single photos Black and white Abby, the black lab.

Beautiful! :)

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/

How cute!  Cheers!

Thanks guys. She is a very good model!

I like this picture. The Elves comments on last week's picture would be more appropriate here as this is indeed a simple, uncluttered portrait. The dog has a nice alert, dignified look on his face and the low key rendering looks good with a dark colored subject. While not super sharp, the image has plenty of depth of sharpness to bring the entire head into focus, a quality I really like in a pet portrait.

Suggestions for improvement would include to adjust the contrast as I think the subject, while lit well, appears a bit flat. I see what looks like some processing errors (healing brush?) on the top of the dog's head. While I like the subject to fill the frame, here the subject feels just a hair too tight in the frame and I would back off about 10% or so. Those are all small, easy fixes.
Overall a nice looking portrait, Paul!

I must come straight out and say that I am a fan of our furry friends so that is my bias.

I think that this is a lovely shot of a beautiful animal, well done Paul.

What does Abby think of her portrait?

Like Louis, I also like to see sharpness from the nose to the eye in an animal portrait, and that's often difficult if the photographer is wanting to maintain an appropriately blurred background. The background wasn't an issue here, and while not acutely sharp, I think the dog's head is well-focused. It may also be that some viewers or photographers don't want a tack sharp portrait -- I think that may be a matter of personal preference (that seems to be the case especially for human portraits). I can't find anything in this POTW that is lacking or for which I might suggest an alternative. While there are other poses to more actively portray an animal's personality, I think Paul has portrayed Abby very well in his chosen way.

Such a subjective thing. As someone who has made lots of dog portraits and been able (later) to pick at myself about a number of things I swear I'll do better next time, I'll mention a couple of things that distract me from this portrait's ability to connect me to the dog.

First: The vignette. I like a vignette sometimes - they endure for a reason. But when the vignetting clips part of the dog's ear (as in this case), it makes itself too evident. Like catching an actor acting. The position (perk) of a dog's ear is central to their expression and presence, so for dog lovers, the eye spends time there.

Second: The collar. Just like taking a second to get a human subject's tie strait, I always try to remember to glance at the collar. Sometimes the hardware on the collar feels right in the image, and sometimes it doesn't. For me, the plastic quick-disconnect collar clasps (which I also sometimes use!) take a little romance out of the image. Think... clip-on tie that looks like a clip-on tie. So, I usually spin the clasp around the back of the head, making it less present. That's also a good time to make sure that you're not getting a roll of hide/chub spilling over the collar.

Third: Eyes. I like, when I can get it, a more distinct catch light, and enough light on the eyes to be able to distinguish between the pupil and the iris and the whites. Certainly not always possible, but so important in a portrait to make the structure and character of those eyes visible without having to grotesquely boost the contrast in post.

Fourth: Nose and eyes in focus! I struggle with this all the time. It's much hard than it might seem, while trying to control DoF, but it's a noble quest!

Fifth: Rule of thirds. I'm no slave to it, but in shots like this, I think it really does help. Give that dog a little breathing room, camera right. In a situation like this, where the dog is looking off-camera, you don't want to create that boxed-in feeling. Allow a little mental space in the same direction of that gaze, and get those eyes positioned off to the left (in this case) just a bit. For me, I "feel" the dog's confinement when I see this sort of crop. I've caught myself cutting it too close many times, and when I look later, I realize that I'm losing a lot of feeling of liberty and self that we often want to feel from (or project onto) a dog. Abby loses some of her Abby-ness, her companion-because-she-wants-to-be when she's boxed in like that.

Sixth: Tone. Here we have pitch black in the background, but the black lab's coat is pushed up into a mid-range tone, with the highlights pushed quite down to a mid-range tone. This robs from her sense of liveliness. Personally, I'd be looking for a little more range from highs to lows in her coat.

Seventh and last: Am I seeing some masking/healing/cloning artifacts round her, like at the top of her head? The urge to throw that background well and truly to black can mean fighting a difficult battle with the margins of a black dog's coat. This is made easier with hair/rim lighting (in this case, from behind, camera left).

And not a single BIT of that matters if the portrait says what it needs to to its audience (the people that know and love the dog). If the audience doesn't know the dog, then a little or some or all of the above can help, in my experience, with feeling some subject engagement - especially when there's no direct eye contact in the shot.

Shoot more! A compelling dog portrait is a joy to produce, and I suspect that Abby can be talked into even more opportunities to experiment (consider bribery with cheese!).

As another dog fancier, I love this portrait. There are things that certainly could be done different but maybe not better. My only nitpick is that perhaps it would have been best to wipe the dog's eyes before the shoot. Not always easy to remember to do, in the heat of the shoot. :)

And one other note - black dogs are notoriously hard to capture. In over 15 years of life with my beloved Lupo, I can say I have fewer than 50 good shots of him. This was mainly in the film days and that was even harder.

