'It's a Dog's Life' (The Three Dogs)

Some 'street' dogs have the formula figured out -- eat some scraps

fed to you on the street, then retire for the afternoon (in a

pleasing formation) under some nearby shop windows. Your ratings and

critiques are invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly or very

critically, please submit a helpful and constructive comment; please

share your superior photographic knowledge to help improve my

photography. Thanks! Enjoy! John

John I knew this was your shot for the thumbnail. I am not sure if that is a compliment to you,but it has your signature all over it, from the 3, uncropped, to the almost too balanced to be a random find. The pavers on the sidewalk I believe have appeared in some of your other photos. Very nice capture indeed.

Well, you did know it was I, didn't you?

 

Three dogs, and then, although 'random' in their own 'minds' (if a dog has a mind other than 'eating and perhaps fighting and procreating -- and getting petted and having a warm place to sleep) they were not 'randomly placed to my view.

 

I have only taken and posted one other 'dog' photo anywhere (not here), but this one had me from the moment I saw it.

 

It was tricky getting the 'sign' up top in just right, but I did, and even then it was difficult getting the 'horizon level' with a 12~24 mm, as there is built-in distortion even if you are just a little 'off target' like being a little more or less to one side or another.

 

And of course, just as I was getting it down, crowds passed, so this was the best I could get on this busy sidewalk before one dog changed position, destroying the composition.

 

I'm delighted you have looked closely at other of my photos to even be able to identify the pavers; they are interlocking in a way, and found only in the countries of the former Soviet Union, and maybe even just Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine (the city has more than one spelling).

 

Thank for commenting, and also for rating, as I feel there may be a 'bot' loose this A.M. (in America); it's close to dinner time here.

 

Let's say the photo Gods threw me a 'bone' on this one.

 

;~)

 

John (Crosley)

 

Image copyright 2007, John Crosley, All rights reserved

This one's pretty fscinating, John. This so balanced that it's very captivating. Also, things are off just enough to convey the reality of it as opposed to making the viewer feel that it is set up. A bit hot on the dog (there's a bad joke in there!) but no real big deal here. Really like the patterns in the walk. The outsiders seem quite content but the one in the middle seems to have spotted something that the others will miss. Fitting, that he should be the "centered" one!

This dog was a little 'blown' on this one; I find Nikon's Matrix metering leave a little to be desired in animal photos where they have white feathers/fur, and the only way to get around it is to leave your viewfinder screen on 'blowout' mode, and that's only necessary at certain times of the day, or taking photos of snowy egrets, great (white) egrets, and certain other things, like this particular dog.

 

And you're right, everything is 'just enough off' to make one understand that it's not a set-up. Nobody led these dogs here; I came across them.

 

And also your notice about the middle (alpha dog?)is quite a pro pos, and probably correct -- I think it's an 'alpha male', but didn't think about that before, only about the aesthetic considerations of the middle dog's being 'alert' (probably heard a familiar street food vendor ready to take out the trash and being a dog . . . well . . . nothing more need be said).

 

I like your bad pun, but you needn't continue punishing me or I'll send you to the punitentiary . . . .

 

(couldn't resist ; -)

 

Thanks so much; I think I may be fighting a 'bot' this a.m.

 

John (Crosley)

The 'Rule of Thirds' does have some reason, and by happenstance, I may have taken such a photo here, though I do not consciously follow that rule. I just follow my own aesthetic, and if it happens to include the 'rule of thirds' (so called), then so be it.

 

I think the 'bottom line' of the building has to be considered 'altered' a little bit because of the mass of the dogs below it, thus, in the viewers' minds bringing the building (weighte for mass) line down a little closer to the bottom of the frame in the viewers' eyes.

 

Just a passing thought related to my understanding of this photo.

 

Any thoughts on that (or other) matter(s)?

 

John (Crosley)