Finn

In trying to make this shot all about the pup's face, I went with a shallow

DoF. Haven't decided yet if it was a bit TOO shallow. He was a great little 9-

week-old subject, though.

I think, that it´s good that only eyes are sharp. The rest is soft as same as the puppy. Nice colours also. Good work.

Great expression, light, DOF and crop!

Best Regards,

Peter

Sweet pup!

Hey Matt,

I think you did extremely well. It works for me. It was one of the better "pets" shots I've seen in a while. 

Nice little guy and great capture of the innocent look.Good choice of background and most excellent image.Bravo!

Meilleures salutations-Laurent

I think you got the aperture and consequential dof spot on. Enough defintion and sharpness to highlight and perhaps accentuate the priceless expression. And enough visibility of the rest of the pup to allow a sense of proportion, albeit a kind of distorted one, though I'm not sure if thats a feature of the puppy being young, or that is a result of the lens in close proximity with the subject.

Either way, a great result!

Best Regards

Alf

I think that DOF and focus are perfect! exposure and set as well! His expression ad pose charming. Excellent one!

What a beautiful shot!  You have captured fin extremely well.  I think that your shallow DOF completely focusses the viewer on his eyes.  But you have got him sharp from the muzzle.  A tiny bit more DOF may also have been good to get sharpness up to the edges of the ears.

But I love it as is.  Well done!

Cute pup. The 35mm on you D600 did a great job. How close were you, he looks close to the lens, maybe it's just that lens on a full frame sensor. I like the shot.

Regards, Mark

Cute and funny! Good capture and presentation!

Fine capture of this cute guy... I think the dof is just fine. br Hannu

Saw this at the PN  front door and had to have a look. :-) 

It's brilliant. Not sure if it'd be better if the ears were in focus but my immediate attention was drawn to his left eye - the reflected soft light makes it look a bit fake.

Thanks, all, for the comments. And thanks to the elves for this image wandering by the Photo Of The Day zone! How about that.

Clearly it's NOT perfect and NOT spot on, which is what allows it to be a good photo. PERFECT photos, first of all, don't exist and, second of all, if they did would most likely be of little interest. One reason it's NOT perfect is that you have doubts about it, and you're the photographer in question. Doubt can be an obstacle, for sure, but it can also be very healthy in the right hands. I sense yours is healthy. The most important reaction I have, then, is to empathize with you and that would necessitate my asking you this simple question: Why do YOU think the focus may be off, or at least a bit too much? How does it affect what you'd like the photo to be showing? Now, you might not be able to answer that because it might just be a visual/gut sort of thing, which it would be for me as well, but sometimes trying to articulate it, even if you are for the most part unsuccessful, can still be helpful toward getting at just what may be sticking in your craw. What I would question here, though not quite yet answer, is whether the DOF is providing a certain amount or quality of distortion that may give this fellow a more stylistic rather than authentic feel. And I know "stylistic" and "authentic" might at first seem value-laden but if we can see these terms as more descriptive than evaluative, it's not about which is better but rather about which you want and what you're after. Does the depth of field on some level de-personalize this or even just draw enough attention to itself that it gets in the way of something? Or does the depth of field add just the kind of personal touch that draws in the viewer, not perfectly but personally?

Fred, my guess is Matt might have made technical settings based on the desired aesthetic result unless this was a taxidermy pup - it would have been quite difficult to make the little guy hold still and change settings on the fly so the setup had to be predetermined.

The choice of a 35mm lens on a full frame camera @ F4.5 also suggests a previsualized look Matt was after, then the pup's head had to fall within (or remain in) the focus window before clicking the shutter which also would have been difficult to determine.

I would have preferred both ears to be in focus and the eyes without the apparent haze, but as often the case with pets, you try your best but you get what you get.

Thanks, Michael, it will be interesting to hear what Matt has to say about it. I understand the different types of shooting there are, sometimes of necessity, which doesn't obviate that there are also a variety of results, some of which work more for us (whether as photographer or viewer) and some of which don't. I'm not saying this is the case here, but if there is a technical problem with a shot, the client or viewer can understand why but not make excuses for it or ignore it. Photography is often what happens in a split second with all kinds of subjects on the move, in the midst, as it were. That's why it's actually hard to make good photos where everything is working together and in such a way as to fulfill whatever vision the photographer may have had or preferred after the fact. For me, it can sometimes be a matter of what we come up with in spite of difficult situations, but it's more often what we come up with because of them or at least along with them.