Matt commented on the vignetting; I suspect it was necessary in order to mask the dog's surrounding as an apparent outdoor shot judging from the reflection in the eyes.

I grew up with black labs, so I like this.
Not crazy about the strong vignette, I feel it is overused these days.

There are a few missed cloning spots just above the dog's head (when viewed large), and the fur on the right edge is admittedly difficult to isolate in software, but overall I like how the composition and expression almost look like a portrait of a banker. :-)

The collar reminds me of banded legs on birds. I wish it wasn't there. There seems to be a softness between the nose and eyes. I also wish there were catchlights in the eyes, for that added little spark

Thanks for the honor of having my first pic of the week. I appreciate all the comments. This was not a formal session. My sister in law asked me to take some pics of their two labs and it was just a spur of the moment thing. Nothing fancy just a dog in the back yard, without any other aids to help me with lighting etc etc.

I don't believe it! A dog portrait as POTW? Perhaps it's happened before, and I just don't remember it...but right now all I can think to say is it's about time!

It seems everyone would have done this differently, and lots of folks are quick to point out its faults. I probably would have done it differently, myself. But instead of nitpicking it to death, I'll say that this photograph meets two of my main criteria. It holds the viewer's (that's me) interest, and it provokes a visual and emotional response. So for me, it succeeds as a portrait of a valued and loved companion animal.

Could it be improved? Sure. Any photograph can be improved, according to lots of p.net critics. Every photographer makes mistakes, though some hate to admit it. I choose to take this photograph at face value, though. I see the reflected light in Abby's eyes, and I see the softness of her fur. I see she has a bit of age on her, judging by the grey fur on her muzzle...and for me, that strengthens the connection I have to the photograph. If you live with dogs and see that grey, all of a sudden you realize that years have passed and not only has your dog aged, so have you. That's just one of the things this photograph says to me.

If I can look into a dog's eyes and see the soul there, that's what counts with me...and I see it here.

Bravo to Paul van Harte, and kudos to photo.net for their choice of this week's POTW.

Jim, I concur with your post if this photo was taken at face value, however this photo was selected out of thousands as PoW for the purposes of discussion so naturally we will be expressing our views if it contains technical flaws.

Fur and fine hair selection is one of the more difficult tasks under software post, and also one of the most desired skills most of us wish we had. I'm not particularly good at it simply from lack of practice but there are plenty of on-line tutorials on how to do it convincingly.
Here is good video tutorial specifically on fur selection for Photoshop:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fxoIQA8nw8
And a general masking and selection tutorial for Paintshop Pro:

I love this shot.... the vignette did bother me, especially on the ear but I must admit, I didn't even notice the collar until reading through the comments. I really just focused on the face.
What struck me was how lovingly the photo presented an old friend. I especially liked the gray showing on the muzzle...but then, I just a sucker for dogs!

Being an animal lover,I think that the elves though " outside the box" this time..;-)) A good idea to choose once in a while something completely different .
I agree with some of the technical problems so I will not write them again.

I think that his somewat sad look is very toucing. His FG bright face shows that he is not young ( the same is the face of my doughter's old sweet dog.)

I do wish the framing on the RHS especially , was a bit wider , in order to give him more breating space.
The collar is part of his life ...but being white take to much attention.

I accept Paul's explanation about how it was photographed, and it is again an evidence how important is having the merite of an active member, that can provide the needed information.

Nice Paul.

Pnina, how did the information Paul provided affect your viewing of the photo or your commenting about it? Don't get me wrong. I think it's very nice and usually interesting to hear what a photographer has to say about his work and about the situation when the photo was being made, but I don't see it here as in any way important or needed information.

_____________________________________

By the way, I like the shot and don't happen to be a dog lover, though I'm not sure what relevance the latter has to my viewing of this photo.

Fred, not speaking for Pnina, but I think any additional information offered by an image maker contributes to the appreciation of the image even when it's neither important nor needed. I see it as a variable no differently from viewing size, or in the case of a print in a gallery, the ambient lighting, atmosphere, and frame.

We can certainly consciously and deliberately strip away context surrounding a presented picture and examine it in isolation, but that's just another way of appreciating it.

Michael, I completely agree with you. I think it contributes greatly. I just was wondering why Pnina felt it was important and needed. Like I said, I find it interesting to hear what photographers have to say about their own work, but I rarely see it as needed information in order for me to critique their work.

I feel the complete opposite. I believe any information "outside" the image itself. No only muddies the waters of personal interpretation and clear critique but the sends the discussion in a direction away from the image itself.

I know I'm in the minority here, but it's the picture and it's impact on viewers is the topic here. It's my/our interpretation of the image that is important to this discussion. The photographer has had his opportunity to speak in the creation process. Let the picture do the talking! As the viewer, we are partners in completing the creative circle through viewing deeply and making a effort to make a connection to the image as filtered through our hearts and minds. Discovering and discussing why an image does or does not make that connection with us, on an emotional, spiritual, intellectual or technical level is the real focus of this exercise. For that to happen, only the image is needed. Critiquing takes real effort. Sure, getting lot's of outside information is easier in assisting one to triangulate and support an opinion. It's lot harder to stay neutral and just deal with the picture directly and work within the boundaries of your own independent interpretation.

