of digital photo aids is so confused that true photographic technique will become as outdated as the ability to spell English correctly without a spell checker.

Overrated! Sorry... Too cropped, too sharp, too fake. Head shots just don't work for animals. the colored eyes just try to it make something it is not.... Artistic. Does it show character? Yes! Does it show emotion? No. Does it tell you something about the animal? It's a dog...

A technically fine shot as others have said. I agree the crop is bordering on too tight. I must say that this pure-bred shot of one of the most handsome dogs (cultural comment) we have artificially selected (bred) is very much like a fashion photograph. Taking a beautiful model, using appropriate fashion photography techniques (lighting, makeup etc.) and yes...you have a beautiful photograph of a beautiful model. Does that really mean that we have a compelling photograph that symbolizes (in this case) "pets"? Not for me. I think that there are many other pets (let's stick to dogs) whose character and charm are not dominated by their fine breeding but by their unique qualities.

 

I can't help but see this photograph and think of several other huskies I know. Yes its a good photograph and yes its a lovely dog. But just like the pure bred... it's cliche... contrived... bred for effect. I would have preferred a similarly moving photograph of a dog that is physically unique... whose glory is singular.

 

That would be a photograph I would remember.

 

Great shot... photographically strong: compelling? memorable? for me, not at all. Just another outstanding shot of a high-fashion model.

 

pete sherman

Strong feeling we get from this wonderful dog! Great shot! It couldn't be more beautiful !

I enjoy the texture created in the fur by the lighting angle. I think the crop is fine, that's what creates some impact. I'm not real crazy about the blue eye like some others have noted, perhaps it would be less objectionable to me if it was less saturated with just a hint of blue. As it appears it makes me think of digital as soon as I look at it and notice the eye. Overall a very nice photo with impact and it gets a viewers attention. Nice job.

we'd like to know how to make a successful portrait of your pet that isn't run-of-the-mill.
Perhaps by having them play pool?
More specifically, does this image succeed?
Not in my opinion; it shows the character of blue eyes and paper-cut-sharp fur against a black and white tight crop.
Does it show character?
That, it does.
Does it show emotion?
Whose?
Does it tell you anything about the animal?
It is a canine with blue eyes.

I'm not "dissing" this picture, for it has a good visual impact value, but it does not answer the questions posed by the reasons for its selection in a satisfactory manner; an interesting picture, but the context into which it was selected as a pet picture are not accomodating and therefore unfair, for this picture has been manipulated to a degree that is more akin to abstract pictography than "pet photography".
If it was selected as a challenge to our conceptions as to what pet photography is, should and/or could be, then the selection has succeeded.

There is a thread that asks about digital bigotry. The comments on this page pretty well prove his point. It doesn't matter how good the finished product is, if it has been digitally manipulated is is not art. BS!

 

"No soul" ? BS

 

I don't think we would read about the poor cropping if it were a straight B&W

 

The image shows the attention that only a hunter can express. In that it expresses character and emotion. A conventional full head shot in black and white with no toneing, would be a good picture, if just a bit boreing. This one is exceptional.