And please don't get me wrong. I think this is a great shot in many ways. It's very expressive and has a sophisticated color palette which reads quite well. It became more a matter, for me, of looking at the different kinds of reactions a viewer or photographer might have to different degrees of DOF and hoping that what is achieved works the way the photographer would like.

Fred, I'm interested in Matt's take as well, and it's sure to be comprehensive since he's rarely short on words. :-) 

The picture actually reminded me of a shot by Tony Dummett made in 1995 using a 50mm F/1.4 shot wide open. It illustrates the challenge of pet photos with very shallow DoF.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=372838

Perhaps the placement of the area of blur can be debated (although it seems fine to me), but the amount of blur seems just about perfect. It's enough to throw the in-focus area into prominence without eliminating definition in the out-of-focus area. In comparison, the out-of-focus area in the picture of the cat posted above is almost completely without definition.

Fred, Michael: Hey, actual conversation about a puppy portrait! Hmmm. Have to put on my Somewhat Serious Photography Hat. In no particular order, from your comments above:

Nope! Not perfect. How boring would that be. But this somewhat hastily put together portrait was indeed meant to pay attention to what the breed's enthusiasts seem to focus on (the face and it's indicators of personality). Because this was also meant to capture his puppy-ness at 8 weeks, and much of that being evident in that immature mug, a shorter focal length and shallow DoF was indeed a deliberate choice. It was a challenge to work quickly while we had the pup's attention, so I really didn't have time to do the mental gymnastics or sufficient chimping to think about what getting the ears in focus (or not) would require, or do for the results. That would have been maybe a half a stop difference, and puppies are ... puppies. They live in a sort of time warp.

I'm aware that shallow DoF - employed for its own sake - is frequently over-used and can feel like a hipster affectation. My misgivings, I suppose, are about whether the shot will play as a bit of trendiness as opposed to what I was really trying to achieve. 

Thanks for noting the color palette, Fred - that and the lighting did lend themselves to some consideration before the pup was on stage, as it were.

Speaking of lighting: Michael's observation about the eye reflections are worth a quick word. Behind me, camera-right, was a monolight shooting through a 4-foot scrim. That produced a large and feathered (because of the hot spot on the scrim) catch light. The other eye was mostly catching the hard hairlight behind the pup, camera left.

The most important thing? My long-suffering assistant, who wrangles pups on seamless paper like nobody else. 

Thanks, Matt. One nice shot regardless. Not many of us can get this kind of result without a lot of practice and fondness for animals. I will also say that cats are a lot easier. :-) 

Great shot! It looks so funny! :)

http://s05.flagcounter.com/count/ZWq/bg=FFFFFF/txt=000000/border=CCCCCC/columns=4/maxflags=12/viewers=0/labels=0/ http://2.s05.flagcounter.com/count/ZWq/bg=FFFFFF/txt=000000/border=CCCCCC/columns=4/maxflags=12/viewers=0/labels=0/

Great portrait, Matt, of this utterly charming little guy. Superb work with lighting and your rendering of color. Your client must be thrilled. Cheers!

This is such a great portrait! I like the focus, lighting and expression of this sweet little guy! I love it! I have to add that I respectfully disagree with Michael above; cats are NOT easier! Animals of any kind are not going to be easy, they are going to move and change expressions. I think you have done a great job on this one! Thank you for sharing. :)

Answering  Fred In the POW, (giving the  link to your photo, which I like a lot from the time I first saw it , and  was a better ansewer from  any word of mine...)

In the  mean time I took a small tour on your last works. This is IMO a very nice"portrait" of  the dog's small  body and wide/big  face. I like his diagonally placement  on the frame, the monochromatic color palette while his big ears ,have a touch of color.

I think you have your way with dogs , well reflected on your photos of/ with  them!