I think it is precisely that concept that makes the POW so compelling. The opportunity to have a large viewership, at all levels of experience, give honest, personal feedback on a picture. I can't think of anything more valuable to a photographer and a generous gift from those willing to provide it.

I think the issue I have is the word "appreciating". I'm not looking to appreciate pictures beyond the actual image and even if I were, finding out about the creation process, the artists mood at the time or goals they wanted to achieve, other images they may have made or various techniques they used does not enhance my feelings of appreciation. Those qualities must come forth from the image itself.

Replace the word "appreciating" with "experiencing" and you'll get a sense of why I feel that focusing on the picture only is the best way to proceed. Some photographers love to chat about making the picture, it's circumstances, difficulty of doing, the process, yada, yada. In another forum, on another picture thread, that info might be fun to share and chat about. Just not on this forum where the entire discussion is devoted to the discussion of a singular image and it's interpretation from the forum group. The only words I want to hear from the photographer is a heartfelt...thank you.

I think that's very true for a lot of photographs. But there may be times when a photographer wants to capture a scene or a thought or a feeling from his/her past, or wants to express a reaction to something he/she sees or has experienced, or..... In these cases, it may be perfectly fine for the viewer to make his/her own interpretation without any knowledge of or reference to the original intention of the photographer. However, another avenue of critic can be an assessment of how well the photographer succeeded in fulfilling his/her original intentions. In this case, the photographer's intention becomes an attribute of the photograph, something Michael alluded to but didn't state as directly as I'm trying to here. I say this only because in the past I've critiqued a photograph only to later learn that there was an intention or reason behind the photograph that neither I nor anyone else could see, but upon learning about that attribute, I could look at the photograph in a very different context, and it affected the way that I saw and even interpreted the photograph. In these situations, I would prefer that the photographer give a short introduction to set the stage, provide the context, or discuss the intention behind the photograph, but that doesn't always happen. I don't think what I'm trying to say applies here to Paul's photograph, but I think it can apply to some photographs. I don't believe it's always the case that a photograph is made strictly for individual interpretation by unknown viewers.

In some cases, I think we should.

I think that's a noble goal, but it some cases it may simply not be possible.

I didn't mean to get us into a generic discussion of this sort, though it's a healthy one to have. I was asking Pnina a rather specific question, relating to THIS picture and to the information Paul has specifically given us. I was curious to know in what way the info provided by Paul affected Pnina's viewing or critique and why that info felt "needed" to her. It was meant as a way to further discuss Paul's photo, and wasn't trying to be a more theoretical question.

But, if we are to get into more theoretical territory, I also agree with Stephen and don't think it's an either/or question. I think gallery viewing is very different from the kind of critique situation we're in here. This is one place I assume I'm precisely NOT to take a photo at face value and simply appreciate it for what it is. I have been asked for a critical assessment of it. Even with gallery viewing, I take whatever information I have in stride. Sometimes I know a lot about the photo and its maker and making. Sometimes I don't. Either way is fine with me. In a critique situation, some info from the photographer can be very helpful in our giving meaningful critiques, as Stephen mentions. On the other hand, if feedback from the photographer is taken as too authoritative, it can lead us astray. We're not always quite sure of our intentions. And I know from personal experience that in talking about my own intentions, sometimes my photos make things more clear than my words would. Just because I say I intended this doesn't mean I did or know the full extent of it. The danger is that if we're disagreeing on whether the subject of a portrait looks sad or happy (a simplistic example), and the photographer comes along and says "sad," we might take that as in some way authoritative, which it would NOT be. The photographer is no more an expert on what a photo looks like than any particular viewer. There could be a tendency to look to the photographer to tell us if our interpretation is right, and that sets up an unfortunate dynamic and way of viewing.

This was not a formal session. My sister in law asked me to take some pics of their two labs and it was just a spur of the moment thing. Nothing fancy just a dog in the back yard, without any other aids to help me with lighting etc etc.

Fred, it did not change what I thought of the photo, but I undertand his explanation about it being a "spure of the moment"and not an intention to photo a dog in a more artistic way...

like this one, that I like,and think it was taken with an artistic intention.
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5849363&size=lg

Matt said in closing of his critique:
"And not a single BIT of that matters if the portrait says what it needs to to its audience (the people that know and love the dog)."

Judging from the number of "Likes", exceeding the two previous PoW by a wide margin, this photo has apparently succeeded in saying what it needs to a much broader audience than just those who know and love the dog.

I responded positively to the dog's expression notwithstanding its technical flaws. I wonder if that's a broader shared reaction.